It’ll probably be as effective as the fool who used the Joe Biden “fire a shotgun” defense
(Mother Jones) In September 2014, five climate activists with Rising Tide Seattle managed to halt the passage of a crude oil train at the BNSF Delta rail yard in Everett, Wash. After eight hours blocking the tracks, the five were arrested and charged with criminal trespass and blocking a train. Today, they go on trial.
In court, the activists—known as the Delta 5—will argue their act of civil disobedience was necessary. A spokesperson for Rising Tide said the activists “will be the first ever to argue that their actions were justified because of the threat of climate change, using the ‘necessity defense.’ The outcome of [the] trial could set national precedent for climate related civil disobedience and is being carefully watched.” The defendants will call on a rail safety expert and a climate scientist to argue that their actions were justified.
It will be very interesting to see how this turns out. They’re arguing that all the CO2 from the oil the trains carry is a future threat, and virtually every time that ‘climate change’ has been argued in court it has lost, because the Warmists failed to prove the existence of anthropogenic climate change to the satisfaction of law and science. Eric Worrall notes
Activists should recognise that there is time for them to change climate policy by legal means, through political campaigns, to try to persuade voters to support the climate cause at the ballot box. Committing crimes won’t persuade people, except for the handful who already think climate change is a major threat. The fact voters aren’t listening is not a justification for breaking the law. If activists want people to listen, they could start by presenting a compelling case for action – something they have so far failed to provide.
The problem is, Warmists cannot persuade people with actual science, and their goals of far left authoritarian policies further fail to convince people to Do Something, especially when that something is a something that the members of the Cult of Climastrology refuse to do in their own lives.
“Warmists cannot persuade people with actual science.”
They can’t even persuade people with the altered data and lousy computer models they use.
And that’s why they resort to demonizing people who disagree with them, going so far as to attempt to silence dissenting views via criminalization.
Freight trains start moving very slowly, but they also take a long time to stop. If the protesters want to stand in the way of a freight train that is starting to move, hey, more power to them!
Rachel Corrie could not be reached for comment.
One year for trespass and criminal mischief and 2 years for idiocy. Sentence to be served in stocks in public so they can enjoy the climate change.
I thought you were talking about the Mormon jihadists of Oregon. Did they get their throw rugs, French vanilla creamer, hair conditioner and doilies? They should get an extra year for being pussies.
Over 97% of scientists are persuaded. Most corporations, major religions and governments are persuaded. In fact, only the US ultra-right deniosaurs and their sycophants remain unpersuaded (and are refractory to science). They cannot be persuaded, regardless of the evidence.
The Earth is warming from CO2 added to the atmosphere over the past century. It will get progressively worse.
No direct scientific proof or data has been shown that link the current observations to human activity.
This is disingenuous at best.
While there is evidence that the earth is warming, the cause is the issue
There is nowhere close to the numbers you cite at believing in AGW.
First, the earth is not warming from additional Co2, and second, even if there is warming, there’s no proof warming will be dangerous to life on earth. Zero, Zip, Nada
And that’s why you’re called deniers!
And that’s why you’re an idiot.
[…] I mentioned a bunch of fools who are on trial for blocking an oil train in Washington, charged with multiple felonies and […]
The 97% consensus used by Jeffery and others is a fraud.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
hankm is right. The latest number is 99%. Almost all climate scientists agree with my position.
And at one point, 99% of scientists agreed with the consensus that the earth was flat.
I remember the science magazines I used to get as a kid, in the sixties. Scientists admitted that they didn’t actually know, but the consensus was that perpetually clouded Venus was a warm, moist planet, very probably covered with steamy jungles.
It wasn’t so long ago that scientists just plain knew that Io and Europa and Enceladus and Triton were completely geologically and hydraulically dead moons; it was just plain too cold out there for there to be any activity at all. Now scientists think that there might be an ice volcano on Pluto as well.
It wasn’t so long ago that we all knew that the fundamental particles were electrons, protons and neutrons, the smallest things possible. Now we know that quarks are the elementary particles which make up protons and neutrons — a d a few other things — right up until we discover that quarks are not elementary particles, but are composed of something even smaller. That hasn’t happened yet, so who knows: is the current knowledge correct, or will something else be discovered?