Science is advanced when people are skeptical of received doctrines and "settled science". Advancing both knowledge and our understanding requires an open mind and a willingness to question the mainstream. And yet, throughout the ages, skeptics have been persecuted by religious and political leaders.
You would think humans could learn from this history. But no, assuming these remarks were not taken out of context [via Jack].
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., says he wants a law to punish politicians who dissent from man-made climate change theory - and calls them "contemptible human beings."
Kennedy made the remarks in an interview with Climate Depot at a climate march in New York on Sunday:
Kennedy Jr. accused skeptical politicians of "selling out the public trust." "Those guys are doing the Koch Brothers bidding and are against all the evidence of the rational mind, saying global warming does not exit. They are contemptible human beings. I wish there were a law you could punish them with. I don't think there is a law that you can punish those politicians under."
Kennedy also said he thinks the successful pro-energy Koch brothers should be "in jail...with all the other war criminals":
"I think it's treason. Do I think the Koch Brothers are treasonous, yes I do," Kennedy explained.
"They are enjoying making themselves billionaires by impoverishing the rest of us. Do I think they should be in jail, I think they should be enjoying three hots and a cot at the Hague with all the other war criminals," Kennedy declared.
And, Kennedy's not the only climate activist who would like to see dissenters jailed.
As the Media Research Center's Business and Media Institute (BMI) chronicled in a May 2014 analysis, pro-climate change theory media and scientists have long promoted the idea of throwing anyone who disagrees with them in jail - even to the point of calling for "climate Nuremberg" trials.
So much for constitutional freedoms of speech, press, and expression. So much for competition in the marketplace of ideas.
Even if it turns out that I am incorrect to be skeptical (I'm skeptical with good reason, for now, I think. See this, this, and this.), I hope the fundamental constitutional freedoms will not be abridged in this or any other debates or discussions concerning science and public policy.
Addendum: also see this by Bjorn Lomborg