It's this kind of rhetoric that gives people pause: to debate the debatable doesn't make you a traitor or the committer of crimes against humanity. There's no n

It's this kind of rhetoric that gives people pause: to debate the debatable doesn't make you a traitor or the committer of crimes against humanity. There's no need for such rhetoric if your position is solid and the facts speak for themselves. The existence of such rhetoric is prima facie evidence that your position is, at best, shaky. What's worse is that this kind of incendiary talk is more indicative of a religious discussion than a scientific one as is the expectation of blind faith (in this case being the deliberate obstruction of attempts to get raw data and the refusal to publish such data). At this point a constitutional lawyer could make a First Amendment argument that the US Federal government should be banned from saying anything about global warming on the grounds of the Establishment clause.