What would you propose doing about people who kill and incite to kill? Do we just remain silent and let them kill?
I don’t have answers myself, only questions. I don’t like imprisoning people, esp since our prison system is so extremely horrible. Maybe community service of some type, like something with alt energy or planting trees for professional CC skeptics who incite people to kill thru AGW
Maybe since it is all about money for those professional CC skeptics, hit them were it hurts with huge lawsuits that amount to more than the get from the fossil fuel industries.
As the article said, “You still can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. You shouldn’t be able to yell ‘balderdash’ at 10,883 scientific journal articles a year, all saying the same thing: This is a problem, and we should take some preparations for when it becomes a bigger problem.”
I’m not sure what the punishment or fine is for people who “yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater when there is no fire” that ends up in a stampede that kills people. Maybe something along the lines of that level of punishment, fine, or slap on wrist.
First off, this analogy takes a very high brow and condescending view of human beings as if “they” are mostly like sheep and will inevitably respond to loud sounds by mass panic. I am not clear this is always so, especially when the threat is not immediate but some obtuse matter such as AGW.
Second, you need to be careful with analogies because someone might read carefully into the associations you are making and find that the analogy is less favorable to you than you suppose.
Note that it is the AGW advocates such as yourself - and not the deniers - who are the ones yelling, “Fire!” in this instance - well, more like the theatre is ‘heating’ up rather than actually burning. (Again, this makes the entire incident less panicky since I’ve never heard of people running from a theatre because it was “getting warm in here.”)
That would mean, basically, you are advocating that if things DON’T turn out as you suppose, ya’ll ought to be subject to “something along the lines of that level of punishment, fine, or slap on wrist” for causing unnecessary panic (or in this case, mild concern.)
To complete your analogy it is the deniers who are playing the role of the few less than sheep-like theatre goers who are advocating that more clear evidence of an actual fire be presented BEFORE they go into panic mode. It is the AGW advocates who are subscribing to the “Everyone run! There is a FIRE!” action and positively wanting everyone to panic.
Now the 10, 883 pieces of evidence may appear to be clear warning signs, but when looked at more closely the sheer numbers of documents seems more like having 10, 883 theatre patrons shouting “Fire!” than it is actual evidence of smoke or heat from a fire. The lack of a global temperature rise is akin to there not being any sensible smoke or fire in the theatre. A fact that the 10, 883 patrons running around the theatre yelling “Fire!” simply must address, especially in the face of those “deniers” who refuse to panic because no clear evidence has actually been presented, just warnings repeated over ten thousand times.
So, to be clear, are you claiming the AGW advocates should be punished in some way if their dire warnings turn out to be mistaken for inciting panic when there was no clear need to do so?
As far as I can tell it is the deniers who are playing the role of a few in the theatre who are not responding as panicked sheep (which the advocates want,) but as voices trying to calm the panic and asking for clear signs of fire before they unnecessarily respond.
It is incumbant on the advocates to produce that clear evidence before everyone panics. No? Especially since so much hangs on the outcome.
Which movie was showing, by the way? With the state of movie making these days, it might be better to take part in a live evacuation excercise than stay and watch the picture to the end.
