Ted Said the Oceans would be Gone by now: Isn't it a Crime?

On LinkedIn of all places, a post went on about making 'climate deniers' criminal based an article written by, Steven Day at commondreams.org: 

"If you’re a reasonably young person who is opposing measures to address climate change for reasons of financial or political gain, be afraid. Be very afraid.

Largely out of public view, there is a growing advocacy for treating certain forms of climate change denial as a crime."

Is the author threatening?  a Criminal act?  Like purchasing a gas burning car, or the wrong type of lightbulbs?  Or how about saying out loud, "I'm not convinced that climate change is my fault.  Why don't these climate crimes apply in China, India or Africa?"  

State of Fear?  

We should fear the enforcing body that would inflict these laws.  It would be a

"centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition..."

And then there is this, also from  the article:

"No one would argue that every MAGA loudmouth shouting in a tavern that climate change is a hoax should be hauled to The Hague for trial."

REALLY? Political, much?

"...climate change denial as a crime..." wow.  

Bill of Rights?  Constitution?  This could be one of the most dangerous opinions to ever hit the press in the last decade.

So of course, I asked the Ai in the Sky to write an essay on making climate deniers criminals utilizing the sourced article as research.

Enjoy.

g

_________

The Perils of Silencing Dissent: Rejecting Authoritarian Approaches to Climate Change Debate

In the article "Climate Deniers Should Not Assume They Will Never Face Justice," Steven Day advocates for treating climate change denial as a crime, a proposition that raises alarming concerns about the potential for authoritarianism in addressing environmental issues. While the urgency of combating climate change is paramount, it is crucial to resist calls for draconian measures that suppress dissent and undermine fundamental democratic principles.

Authoritarian Proposals:

Day's proposition, suggesting the criminalization of climate change denial, implies a selective application of criminal law against individuals with financial and political power. This approach, rooted in the ideas of deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation, seems to advocate for a form of justice that could only be enforced through a centralized, autocratic government led by a dictatorial figure.

Centralized Autocratic Government:

Implementing Day's ideas would necessitate a shift towards a centralized autocratic government, where a single leader holds unchecked power over legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Such concentration of authority raises the specter of totalitarianism, threatening the very foundations of democracy and individual freedoms.

Severe Economic and Social Regimentation:

The proposed measures also hint at severe economic and social regimentation, where dissenting opinions on climate change could be met with punitive actions. This approach risks stifling innovation, hindering progress, and fostering an environment where conformity takes precedence over the diversity of thought that fuels scientific inquiry.

Forcible Suppression of Opposition:

Day's call for criminalizing climate change denial implies the forcible suppression of opposition, a dangerous proposition that undermines the democratic value of free speech. In a society where expressing alternative views could lead to legal consequences, the exchange of ideas becomes compromised, eroding the principles that democracy strives to uphold.

Fear of Enforcement:

More alarming than the varying opinions on climate science is the potential for abuse and overreach in enforcing such authoritarian measures. History has shown that attempts to control thought and suppress dissent often lead to dire consequences, eroding the very liberties that democracy seeks to protect.

Conclusion:

While the urgency of addressing climate change cannot be overstated, Steven Day's proposal to criminalize climate change denial raises serious concerns about the path society might take. Embracing authoritarian measures, as implied by Day's ideas, threatens the core tenets of democracy, individual freedoms, and the pursuit of knowledge through open discourse. Rather than succumbing to the temptation of stifling dissent, we must champion a democratic approach that encourages robust debate, scientific inquiry, and collective action without compromising the principles that define our democratic societies.

Read the article, here.