Only in your own mind, only in yours.

As I mentioned previously, what Franklin did does not excuse anyone else from committing the same act. Yes, I agree with you. The founders touted the "All men are created equal" line but then ensured that slaves were not defined as men.

However, and let's be clear on this point, none of this has any relevance of the topic of the moment. We have laws in place which dictate how our government is allowed to operate. And if we can prosecute and then jail Americans for breaking many of our laws where no tangible victim can be found, we can damn well prosecute and then incarcerate those who break our laws regardless of their claim that they were simply following orders.

If I had made any ridiculous claims, I would be glad to supply sources. But since everything I brought to your attention is in the public record, maybe you should shun those moronic sites you have been reading and try reality for a while.

FBI's "Suicide Letter" to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Dangers of Unchecked Surveillance

Pete Seeger

Woody Guthrie

John Lennon

Even more black people were lynched in the U.S. than previously thought, study finds

The Murder of Emmett Till

There's the short list detailing everything you've worked so hard to ignore. So, how about if you do a little reading and see if you can find out how many people went to jail for those thousands of lynchings history has recorded. And while you're at it, how about if you show me where in the FBI's charter authorizes surveillance on lawful folk singers, non-violent rock stars as well as religious men who preached peaceful assembly to redress what they believed to be illegal grievances.

Ignorance can be unlearned while willful ignorance is an inexcusable state of mind.

The FBI saw that these people were blacklisted and in MLK's case the FBI deliberately tried to drive him to commit suicide.

But even if we were to accept that Franklin did break what would eventually become our law of the land, the argument that two wrongs make a right is an absurd proposition.

Yes. I have no doubt that you believe what you posted given the level of credibility for the sources where you get your information.

I love the fact that it actually makes sense to you that people who were convicted of felony murder are walking around free in our country. If only Charles Manson had been a liberal, he'd undoubtedly be president of a university by now, right?

I'm very familiar with the document. In fact, I am very fond of it.

And yet, after all this time, we do know that they FBI routinely acted against people like Martin Luther King, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger and John Lennon among many others without "intel" of any kind other than a gut feeling by Jedgar himself.

There is an extreme level of willful ignorance shown in your comment that makes me wonder if you are trolling or actually that misinformed.

Fucking Poe's Law - How does it work?

Indeed. And in those cases, they went after violent assholes who lynched people, bombed churches and generally broke the law with impunity as no jury in their locations would ever convict them.

Oh, you mean like when the FBI tried to force Martin Luther King to commit suicide? Or when they went after people like Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, or John Lennon?

No, you're talking about protesters from a time when the FBI routinely invented evidence against people. Of course, common sense should have told you that people convicted of felony murders usually spend a lot of time in jail.

And that is quite the source you provided. Do you usually read sites where "journalists" write in potato quality English?

Are you actually admitting that we no longer hold the FBI to working within the framework of the Constitution? If so, why do we incarcerate Americans for any crimes if we allow treason (as defined by the intentional undermining of our Constitution) to operate with impunity?

Would you mind explaining exactly what you think the FBI is expected to do as part of their job?

Last I heard, having a political philosophy, of just about any kind, was protected by the Constitution. Can you imagine the uproar we would see if the FBI targeted the entire conservative bloc in this country? Conversely, when the FBI went after the left, no one seemed to care enough to do anything about restricting these actions.

And we're back...

In the interest of keeping this concise, I chose to only hit the highlights but hope that I have in no way changed or distorted your context.

And that's the crux of the issue right there. You think you know better and yet, people who have made it their life's work more than likely do.

Who is this "we" that you refer to. "We" actually have very accurate ways to measure temperature and have been using them for decades now.

No, you're not right. Belief confirmation is a bitch but mankind developed a way of minimizing it's effect. We refer to this as the "Scientific method" and you would do well to become familiar with it. It isn't perfect but if you actually understood how it worked you would know the difference between making reasonable assumptions in order to test a theory and "cooking the numbers."

Perish the thought. I didn't take your remark as being a personal attack. I found it interesting that you rightfully demand respect from others but don't feel the need to reciprocate.

While I can't explicitly quantify the amount of studies which have been peer reviewed and published, suffice it to say it is certainly in the thousands and more likely in the tens of thousands. It's not that the data isn't out there, it's simply a matter than you somehow can't seem to find it. Amazingly, that is nothing short of baffling.

Yes, yes you did.

I honestly believe that you believe this. Seriously, I do. And yet, with all of your accomplishments that you filled us in on previously, you somehow can't locate articles that the scientific community has authored, reviewed, published, and discussed. Baffling.

Yes, people wasted a metric boatload of money to get other people to believe in a made up fairy tale.

Personally, I don't find this subject very appealing from an educational standpoint. Rather, I am enjoying this discussion with you based on my informal love of the science of Agnotology.

Beginning in the 1980s, when I was first introduced to the concept, I began collecting examples of this technique and have become somewhat adept at recognizing it when I see it. One of my favorite examples is the Heartland Institute's Please Don't Poop in My Salad .

Granted, more egregious tomes have been published but no one gets it quite a right as the Heartland Institute. From the title, right down to the last page, everything they present just feels right. Yes, any number of assertions and carefully manipulated facts are included but no one will ever outdo the carefully engineered presentation when it comes to making something so unpalatable sound so wonderful.

You know what, I owe you an unqualified apology. I got pissed off with you and implied that you were a moronic skeptic and that was uncalled for. Since you have decided to be the better man in this discussion, let me see if I can briefly put the facts in front of you.

So, in that vein, let's start with this claim by yours truly.

No, the 1930s were not the warmest in the last century and not by a long shot. The information you based your claim on is profoundly flawed as it ignore ocean temperature changes. Given that the ocean covers the overwhelming majority of the earth's surface, I have no idea how any credible researcher could make that horrific a mistake.

Feel free to think about that assertion in light ot the new evidence.

Damn, did you really just do that? Seriously? And you did this after verbally lambasting me for stopping to lump you in with the people who call Al Gore, Algore?

Indeed.

I found dozens of similar reports, some from universities, others from Youtube and the like. You know what I didn't find, a single credible study that even tried to claim CO2 doesn't trap heat. As far as those in the scientific community are concerned, this isn't even up for debate, no more than the earth being flat or that angry humors cause upset stomachs.

It isn't that we have a lot more to learn, we certainly do. And you are most welcome to be skeptical, but only if you can actually present more than some guy's blog who ended up being shown he was completely inept.

Here's an example of just the kind of thing that should have no place in this argument. '97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong - written by Alex Epstein

And who is Alex Epstein? Why he's "An energy philosopher, debater, and communications consultant, the Founder and President of the Center for Industrial Progress and head of the I Love Fossil Fuels Campaign." He is also the author of, "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

In short, he's an asshole with an opinion, not a scientist but he is a shill plugging his own book. Sadly, you are right. There are any number of people who are making money on this issue but most of them are on your side.

I'm sorry. There is no controversy. The world is not flat.

Are you referring to the roughly 3% who have questionable motives for the positions they hold? Because that's exactly the reality the situation. Now, I personally would be thrilled to see any credible individual or group who could present any peer reviewed evidence that backs up your assertions - but there are none. And that's the problem, any scientist who could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that climate change wasn't caused by human being (to whatever extent they could) would be instantly famous - and yet, no one has stepped to meet that challenge.

Bullshit. There is a mountain of proof - even though because you can't even begin to understand it you are suspicious.

That has nothing to do with anything - but I would like to credit you with knowing that. We do, for example, know that CO2 is a gas which does cause heat to be trapped in our atmosphere. As far as I know, aside from you and a small group of moronic skeptics, no one is saying otherwise.

And you somehow can say that without acknowledging that an incredibly larger amount of money is being made from burning fossil fuels? And even in knowing that you somehow choose to believe that it must be the all those people making "trillions off of carbon credits" as if that statement can be accepted at face value.

Implicit in your statement is an absurd absence of all of the people in the fossil fuel business who buy politicians - or don't you believe in that reality either?

What? Wait a God Damn minute! Some guy on the Internet is stating that he has seen this personally? Well stop the fucking presses. I had no idea.

First off, I don't mod people when I am commenting, that is not how the discussion should be handled. As far as flaming you, I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. And if I come off as being sarcastic, it's only because you spit in the faces of tens of thousands of highly educated people, all of whom have taken the position that they are convinced to the point of laying their professional credibility on the line to state that they know CO2 does cause climate change.

Let's make sure we understand each other. The overwhelming percentage of people who should be allowed to voice a professional opinion have done so. Yes, a small portion of those people have indicated doubts to varying degrees but the entire scientific community is almost without credible exception stating with a very high level of certainty that mankind has caused this crisis. And no, water levels have not been rising for the last thousand years, not at the rate they are today but you just keep on pointing out irrelevant factoids that you believe back up your already thoroughly debunked bullshit because it's your right. You have the right to be disrespected by every thinking individual when you open your mouth and spout garbage.

And for my sake, I'm just here to exercise my right to tell you that you are completely full of it. You're welcome.

The very idea that every person's opinion must be accorded the same value is so profoundly absurd that is should cause intense physical pain to anyone who believes it.

I can accept my limitations. To my way of thinking, life is too short for anyone to master everything. The fact that I don't have a background which provides me with the level of knowledge necessary to offer any substantive opposing view to climatologists also allows me to accept their determination of the situation. This is not a failing on my part. Instead, I see this as rational and sane as opposed to anyone who believes they have to double check a scientist and based on that belief should have standing in an argument.

No shit! Can you imagine how bad the world be if every single uneducated prick wasn't seen as being as capable of understanding incredibly complex issues on equal footing as those who have studied these issues for decades? I mean, let's face it, your opinion should be every bit as valid as these experts because we all know your gut feeling is without question far more valuable than mountains of accumulated data.

By the way, should you be stricken with cancer, you might shun those very same scientists and make up your own cure based on your beliefs. I'm sure the rest of us here would broadly support your efforts.