We’re all wrong a great deal of the time.
But an oil company that deliberately sets up and funds a ‘think tank’ in order to give false respectability to information they themselves know to be bogus ought to be prosecuted for fraud — and worse, if it leads to floods, etc.

Because we all make errors, and we expect those to occur, ‘real’ scientists value peer-reviewed works, blind studies, etc. Because that best ‘vets’ the information.

But the bogus pseudo-climate change outfits that are funded deliberately in order to either confuse people, or else to spread false info… those people need to be prosecuted. Because they cause widespread harm, and clearly we can’t rely on their own consciences to stop them.

People who make errors will correct themselves.
People who profit from spreading false arguments that are designed for their own convenience should face penalties.

There is a frustration … as hinted (talked to) that, yet again, Inhofe/Morano have been able to use their committee slot (MINORITY, that is) to put out false information and, well, where’s the Majority voice?

Oh, I don’t dispute you on this point for an instant!
In fact, I actually think given the risks of global warming that the pseudo-scientists, as well as anyone like Inhofe who DELIBERATELY perpetuates bogus, inaccurate stuff and makes it look ’sciencish’ ought to be charged with a felony.

If we take it as a fact that knowingly providing false information is fraudulent, and that perpetuating (financial) fraud is a felony, then electeds who fail to do their homework (or fail to rely on CREDIBLE) sources) should be charged with fraud, and subject to penalties including loss of income, and even imprisonment.

Until that occurs, these ideologues and paid assets will continue, because nothing and no one is calling them to account. Except FDL.

But there needs to be a way within the legal system to bring people in for perpetuating false, bogus information. Because they’ve done a world of harm, and they’ve done it with malice aforethought, and deliberately, and intentionally.

((((selise))))

Granted, those were much more militant than the ones you cite, but anytime a large number of people get together to protest, you run the risk of crowd psychology getting out of control, and then you’ve lost the 90% of the population who are law & order.

And then there were gigantic anti-war demonstrations prior to the Iraq war, with exactly zero influence.

I’m not saying that demonstrations should not be in our arsenal. I am saying it’s a weak weapon and one that can easily be turned against us.