The fact that you believe disagreeing about climate models warrants a Nuremberg-style tribunal says far more about your worldview than it does about science.
This isn’t about protecting the planet, it’s about power, control, and punishing dissent.
Let’s get a few things straight:
If you truly believe in open dialogue and democratic values, the answer to disagreement is evidence, not criminalization.
This obsession you have with punishing "deniers" looks less like environmentalism and more like the Spanish Inquisition.
Scientific disagreement is not a crime. It's literally how science advances.
Labelling skeptics as criminals is the hallmark of ideology, not inquiry.
James Hansen has a track record of alarmism. He predicted in 1988 that parts of Manhattan would be underwater by now. Instead, Manhattan real estate prices went up, not under.
CO2 is not cyanide. It's a trace gas essential to life.
The climate is complex, non-linear, and influenced by many variables, solar cycles, ocean currents, volcanic activity, not just fossil fuel use.
"The debate is over" is a political slogan, not a scientific statement.
The very notion that questioning computer model outputs or policy recommendations equals "crimes against humanity" is both dangerous and anti-intellectual.
If deliberate misinformation is the standard for crimes against humanity, we might want to take a hard look at the people who told us wind and solar would replace baseload power, or that EVs don’t have a child-labor cobalt problem. |
