"A U.S. based environmental magazine that both former Vice President Al Gore (http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19/11408/1106?show_comments=no"In defense of David Roberts, here is the entire post he made (from the link above):
"Check out this startling excerpt from George Monbiot's new book Heat.
It's about the climate-change "denial industry," which most of you are probably familiar with. What you may not know about is the peculiar role of the tobacco industry in the whole mess. I've read about this stuff for years and even I was surprised by some of the details.
When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."
In order to give Mr. Roberts a fair hearing, I go to the link to George Monbiot's book excerpt, which allegedly links the tobacco industry to the "global warming deniers". It was the usual conspiratorial garbage until I got to this part:
"The website it has financed - JunkScience.com - has been the main entrepot for almost every kind of climate-change denial that has found its way into the mainstream press. It equates environmentalists with Nazis, communists and terrorists."
I read everything JunkScience.com had to say about global warming, and I missed the name-calling of which the website is accused. If anything, I found their articles on global warming to be objective, without the partisan venom displayed by George Monbiot and David Roberts. In fact, JunkScience.com explicitly does NOT deny that global warming is happening, or that human emissions are having an impact. It merely puts the human factor within the context of other environmental factors which have a greater impact. In other words, we could reduce human emissions to zero and still not prevent global warming if the other factors are going to cause it anyway.
Speaking of Roberts, let us return to his idea about Nuremberg trials for global warming deniers. I wonder if he would be willing to have himself put on trial if either (1) global warming never comes to pass, or (2) it is definitively proven that human emissions have NOT caused it.
What worries me about even suggesting such trials is it displays the contempt the environmental movement shows for those opposed to it. Given the power and oppurtunity, I can easily imagine them running such trials even in the absence of global warming. How dare anyone challenge their enlightened views!
And maybe JunkScience.com SHOULD equate "environmentalists with Nazis, communists and terrorists."