Should governments charge climate liars with treason against humanity?

Yes, either way someone must be causing deliberate harm.

It's just like the tobacco comapnies, who were held accountable for lying and for repressing public knowledge regarding health issues related to smoking.

Harvard University confirms that the appearance of two sides to this issue is largely faked:

Knowing Uncertainty for What It Is

In reporting on the science of global warming, journalists contend with powerful, well-funded forces using strategies created by tobacco companies.

By David Michaels

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/topics.aspx?...

I'd like to see the treasonous liars hanged for crimes against humanity... after spending their lives in prison and serving as training subjects for Homeland Security interrogation techniques... any "pros" deliberately spreading lies here on Yahoo Answers included (surely no one would stoop so low, but you never know).

Their day will come. Look at what Congress is doing to AIG executives, over contracts which were in place long before the recent bailouts. The U.S. military has studied the possibility outbreak of widespread anarchy in the U.S. as climate deteriorates and crops are challenged, financial systems crumble, and refugees pour across our borders. You know that there will be people held accountable to appease the public long before they let mobs get that angry, if only to delay the inevitable.

Look at how quickly Bush set aside the Constitution and approved surveillance of U.S. citizens, jailing without a trial, and even torture. Nor Congress goes after scapegoats. The precedents have been set. I sure wouldn't want to be a highly visible person who might be held responsible for deliberate acts of misinformation on this topic.

I'm pissed that people are endangering my children's future, without a single scrap of peer-reviewed science to justify their tactics. I'll be enthusiastically cheering on the mobs (including Congress) as they pursue the responsible parties.

A good place to start would be to put ExxonMobil executives in jail:

Exxon finally admits denialists cause problems

http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxonsecrets/20...

So the first amendment is going to fall second because people don't like the fact not everyone buys the co2 global warming bs. No freedom of speech trumps a theory only. Perhaps these same people need to look at Chem trail spraying before co2 which is a huge building block of life on earth

Well, I think you have to consider what constitutes a lie and what consititutes an opinion, as well as what the consequences would be for choosing to follow the recommendations of either the believers or deniers. Finally, you'd need to think about what is really 'MASSIVE.'

On the side of believers and scientific consensus, you have a large group of people who are saying that the planet is warming, that there is a very high probability mankind is influencing it, and the evidence that supports that conclusion is strong enough to warrant actions to limit the amount of greenhouse gasses that are released into the atmosphere. At the extreme end of the believer spectrum you have a few people who are claiming that environmental Armeggedon is imminent.

On the other side, you have the skeptical, who may reasonably doubt that mankind has enough influence on climate to cause a significant change in global conditions and that changing the way we power humanity will have economic consequences that far outweigh the questionable benefits. At the extreme end of the spectrum are the deniers, who claim that global warming isn't actually even occurring, but is a carefully orchestrated world wide conspiracy designed to strip western culture of its freedom and wealth.

Now how do we determine what constitutes a 'lie' and what constitutes an opinion or political agenda rooted in power, economics, or system of governance? And what are the consequences to humanity both short and long term if one or the other side of the argument is followed?

The main issue to me is whether or not we are taking reasonable measures to protect the environment regardless of what we may eventually find out about global warming and mankind's influence on it. We need to develop better ways of sustaining a global population of 6 billion + human beings, of seeing to our growing energy needs, and of improving the geopolitical situation around the world. All of these needs are intertwined with the environmental concerns of the global warming believers and the steps they believe need to be taken to mitigate the effects of humanity's use of fossil fuels on the planet.

On the other hand, the skeptics and deniers would maintain the status quo rather than plan for the future regardless of the impact it will have on the environment and sustainability of the human population of the planet.

So regardless of how one defines 'lies' and 'opinions' it is clear (to me, at least) what set of consequences will be the more severe, both short and long term. We need to end the dependence on fossil fuels which requires massive imports and transfer of wealth, along with mounting global competition and conflict that is leading to protracted wars and loss of life in the Middle East. That's a good short term goal. And we need to develop ways of protecting-while exploiting-the environment that will ennable us to feed an ever-growing poplulation, as well as adapt to climatic changes that are already making themselves evident, whether mankind is causing it or not. That's a good long term goal.

So denial has the greater potential for massive consequences to the human race. I'd say the burden of proof rests with that side of the argument-the deniers need to prove that their solutions are more in the interests of sustainability than the global warming believers and environmentalists. They can't, and therefore their voices and arguments are becoming weaker.

So I don't see that there is any need for charges of treason against humanity regardless of who is right and who is wrong. Deliberate lying and fraud is generally covered by the courts anyway. If, at some point while there are still cults of environmental antagonists out there, all the land-based ice sheets suddenly slip into the ocean and sea levels rise abruptly by 70 feet...or there is a huge world-wide famine, angry mobs will rise up against the people who fought against or ignored responsible environmental stewardship and hunt them down to extract their own justice. However, that isn't likely to happy any time soon.

Its good to be a skeptic and not jump on any bandwagon. That being said, the science leading to the theory of global warming is overwhelming and not questioned by any serious scientific thought. It is only fakes and fools that believe the notion that global warming is not an issue!

at the moment Obama has too much on his plate and his priority and his focus on economic recovery right now he has more important stuff to take care off then put these lunatics to trail. I hope International War Crimes Tribunals take a step to bring justice to whom terrible suffered

Your solution to this academic debate is a one-world government? This is in effect the goal of one side of the argument...hardly seems like something we can all agree upon. If evidence could be provided to prove or discredit AGW advocates' claims, there wouldn't BE a debate.

Let's settle the argument over the existence of God first, as one impossible feat should be attempted at a time, and this one came first. What's the fate of the world compared to the fate of one's eternal soul? <sarcasm>

For your scenario to take place would require a one world government that has jurisdictional power that go beyond the sovereignty of individual nations and their citizens rights. In two decades we will know if AGW is correct, and very little could be done to change AGW if it is true anyway, so the best course of action is to wait and see, anybody that a actually succeeds in passing any cap and trade legislation in America will be voted out of office and have their legislation overturned by their successors, so it is a self correcting problem anyway you look at it.

Then there is damaging the ozone layer.

Then out teachers are teaching it to our children.

What is costing is terrible but the Left are pushing it.

So-called "Global Warming" is a fraud. It's the 2000 version of the 1990's Y2K bug.

In a few years no one will be remembering "Global Warming" like they deny the claims that the Earth was cooling in the 1970's.

Better yet, why not have open public debates where the public can hear both sides of the issue and then can decide for themselves who is a liar.