Why do the tactics of the man made global warming alarmists so eerily echo the tactics of the Islamist extremists? Birds of a feather…

And this guy falls prey to the typical lefty delusion that they support free speech, except in extreme cases, when in reality they want all speech they consider offensive banned. They do not understand that it is exactly that kind of speech which the freedom of expression is supposed to protect: speech considered hateful, harmful, wrong, intolerant, and offensive by the majority.

If it was something everyone agreed upon, or some statement upon which there was consensus, there would be no need for or point in freedom of speech. But our laws about freedom of speech are there *specifically* to guarantee the right of people to say things we think are wrong, hateful, harmful, dangerous, offensive, insulting, intolerant, misguided, etc. *THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT*

If you remove the ability of people to say things you don’t want them to say, then you don’t have free speech at all.

By the way, did any notice Alex Lockwood uses the term “climate change”. I don’t think there are any climate change deniers. Everyone knows that the climate oscillates between warm and cold by itself. Of course, I know what he means, but the semantics are becoming deceiving… man made global warming –> man made climate change –> climate change…

I remain skeptical. Even if man has created a problem, does this mean we should continue to force the climate in any direction of our choosing? Are we so powerful and knowing as to know what the ideal conditions of the planet should be? Maybe 10 degrees warmer or colder is better, meaning more conducive to evolution, living conditions and survivability?

I’m not shilling for Dr. Phil or anything, but the man was exactly correct when he said that “but” means “forget everything I just said, here’s what I really mean.”

http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/green-advocates-failing-in-climate-debate/

Any time I hear these statements, I know that whatever follows the “but” will totally negate the first part of the statement.

Up until 15-20 years ago, the American Psychiatric Association (or whatever they call their trade group) defined homosexuality as deviant behavior. Luckily, despite this settling of the issue, debate continued and eventually the APA rescinded that doctrine.

Any time I hear these statements, I know that whatever follows the “but” will totally negate the first part of the statement.

Up until 15-20 years ago, the American Psychiatric Association (or whatever they call their trade group) defined homosexuality as deviant behavior. Luckily, despite this settling of the issue, debate continued and eventually the APA rescinded that doctrine.

” 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

By taking a page from the environmentalists’ play book, a legal action seeking an injunction to stop cap and trade regulations (for starters) might force the issue. This way, the global warming naysayers would, literally, have their day in court to tell the world what is wrong with the “settled” science.

My own view is that these ever-more-frequent calls to censor people who do not accept the AGW catechism in its entirety stems from a barely concealed fear that the majority position is really not very strong.