Should global warming denial be a crime?

It’s becoming fashionable lately to group those few wackos who still don’t acknowledge the human responsibility for global warming in with other fringe types, most especially those who are said to “deny” the Holocaust. Unfortunately, we’ll have to find a different brush with which to tar these eco criminals who refuse to see the light, because the Holocaust denier analogy just doesn’t hold up. In fact, global warming denial is pretty much the opposite of Holocaust denial, or its more polite name, historical revisionism.

For starters, follow the money. All the big money is on the side of the global warming deniers, in the form of Big Oil execs and their hired hands in the halls of government. Not so for the revisionists, who on the contrary usually face loss of whatever livelihood they have for daring to question any aspect of the Holocaust orthodoxy. You can make big money for writing anything remotely scientific-sounding that debunks global warming. Intellectual integrity is the only reward for inquiring skeptically into the Holocaust.

Legally speaking, no law prohibits anyone from claiming that the melting glaciers of Greenland are caused by methane from cows, or natural terrestrial cycles, or god’s wrath, or whatever other reason comes to mind. Whereas many laws exist to keep the skeptics in line when it comes to the Holocaust.

Last but not least, there’s the science. All the science is on the side of those who assert that global warming is a real and threatening phenomenon, and is largely caused by human activity. Those who still attempt to refute this must do so without benefit of much of anything in the way of scientific validity. Whereas, surprisingly enough for many who haven’t looked into the issue much, the science, such as it is, is pretty much on the side of those who question the official story. One example: renowned revisionist scholar Robert Faurisson has a standing challenge for anyone to demonstrate a design for a gas chamber that would exterminate the number of humans alleged to have been murdered in this way. That’s why the laws against “Holocaust denial” were enacted, according to Faurisson: the revisionists were winning the debate on the evidence.
Should laws be passed against global warming denial? Why bother? No laws are necessary against expressing opinions that are so easily dismissed.