[thrill]

Well, in reference to the subject of this particular movie, one "side" of the "conversation" is frequently in the news as wanting to put nonbelievers of their view of the issue in prison. That might tend to create some animosity.

[city41]

Can you give some examples? I have never heard of this.

[kbutler]

https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+change+deniers+%28de...

Death penalty, tried for crimes against humanity, jail, fines for disagreeing...

I don't think any of these are mainstream ideas yet, but there was failed bill in the California legislature to have the AG sue those who "spread disinformation" on climate change. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/2/calif-bill-pr...

Can't reply to responder below - but I am not your research assistant. The parent asked a question, I showed where they could find answers. The google search above links to a professor speculating on death penalty for skeptics, and others speculating on trying them for crimes against humanity.

For spokesmen, Al Gore didn't mention jail, but said we should "punish" and politicians should "pay the price" for differing perceptions (and note that even climate change advocates who are not extremists get branded as "deniers").

http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/originals/chi-sxsw-al-...

""" Former Vice President Al Gore on Friday called on SXSW attendees to punish climate-change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting “accepted science.” ... we need to put a price on denial in politics """

[SippinLean]

Re: your edit:

>but I am not your research assistant

Correct. Also correct: you need to cite specific examples to back up the claim, which you have not done. "A professor speculating" and the nebulous "others" are, again, not in such a prominent position as to speak for their "side" as a whole.

>For spokesmen, Al Gore didn't mention jail

Correct, which would make this not an example of "wanting to put nonbelievers of their view of the issue in prison," OP's only claim.

[kbutler]

>>but I am not your research assistant >Correct.

Glad we cleared that up.

>Also correct: you need to cite specific examples to back up the claim, which you have not done.

Hmm. See above.

I chose to contribute to the conversation by pointing to examples of behavior that poison the discussion, in the spirit of thrill's comment.

I personally thought "death penalty" and "war crimes" were stronger examples than just "prison".

I did not attempt nor do I need to prove the ancestor literally correct, but just for fun, here are a couple of links that do - you'll have to decide if Bill Nye and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. meet your criteria as "prominent" (which was not in thrill's post - just that they are in the news).

Rfk, jr. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/23/robert-kennedy... Koch brothers should be in prison in the Hague

Bill Nye http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/14/bill-nye-open-... compares it to jailing guys from Enron

Examples, plural, specific, people in the news claiming their opponents should be imprisoned.

Good enough for me.

[SippinLean]

I agree, you did not prove them correct, indeed that was my only point.

Now you have presented new evidence. Simply linking to a Google search was not sufficient after all?

The RFK quote gets thrown around a lot, in context it's much more clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41yJTxrPFhM

He says the Koch brothers are treasonous, and for that reason should be arrested. He goes so far as to clarify that there is no law politicians can be punished under (the opposite of the ancestor's claim).

Bill Nye compares them to the guys at Enron. He does not suggest jailing them.

[kbutler]

SippinLean> The RFK quote gets thrown around a lot

Thrill> one "side" of the "conversation" is frequently in the news as wanting to put nonbelievers of their view of the issue in prison

Yeah, what you both said.

(And Rfk said the Koch's "treason" was co2 "pollution", and he wished there were a law, which pretty much matches thrill's statement)

So we can agree that the idea is "thrown around a lot", even apparently by someone prominent enough to be recognized as a spokesman, but (thankfully or regrettably) there isn't yet a law to enforce it.

[SippinLean]

That is a google search. Do you have evidence that people in such a prominent position as to speak for their "side" as a whole are "frequently in the news" wanting to put people in prison?

Much more easily found are examples of the other "side" making such (climate-change-denying) claims.

The one example provided was a proposal that would allow someone to sue another party, not "put nonbelievers in prison".