OK, yup, I\’ll go with this

No, really, sounds like an excellent idea:

The corporations that have funded the sowing of doubt on this issue are clearly doing this because they see greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies as adversely affecting their financial interests.

This might be understood as a new type of crime against humanity. Scepticism in science is not bad, but sceptics must play by the rules of science including publishing their conclusions in peer-reviewed scientific journals and not make claims that are not substantiated by the peer-reviewed literature. The need for responsible scepticism is particularly urgent if misinformation from sceptics could lead to great harm.

We not have a word for this type of crime yet, but the international community should find a way of classifying extraordinarily irresponsible scientific claims that could lead to mass suffering as some type of crime against humanity.

Of course, the law being the law, this will have to be drafted so as to be impartial. Lies must be prosecuted whoever is telling the lies and whichever side of the argument the lies are on.

I, for one, would welcome prosecutions of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Caroline Lucas, Sir Jonathan Porritt Bt, the third Baron Melchett and all the rest. At least one of those has been directly responsible for the deaths of humans through starvations by the promotion of biofuels. Is that not a crime against humanity? Others insist that part of the solution is to reverse globalisation: when the very science they point to as proof of the problem insists that regionalisation, a fracturing of the global economy, will make things worse.

Bring, as the man once said, it on.

1 thought on “OK, yup, I\’ll go with this”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *