NASA Scientist: Put CEOs On Trial for Global-Warming Lies

NASA Scientist: Put CEOs On Trial for Global-Warming Lies

www.foxnews.com

The heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be "tried for high crimes against humanity and nature," according to a leading climate scientist.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Weel this would be a showdown that I would love to see. One to could end the global warming debate, unfortunately it is one that would not happen at least not in the terms that Dr. Hansen wants, but it raises a good point, one that I dont if it has been tried before.

Has any environmental organization has tried to sue any of these big polluting companies on the grounds that they are at fault for global warming? Can this be done? Anyways I would love to see this debate been settled once and for all.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Ratified 12/15/1791


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


I rest my case.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by Johnmike]

reply to post by Johnmike


I dont understand where you coming from. Are you stating that these CEO's have the right to say whatever they want? Well I wont contest that because that is true, but what about if they are knowingly misleading the public about the issue?

double post

[edit on 23-6-2008 by Bunch]

reply to post by Johnmike



I would argue that this 'support' you offer to protect the oil execs is baseless. What is raised in the OP is not about freedom of speech it is about Action/Reaction, it is about the potential that Climate Change is in Anthropogenic, and that this is known by leaders in industry who have spent billions on disinformation to hide the damage their business does.

This is not about freedom of speech at all it is about deception that causes death and destruction. If I( know you killed someone I can not tell lies to hide it, that is against the law and such lies are not legal or protected by the constitution.



[edit on 23-6-2008 by Animal]

reply to post by Johnmike


I'm not sure what you're trying to say either or what point you supposedly made, if any except for the fact that you made no point at all.

All you've presented is that people are free to lie in public. However, when these freedoms are abused to infringe on the persuit to happiness and the survival of the planet, when facts are twisted and mamed, lost and purposely misconstrued to mislead... then we're talking about another article altogether.

Anyhow, I'd love to see this. I also can hardly wait until we are allowed to take religions to court.

Originally posted by Bunch
Well I wont contest that because that is true, but what about if they are knowingly misleading the public about the issue?

Isn't that their right? Don't people have the opportunity to research whatever they please? There's a ton of information out there, and with the internet, you can nearly become an expert within hours!

Originally posted by Animal
What is raised in the OP is not about freedom of speech it is about Action/Reaction, it is about the potential that Climate Change is in Anthropogenic, and that this is known by leaders in industry who have spent billions on disinformation to hide the damage their business does.

Whether or not they know it is their business. We have tons of scientists going both ways on the issue. I'm personally on the fence... I think we need a lot more time observing temperatures before we make a conclusion.

Originally posted by Animal
This is not about freedom of speech at all it is about deception that causes death and destruction. If I( know you killed someone I can not tell lies to hide it, that is against the law and such lies are not legal or protected by the constitution.

Only if it's under oath or you're an accessory to a crime. And it's not. These corporations aren't committing a crime as long as they abide by emissions regulations and whatnot. ...And don't kill anyone, but you get what I mean. There's no infringements on anyone's rights. I can read anything by anyone I want to. By this logic, I could take you to court for trying to mislead us on what our rights really are, or take proponents of socialistic policies to court because I think they ignore certain economic facts. Or the flat earth society should go to jail! Or people who believe in UFOs! Or psychics! ...Or people who advocate their faiths!


Well, some of us already want to jail those. As you can see.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Anyhow, I'd love to see this. I also can hardly wait until we are allowed to take religions to court.

Oh boy.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
All you've presented is that people are free to lie in public. However, when these freedoms are abused to infringe on the persuit to happiness and the survival of the planet, when facts are twisted and mamed, lost and purposely misconstrued to mislead... then we're talking about another article altogether.

I don't know where you got this from. I'll just ask questions. Did your parents, did your school, did anyone tell you that you have the right to be told the truth by everyone? Did anyone claim that you didn't have to do your own research, and instead that you had to believe whatever people told you? Were you taught that you must follow what corporations tell you, disregarding any and all scientists who have differing opinions? Were you told that you weren't allowed to do your own research?

Yeah. It would explain a lot.

reply to post by Johnmike


Oh right I get your point, but lets say that these CEO's go to testify to Congress and they go in there lie under oath as you mention and then its later proven that they knowingly lied or mislead about the issue. May be they wont be personally liable for their testimony (although I think otherwise) but Im pretty sure that their companies would be found liable and which could open them for class action and government lawsuits the same way tabacco companies suffer.

Either way my issue is not about if we need to know the truth, is about those knowing the truth not been forthcoming at the expense of our health and wellbeing.

reply to post by Johnmike



I don't think you understand. When they FABRICATE DATA. Meaning make it up to support their claim to support their agendas, it is called conspiracy. And it may even lead to treason if found that they knew of the of effects of their products on the environment from long, long ago. And there is evidence suggesting such, though nothing concrete yet.

However. Here's a study on scientific fraud(www.uow.edu.au...) And two examples from the media(www.livescience.com... www.npr.org... ). By lying these people created a false debate that wasted precious time we could have spent dealing with the issue. But money was more important than to avoid manifesting injury on the American people, and that of the world, knowingly. This is criminal. And they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMMIT TREASON WITH THEIR LIES AND PUT US ALL IN POTENTIAL DANGER.

I call it treason because I can't think of anything else to call it. It is a betrayal of the human race. The future survival of our species potentially. And all they can think about is profit? Are you freakin' kidding me?




[edit on 23-6-2008 by projectvxn]

Yeah, I read this on Drudge yesterday and I immediately thought Dr. James Hansen is intentionally redirecting the blame for manmade global warming.

Because it wasn't "the big oil companies" that gave us manmade global warming. It was the March of Science. Scientists gave us the internal combustion engine. Scientists gave us the ability to locate and access crude oil deposits. Scientists taught us how to refine crude oil into gasoline, diesel, kerosene, et cetera, as well as a whole range of other petroleum-based products. Scientists have enabled every step of our journey to manmade global warming.

So why isn't Dr. Hansen calling for the real culprits to be placed on trial? Oh, yeah, those are his people.

What Hansen is suggesting is placing these "Big Oil" CEOs on trial for crimes against humanity, simply because those CEOs don't buy into the manmade global warming scare. I don't buy it either, and I tell people I don't buy it. So, I suppose I also should be charged with crimes against humanity. And I suppose the other climatologists out there who question Hansen's fanaticism should also be hauled up before a tribunal.

This sounds very, very dangerous to me -- Nazi-esque, as a matter of fact. If you even have doubts about the science behind the manmade global warming hoax, people such as Dr. James Hansen want you tried and convicted and sentenced to death or life imprisonment... I mean, that is the traditional sentence for crimes against humanity, right?

Hansen claims that he is 99% certain of the science behind the current manmade global warming scare -- other climatologists aren't nearly so certain. Even by his own admission, Dr. Hansen has a nagging 1% chance of being wrong...

So, when the data turns on Hansen, when deeper research reveals that manmade global warming is, indeed, a hoax of epic proportions (and it is), will Dr. Hansen turn himself in for crimes against humanity? Because what Hansen is doing through his fear-mongering and dire recommendations is every bit as dastardly as the "disinformation" that he is trying to hang on the CEOs of Big Oil.

bit hypocritical considering the billions of dollars they waste on energy in their expensive fireworks!

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Great post

I have not thought at all about what you just posted, but now that I have read it it makes all the sense of the world. Scientist are indeed the culprit but at leat some of them are trying to make ammends which is a good step in the right direction, but they are indeed shifting the blame here.

reply to post by Johnmike


Collusion:

an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically involving fraud or gaining an unfair advantage and can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties."[1] All acts affected by collusion are considered void.[2]


Practices that facilitate tacit collusion include:

* Uniform prices
* A penalty for price discounts
* Advance notice of price changes
* Information exchange
link

Civil Conspiracy:

A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective.[1] A conspiracy may also refer to a group of people who make an agreement to form a partnership in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member and engage in planning or agreeing to commit some act. It's not necessary that the conspirators be involved in all stages of planning or be aware of all details. Any voluntary agreement and some overt act by one conspirator in furthance of the plan are the main elements necessary to prove a conspiracy. A conspiracy may exist whether legal means are used to accomplish illegal results, or illegal means used to accomplish something legal.[2] "Even when no crime is involved, a civil action for conspiracy may be brought by the persons who were damaged."[3] link

it seems to me your argument is incredibly flawed. i understand that we have the freedom of speech but i do not think that extends into deceiving people in a way that causes harm to them or others.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Yeah. It would explain a lot.

You know what would explain a lot. When you find the articles and laws under the constitution that state lying is not only patriotic, but not against the constitution and law of the land. Hint: You won't because it doesn't exist.

Don't come in here attempting to display a feathery bluster of visual propoganda through your lackluster biased knowledge of a single ammendment while disregarding everything else that the nation and Humanity stands for.

Purposely exploiting those ignorant of a knowledge (science) while you knowingly have this knowledge and what it is causing and doing, and using your corporate media power to persuade the masses back into your own company's stocks through misleading and mingled facts and knowingly deceiving through this method is not only against the law of the United States courts, but against the laws of Humanity. This is very well a crime against Humanity.

This is exactly what you do with your presentation of the ammendment of freedom of speech, religion and expression. You disregard every other ammendment and law and try to with incognito implore a biased aspect on the matter closed off to reciprocation instead of a well rounded exposition.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by Bunch


It is an Illuminati lie that Global Warming can be controlled by our
efforts and when the CEO lies the Illuminati passes a law to enforce their lie.

Man is a mere mortal and could hardly control stopping anything
the world is doing on its own.

And less effective in doing anything the world does on its own without
our help which would be taxes to fund more Gore talk.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Right, and when scientists realized what was happening and were honest about it (hence they didn't lie or cover up the facts) the oil execs continued to mislead and fabricate data.

Your post psuedo-counter. You have no argument, you're just grabbing at air.

Scientists created the combustable engine and the necessary form of crude oil that it runs off of, they also presented the atmospheric studies and consequences it is having on the environment a century later. From these studies they have decided that oil is not such a good thing; scientific common sense. However, the oil corps. think money will buy the future of the planet.

Be carefull what you wish for, Global Warming proponents. Be VERY carefull of what you wish for because it just might jump up and bite you.

There's a reason why the concept of man driven global warming is a hot button topic and that's because neither side can fully defend their position and both sides can produce data showing why they are correct. This isn't a simple matter of valliant Davidian scientists vs the agenda driven Goliaths of industry as many would have you think. These scientists are driven by the same agenda (greed) as everyone else on this planet. Science makes its money from researching problems, not solving them. It's the primary reason we still have no cure for the common cold. We have one side which is making an absolute fortune off of scarring the hell out of the general incurious public that takes everything they're told from so-called "experts" as the God's truth and are frightened into urging government support of the "research." They also have found a huge ally in liberal profiteers like Al Gore who have made insane fortunes off scams like carbon credits and public speaking appearances.

On the other side we have oil companies and industry execs who's livelihood depends on products that are being demonized, so they're defending themselves.

At this point, the man driven nay sayers are leading in my opinion. There has been far too much profiteering from the pro-side and too many questions they haven't satisfactorially answered. Particularly glaring is the question of why this warming trend has perfectly coincided with increased solar flare activity which has been scientifically proven to have raised the temperatures across the solar system. They also have never sufficiently explained how they went from saying CO2 was cooling the atmosphere and trying to scare Americans into believing we were driving ourselves into an ice age in the 70's... conveniently regrouping and doing a 180 when the solar activity picked up and we experienced a couple of hot seasons.

So, as I said, be carefull what you wish for. How quickly would your little world of Al Gore shrines, rainbows, and stiffled cow farts collapse on you if there were court proceedings, the data was empirically studied by the courts, and it was discovered that charges for lying could be pressed... against those who have pushed the lie of global warming on society and have cost us billions of dollars? If those who believe as I do are correct, then it is the portion of the scientific community alongside the far left liberal elitists who have made money by the fistfulls off of this and are guilty of squandering precious time which this country and the rest of the world could have spent developing... developing new industry, new jobs, and new ventures which would have been profitible to everyone involved instead of the current malaise which has costs us a fortune in time, effort, livelihood, and, above all else, money.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


I agree with your post, that we indeed have to be very careful about this and thats why I would rather see this matter be resolved in our courts, lets go down to the core of the issue and end this endless debate.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Right, and when scientists realized what was happening and were honest about it (hence they didn't lie or cover up the facts) the oil execs continued to mislead and fabricate data.

What makes you think the manmade global warming proponents are being "honest about it"? From what I've seen, these "scientists" have, indeed, tried to cover up the fact that Earth experienced a prolonged global warming effect during the Middle Ages, coinciding with NO manmade greenhouse gases. When this glaring fact was pointed out to the producers of An Inconvenient Truth, they chose to omit that scientific data from the film. It would have seriously distorted and greatly diminished the impact of their famous "hockey stick" graph.

That, my existential friend, is called a coverup.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
You have no argument, you're just grabbing at air.

Yet, you can't explain why you believe that manmade global warming scientists are NOW telling the truth, when it's obvious that they have a history of ignoring data that is contrary to their manmade global warming hoax. So now who's "grabbing at air"?

Here's some data that you probably haven't seen (or perhaps you have seen it and have chosen to ignore it):

Feb 2008: Monitors Record Major Drop in Global Temp from 2007 to 2008

Feb 2008: Researchers Predict Ice Age

April 2008: Global Warming "On Hold" Until 2015

That last one just makes me laugh. Now your oh-so-honest manmade global warming experts are attempting to cover their asses and explain away several years of inconvenient global cooling right in the middle of their global warming hoax.

"Yeah, our very reliable data proves that manmade greenhouse gases over the last century are steadily warming the Earth... Well, except for right now. Um, okay, it's growing cooler now, in spite of what we said earlier, but our very reliable data shows that the Earth will resume warming up in about seven or eight years, after the, er, mini ice age. And you can rely on that."



Don't try to tell me that NASA's James Hansen and his fanatical followers are interested in the truth, particularly when it's obvious that they're ignoring and/or covering up contrary data.