Predictable. I can see it on these very pages. Who but the left censors people(or kills or imprisons them) when they don't like what they write or say?
Abraham Lincoln's admin censored and imprisoned some of his critics. Or was honest Abe a leftie?
It was during war time. Rescinding habeus corpus? Come on Tim, get serious. Straw man argument.
So let me get this straight. You're the one who neglected neglected to declare your rules of peacetime only and ignoring habeas corpus doesn't count, but I'm the one with the straw man argument?
War is certainly different, Tim. I'm a bit more familiar with FDR interning Japanese Americans, and actually know a family who lost their business due to this. IMO, that was outrageous, and many think it had less to do with risk, than California farm interests who wanted the land the Japanese had improved through irrigation, making something of nothing. Anyway, I digress.
Today, you have the BBC, a taxpayer funded network, stating that they won't allow AGW deniers, in the cover that they're not 'scientific'. This is total BS. You have science magazines in this country where editors have been forced to apologize or worse, get fired, should they publish AGW skeptical research. Richard Lindzen, whose bio is as good as any in atmospheric science, cannot get published in the US. Once he wrote a piece, promised that he could choose his own peer reviewer, only to have that denied. He published it, in Korea, in Korean Geophysical Letters, or something of that sort. Svensmark and Kirkby ran their CLOUD experiment, after 15 years of denied funding, and were proven right. And yet, millions are wasted on limos, global flights to places like Durban, Bali, Cancun. In Copenhagen alone, 1,200 limos were needed for that meeting, and Svensmark, a Dane, was not invited, nor was the world's leading polar bear expert, a Canadian, despite his paying for himself to attend, and was told that his views, "were not helpful." Maybe you believe in censorship like this. I don't. And that doesn't even count publications like the NY Times, or the major networks, the way they report. Scientists skeptical of catastrophic AGW are compared to racists, creationists, or like tobacco deniers. Then we get the preconceived notion BS, or that our brains don't function correctly. When the science of AGW is weak, I guess one has to resort to this kind of tactic. If one is familiar with Marxism, this is exactly what Marx tried. When the center of global economic thought was in London, perplexed by Marx's theories, they asked him to explain certain aspects, as to them, it wasn't adding up. His response, "you have a bourgeoisie mind, and you need a proletariat mind to understand how it works." Is this not similar to what Hibbing states, that those not in agreement with the agenda of the day, can't think correctly? I guess the London group had "pre-conceived notions". And I agree, they probably did. It's called common sense and facts.