Good News: Only 27% Of Democrats Want Climate Skeptics Prosecuted

An interesting poll from Rasmussen

Global warming advocates are calling for the prosecution of groups who disagree with them, and New York State has taken it a step further by investigating Exxon Mobil for refusing to play ball with the popular scientific theory.

But 68% of Likely U.S. Voters oppose the government investigating and prosecuting scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 17% favor such prosecutions. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Just over one-in-four Democrats (27%), however, favor prosecuting those who don’t agree with global warming. Only 11% of Republicans and 12% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree.

They all their little Fascist on. Anyway, 24% say the debate is over, with 63% saying it’s not. 13% are unsure, so, we can say that they believe the debate is not over, as well.

Among voters who believe scientists have made up their minds about global warming, one-in-four (24%) favor prosecuting those who question that theory, but 64% are opposed.

Unhinged.

Among voters who Strongly Approve of the job President Obama is doing, 29% favor prosecuting those who disagree with global warming. Eighty-one percent (81%) of those who Strongly Disapprove of the president’s job performance oppose such prosecutions.

Interestingly, these same people care as little as Obama does in regards to reducing their own carbon footprints, and walking the talk. But, then, that’s because this is about politics, and shutting down anyone that disagrees with them.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Good News: Only 27% Of Democrats Want Climate Skeptics Prosecuted”

  1. Jeffery says:

    And yet, strangely, it’s climate scientists being investigated!

    for example, Climategate investigaions:

    House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK)
    Independent Climate Change Email Review (UK)
    International Science Assessment Panel (UK)
    Pennsylvania State University (US)
    United States Environmental Protection Agency (US)
    Department of Commerce (US)

    Professor Michael Mann was investigated by the Virginia Attorney General, Republican Ken Cuccinelli.

    The Bush White House had the Smithsonian Institute water down its exhibit on global warming.

    The House is preparing to investigate NASA scientists.

  2. gitarcarver says:

    And yet, strangely, it’s climate scientists being investigated!

    Do you think that “investigations” are the same as “prosecutions?”

    Is there a difference between shutting down dissenting voices and verifying the science?

    Should we attack realists because of alleged financial ties to companies and groups while saying funding of warmists have no bearing on anything?

    This is just another misleading post from Jeffery.

  3. Jeffery says:

    How many Deniers have been prosecuted?

    How many of the dozens of government investigations of climate scientists have yielded prosecutions? None?

    Right-wingers like Cucinelli and Lamar Smith use the power of the State to stifle research because they (and especially, their donors) don’t like the results.

    Even 11% of Republicans and 12% of “others” favor prosecution.

    If corporations break the law, they should be prosecuted. Agreed?

    If individuals commit slander or libel they can be sued. Agreed?

    This is just another misleading post from gitarcarver.

  4. gitarcarver says:

    How many of the dozens of government investigations of climate scientists have yielded prosecutions? None?

    You are being obtuse and you know it.

    People in science should want to have their data and results examined. That is quite a difference from prosecuting someone and yet you still keep wanting to equating the two.

    If corporations break the law, they should be prosecuted. Agreed?

    People offering a different opinion is not a crime. I know that people on the left want people who disagree to be prosecuted, but luckily that is not the case.

    If individuals commit slander or libel they can be sued. Agreed?

    Disagreement is slander or libel?

    You really want to go there?

    Unbelievable.

  5. Jeffery says:

    gitarcarver,

    You are being obtuse and you know it.

    Of course scientists welcome debate. You’re equating a State inquisition with scientific debate. You are being obtuse and you know it.

    Of course I didn’t claim that those with differing opinions should be sued or prosecuted. Lawbreakers should. Slanderers and libelers should. No one is arguing that climate Deniers and liars like William, Watts, Monckton and the Hockey Schmuck should be prosecuted (unless they break the law). You are being obtuse and you know it.

    Unbelievable.

    There are no laws per se against lying, so Denier bloggers are safe. The antidote to liars such as William, Watts, Monckton et al, is the truth, not the courts. But the truth must be administered repeatedly and with passion.

    The Earth is warming because of our burning of fossil fuels, and the fossil fuels industry is worried about possible tobacco industry type results.

  6. gitarcarver says:

    You’re equating a State inquisition with scientific debate.

    Except that you don’t want debate Jeffery.

    And yes, the State has the right and some would say the obligation to see the data of state funded science. If you are for the debate, shouldn’t the data be available for all to see?

    Of course I didn’t claim that those with differing opinions should be sued or prosecuted.

    Of course, you equated looking at the science with stifling speech.

    No one is arguing that climate Deniers and liars like William, Watts, Monckton and the Hockey Schmuck should be prosecuted (unless they break the law).

    This is another case where you have your head in the sand. There are people advocating that those who disagree with AGW should be prosecuted.

    The linked Daily Caller article in the original post references a letter from 20 scientists calling for the President to prosecute those who disagree with them on AGW using RICO statutes. Clearly you have issues with facts as it is the so called scientists whose actions show your statements and belief of “welcoming dissent” to be false.

    But the truth must be administered repeatedly and with passion.

    On this we agree. That is why your position, while passionate, is perplexing because you are more interested in stifling debate or looking the other way as you have done here.

    In short, you can’t handle the truth.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5521 access attempts in the last 7 days.