Yes it does you idiot Liberal

 


Dem Congressmen: First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Global Warming Skeptics


California congressmen wrote a letter to state attorney general Kamala Harris claiming the freedom of speech “is not designed to protect fraud and deceit” of the likes being spread by oil company ExxonMobil about global warming.
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-align:left;">

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-co...z4BZPnuZfl
</div>
 

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

You keep denying global warming Drifter and you might get put on the FBI watchlist. Watch yourself...

---

 

Yes it does you idiot Liberal

 

Dem Congressmen: First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Global Warming Skeptics
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-align:left;">

California congressmen wrote a letter to state attorney general Kamala Harris claiming the freedom of speech “is not designed to protect fraud and deceit” of the likes being spread by oil company ExxonMobil about global warming.
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-align:left;">

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-co...z4BZPnuZfl
</div>
 

</div>

 

It's true that the first amendment is not a defense against fraud.  That's why fraud is illegal in spite of the first amendment. 

---

Well I say GLobal Warming is a fraud. They're screaming fire in a crowded theater.

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

Well I say GLobal Warming is a fraud. They're screaming fire in a crowded theater.

To be fair... in your analogy 99% of the firefighters agree that the theater is in fact on fire....


Lol

---

To be fair... in your analogy 99% of the firefighters agree that the theater is in fact on fire....


Lol

 

---

“It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.”
― Albert Camus

To be fair... in your analogy 99% of the firefighters agree that the theater is in fact on fire....


Lol

<a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States'>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States</a>

---

The 97% Consensus is bunk... Yes, 97% believe the climate is changing(when is it not...) and there is a lot more to it than leftist climate change alarmists want to admit. The claim that most of the climate's change is primarily man-made or induced by industry is a hot topic and is nowhere near a 97% consensus. Where some ice caps are melting, some are getting thicker/stronger. Nat Geo themselves(liberal owned now iirc) even put up a story stating this. Don't just take anyone's word for it, especially government. Do some research and draw your own conclusion. 

---

I think the fraud claim comes from the fact that Exxon Mobil was publicly arguing against the idea of man-made global warming and yet there are internal documents that have been uncovered that prove that they did not believe what they were saying.   They believed in man-made global warming all along, in spite of the fact that they were publicly denying it.  

 

Whether this constitutes fraud, and whether there is any action or punishment that can be taken, is a question that can only be decided by the courts.  

 

It's not "global warming skepticism" that is the issue.   The issue is saying one thing, while believing another, and doing it for financial gain (in this case so they can keep selling oil).  

 

I kind of doubt there's anything that can be done about it.  

 

It's an interesting question.   If the cigarette companies were denying that smoking causes lung cancer at the same time they knew that it did, is that fraud?   If so, can you bring a case against them?  

---

I think the fraud claim comes from the fact that Exxon Mobil was publicly arguing against the idea of man-made global warming and yet there are internal documents that have been uncovered that prove that they did not believe what they were saying.   They believed in man-made global warming all along, in spite of the fact that they were publicly denying it.  

 

Whether this constitutes fraud, and whether there is any action or punishment that can be taken, is a question that can only be decided by the courts.  

 

It's not "global warming skepticism" that is the issue.   The issue is saying one thing, while believing another, and doing it for financial gain (in this case so they can keep selling oil).  

 

I kind of doubt there's anything that can be done about it.  

 

It's an interesting question.   If the cigarette companies were denying that smoking causes lung cancer at the same time they knew that it did, is that fraud?   If so, can you bring a case against them?  

 

Yes. This is exactly why the tobacco companies have been successfully sued so many times.

---

“It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.”
― Albert Camus

To be fair... in your analogy 99% of the firefighters agree that the theater is in fact on fire....


Lol

Many years ago some friends and I were out cruising around. We passed the local firehouse which was hosting some sort of shindig and was crowded with people. I leaned out the window and yelled "Movie! Movie!". I turned back to laugh with my friends - who were all staring at me as if I'd lost my mind. I don't remember if I even tried to explain it.

---