I'm sorry, but if 'liberty' includes the ability to reserve the right to deny science to continue destroying the entire planet, I'm not sure I can support it.
Sounds like liberty for humans, and not for the planet, which we have to live on.
What's the point in free speech if we destroy the place we live in? Who will be left to speak?
Yeah, and if the climate scientists are as wrong as nutritionists were about fats [1][2]...then what? We destroy the world economy for the wrong reason? In ANY complex system, there are trade offs for every choice. And would you starve a billion people to save the planet? Would you quadruple oil prices to cut emissions...hurting the poorest in the process? The point of free speech is that we DEBATE things like this so we can TRY to arrive at the best answer, knowing damn well we still might have to TRY AGAIN if and when we fail.
Sounds like liberty for humans, and not for the planet, which we have to live on.
What's the point in free speech if we destroy the place we live in? Who will be left to speak?