31 thoughts on “Yale law dean opposes free speech for climate skeptics”

  1. Students are being taught…
    Before cigarettes, there was no emphysema or lung cancer.
    Before climate change, there was no global warming or “hockey sticks”.

    How can the data even begin to be compared to address this?
    Who collected data in the past the same as they do now?

    Its time to tell the students the truth: “We don’t know”

  2. The only benefit to not having the right to free speech is to shut up those who want to take it away!

  3. What global warming proponents who’s family fortune was made from tobacco? and who’s father fought against civil rights bill?
    this prof is more proof law schools need to close for about 20 yrs since the graduates cannot find work in law and wind up as politicians with zero real world skills.

  4. Obviously, Professor Post envisions “free speech” in some sort of Orwellian way. . . perhaps he even envisions himself one day serving as Chief of the Thought Police. I agree with George Daddis above that I know which side I would want to defend with the facts in a court of law. The problem is that I am not sure I would like to defend that side in court in a world in which Hillary has picked all the judges.

  5. Uh. Lawyers are not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to science. I say this as a retired lawyer who also has a degree in Chemical Engineering. I once opposed a lawyer who claimed that a pile of paper caught fire by spontaneous combustion. Cheez. Louise.

  6. They should also deny free speech to all Ptolemaic system skeptics as well. After all the Ptolemaic system was once the consensus opinion. Such consensus makes it scientific fact. After all the laws of science are actually some form of legislation. In science, majority opinion is more important than truth and reality.

  7. The law professor lectures us as if the case was already proven for global warming.

    Let there be a trial where the warmists have to prove their claims under oath, and being cross-examined. They don’t want that. They could never prevail in a fair and honest trial.

    They just use and abuse the power of the government to threaten and shut up anyone who asks questions — and then claim that they are protecting you, the public.

    If Trump is elected and he gives the slightest hint of doing this in reverse (threatening the fraudsters who have gotten rich off global warming), the law professor and the media will scream for freedom of speech. Maybe even hold a sit down protest in Congress.

  8. Leading academics also supported eugenics laws. (pre-WWII)

    You want a lawyer who will justify concentration camps for American? No problem. (WWII)

    You want a lawyer to justify kidnapping and torture of civilians? (modern times)

  9. Dear heavens, have all the elites in the world gone mad? The climate debate is not a contest in which the “winner” can declare victory. It is a scientific theory, challenge-able by other scientists. Those climate scientists who say we are all marching towards Armageddon are not elected, not law givers. That some politicians have climbed on a bandwagon that might get them more power to levy more taxes, is exactly how all politicians have behaved. Scare the shit out of everyone and you can stay in power forever is a well known ruse used by politicians for eons.

    Any all encompassing theory when used by politicians is a sure fire way of getting on a road to tyranny. That is the threat we face, not some theory that uses computers to predict the future.

  10. Sounds like we need a “Put Up Or Shut Up!” suit for all the people tossing around threats of lawfare.

  11. The hypocrisy is blatant, but the Dunning-Kruger Effect keeps them from seeing it.
    ” O wad some Power the giftie gie us. To see oursels as ithers see us! ” – Robert Burns, 1786.

  12. The analogy of the tobacco cases is misplaced. There was a profit motive involved in the tobacco cases. There is no profit motive by the skeptics. Oil and coal companies know as does this professor that our energy needs cannot be met without the use of fossil fuels. Also, carbon dioxide is an essential need for flora.
    If there is fraud it seems to be by the “warmists”. The misinformation, the outrageous conclusions, and the manipulation of data are all evidence of fraud. Now you know!

  13. That mindless belief is consistent with the rest of the alarmists. Obama, during his Alaska visit, pointed out two receding glaciers as evidence of “climate change” (meaning revised to “anthropogenic caused warmng”).

    What our fearless president and the fawning press didn’t bother pointing out was that one of the two glaciers, “Exit”, has been receding since 1730, so a century BEFORE co2 began rising, and also a century (or more) before our industrial revolution. Neither did this group point out that other gtlaciers (both in Alaska and elsewhere) are growing. Nor were they capable of asking themselves the following question: what’s so special about receding glaciers? When there are NO receding glaciers we’re into the next ice age. The Big Apple will not be concerned about a bit of water, but a mile high glacier parked on it for most of the following 90,000 years. (average ice age duration during the past 1.3 million years)

  14. Robert Post is a terrible choice for dean or professor for teaching law. He doesn’t understand the simplest thing about free speech rights in the 1st Amendment.

  15. What’s the problem? If anyone lies for commercial benefit it’s fraud and they should be prosecuted. I think that’s all he is really saying.

    I sure don’t want the catastrophists to feel they are protected because they profit from their “noble cause”.

  16. The current climate debate is similar to the misleading that tobacco companies used. The situation is almost identical. The companies then doctored the data that showed the hazards of cigarettes to promote their agenda. This is EXACTLY what the government and the NGO’s are doing. NASA and NOAA have repeatedly been caught doctoring the records, while ignoring any facts that contradict their position. It is all about Agenda 21. Does Dr. Post support the agenda or is he ignorant? Or both

  17. And then we should burn the deniers at the stake because of the seriousness of their sins!

  18. Still a lawyer thorough and thorough so why are lawyers protected they commit fraud over and over.

  19. This is what one gets when law professors, politicians and sociologists venture into science. First, they have no ideas how to read data. Their ignorance of statistics in immeasurable. Their science IQ is about one half of their mental IQ. Second, as if that is not enough, many are fed (i.e funded or invested) by or in green energy. If the climate issue (global warming) fails, so do their careers. I truly think they are simply fooled by those who have the most to gain. The analogy to the tobacco industry is a red herring, but conveniently designed by people like Jon Gruber and the like to convince people that the climate change is an issue of which we can change. Understand that the biggest issue is the Sun, our father star. I bet some do not even know that. The sky is NOT falling folks.

  20. I don’t know about losing his degree, but he should certainly step down as dean AND i think it is very important that he start educating himself in a serious way about the science he clearly knows not a thing about. I never heard of the fellow and would highly recommend someone directs him to the work of Nir Shaviv, chair of physics at Hebrew U and Will Happer, professor of atomic physics at Princeton

  21. I am a plain warner….you try to take my right to free speech away and i will shut you up……..for good. Get it?

  22. This arrogant idiot should be fired right now. To advocate against the 1st amendment rights of Americans is shameful. On top of all that he is wrong on so many counts. The safety of nicotine has never been in doubt. It has been known as a poison for over 150 years. Before Roundup was invented, farmers used to use nicotine as a very effective weed killer. It is so toxic that it has been banned from sale in most of the country. With no statistical increase in global temperatures since the 1950’s, it is not possible for any oil company to be guilty of any “climate change” fraud. Only the “climate scientists” who are defrauding the American taxpayer of $22 BILLION per year are actually committing the largest fraud in the history of man.

  23. Lawyers who know nothing about the very basics of our rights need to lose their law degrees.

  24. The fact that he uses the talking points of Oreskes et al and subsequently those of Al Gore and the Dem AGs indicates to me that he is not speaking as a law professor but as an advocate; and should be careful about using Yale as a platform. Remember; if EXXON and other organizations and individuals can be sued for UNDERSTATING the impacts of ACGW then so can advocates and alarmists be sued for OVERSTATING the impacts.
    If such a set of cases ever were to come up in a court of law, I know which side I want to defend with facts

  25. The obvious problem with Post’s understanding of the law is that the link betwen illness and smoking tobaco was real, and very well-established. There are quite a lot of chemical compounds which can be isolated from tobacco smoke which are clearly understood to be potent human carcinogens. I wouldn’t deny that benzo[a]pyrene or 7,12-DMBA are both deadly to animal life. No scientist would deny it. So, in the case of tobacco, the science really is settled. Additionally, it would be hard to make the argument that the anti-tobacco movement had a political agenda.

    The trouble with the global warming garbage is that it’s all lies, with no actual legitimate data. It’s a political movement whose actual goal is the destruction of free market capitalism and western democracy. It is, indeed, junk science of the worst sort.

    Liberals do not fervently believe in global warming because they’re the smart people. They believe in it because accepting the climate change nonsense as indisputable gives liberals the license they need to chip away at individual freedom. That has always been the primary goal of leftism: control of the populace. Mr. Post is simply a typically angry radical leftist with an ax to grind. It’s a shame he’s so obviously ignorant of the law. One cannot simply invoke fraud as the reason to deny the human right of free speech and expression.

  26. The point is a simple one. Large corporations, government agencies, NGOs and academies are free to mislead deliberately the consuming public regarding Global Warming and the futility of renewable energy. This is why we live in a jungle instead of an orderly developing and stable energy market.

  27. Free speech like all rights, comes with an obligation, in this case it involves ensuring that all others can speak freely, regardless of their position relative to yours. Any discussion of rights without acknowledging the necessary obligations is infantile, and leads to BLM and the rest of the crybully crowd.

  28. This man needs to really be worried about ever teaching in this nation again. COULD IT BE, that he is a RADICAL liberal professor teaching in a near Radical Liberal Elite Institution, that is under the delusion that FREEDOM OF SPEECH, is just not for liberals and liberal Activists? Could it be that the liberals are the single most significant threat to the world and their delusionary ideologies. Fraud and the First amendment is not simply equated to corporations; but perhaps is more rampant in our institutions of higher education! It is radicals like this moron who threaten the Constitution and the freedoms of the Sovereign United States!

  29. Somebody needs to put the EVIDENCE in front of such people’s faces, and rub their nose in it. Too many people now know the truth for this “narrative” to long continue. Both Obama and this prof. keep spouting nonsense that, at this point, makes them appear to lack any scientific education.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.