Free Speech and Climate Change Skeptics & Deniers

[TheTalkingMule]

When misinformation can hurt the public the public has a responsibility to act.

In what fashion? Give an example of how the public would act. Are we talking about a politically appointed scientific panel? Would it just fall to federal judges to dole out fines?

Who is to say that we're not 75% renewable in 2040, all this elevated CO2 gets harmlessly absorbed into the oceans and we're back at 280 ppm with no harm done? Unlikely, but not really any less likely than the ultra-catastrophic warming scenarios some folks throw around.

Just because these people are lying to make billions of dollars doesn't mean you can declare a moratorium on what 97% of scientists consider a ridiculous discussion. Far greater than 97% of scientists thought the world was flat not too long ago.

Not as dangerous as ignoring the health of the only planet you have, but it's still a bad idea.

- - - Updated - - -

I can see that they've gotten to you. You are probably a smart person, one who likes to think for himself, and proud yourself in being a sceptic (not with regards to AGW but more in general).

We've discussed one topic of which I am not skeptical. How does that make me a skeptic?

This conversation is about legal action, not the scientific validity of AGW.

 

[Johan]

Free Speech and Skepticism on Climate Change

Who is to say that we're not 75% renewable in 2040, all this elevated CO2 gets harmlessly absorbed into the oceans and we're back at 280 ppm with no harm done? Unlikely, but not really any less likely than the ultra-catastrophic warming scenarios some folks throw around.

Just because these people are lying to make billions of dollars doesn't mean you can declare a moratorium on what 97% of scientists consider a ridiculous discussion. Far greater than 97% of scientists thought the world was flat not too long ago.

Those 97% were not scientists. There was really no science in the dark ages, only superstition and religion. The first ones to claim that the earth was in fact round, circling the sun, were the first scientists. Your arguments are so flawed since you are trying to apply the freedom of opinion and free speech (very important concepts) to the wrong type of issue.

 

[nwdiver]

In what fashion? Give an example of how the public would act. Are we talking about a politically appointed scientific panel? Would it just fall to federal judges to dole out fines?

Who is to say that we're not 75% renewable in 2040, all this elevated CO2 gets harmlessly absorbed into the oceans and we're back at 280 ppm with no harm done? Unlikely, but not really any less likely than the ultra-catastrophic warming scenarios some folks throw around.

Just because these people are lying to make billions of dollars doesn't mean you can declare a moratorium on what 97% of scientists consider a ridiculous discussion. Far greater than 97% of scientists thought the world was flat not too long ago.

Not as dangerous as ignoring the health of the only planet you have, but it's still a bad idea.

I have provided literally dozens of examples.... here are dozens more... if the FDA doesn't have a hard time in an area as nebulous as drug labeling why do you think this would be a challenge with physics?

For specific facts we're not talking 97% or even 99% but 100%.

- No scientist says CO2 isn't ~400ppm;
- No scientist says CO2 hasn't risen >25%,
- No scientist says humans haven't contributed sufficient CO2 to the atmosphere to have caused that rise
- No scientist says CO2 ('alone') doesn't alter the energy balance of the Earth.

What that 3% say is that there are unknown mechanisms that may prevent those 4 things from equalling warming. That is a statement that cannot be proven wrong since we can never know what we don't know... I suppose that would be a second kind of protected speech... the unfalsifiable hypothesis...

 

[bonnie]

I have provided literally dozens of examples.... here are dozens more... if the FDA doesn't have a hard time in an area as nebulous as drug labeling why do you think this would be a challenge with physics?

Not joining the discussion (carefully avoiding this thread!), but I wouldn't use FDA Warning Letters as evidence. Drug labeling is based on scientific data, nothing nebulous about it at all. And Warning Letters are issued after clear evidence that 1) a company is not in compliance with the law (adulterated and/or misbranded product), and 2) the Agency has no reason to believe they will correct without additional oversight.

Warning Letters are not reviewed for scientific accuracy, but rather (in the case of drug products) are issued for either exceeding Agency-approved claims from submissions containing scientific evidence and/or manufacturing excursions that are not in compliance with the law. There is no scientific panel associated with a Warning Letter. Scientific panels are usually involved during the product approval process. You're citing data of failure to comply with the law, not evidence of poor science. And not all issues receive Warning Letters. Many are voluntarily corrected by the manufacturer and the Agency is satisfied with the company's actions. Also note that you can have a product recall without a Warning Letter.

That said, it is not an argument for or against.

 

[nwdiver]

Drug labeling is based on scientific data, nothing nebulous about it at all.

..... what's this?.....

- No scientist says CO2 isn't ~400ppm;
- No scientist says CO2 hasn't risen >25%,
- No scientist says humans haven't contributed sufficient CO2 to the atmosphere to have caused that rise
- No scientist says CO2 ('alone') doesn't alter the energy balance of the Earth.

.... that's about as scientific as it gets.... my reference to drug labeling being 'nebulous' was concerning the placebo / nocebo effects and how different drugs react differently with different people. That's why half the fun of watching drug commercials is listening to all the 'potential' side effects. A clinical trial rarely if ever has results as crystal clear as CO2 is 399.987ppm or Thermal heat content in the S pacific has risen 37.235 Gj or CO2 in 1959 was 315.97ppm or CO2 absorbs light at 17um.

Heck... there have been clinical trials that 'confirmed' the efficiency of drugs like niacin only for a later trial to discover that the previous trial had improper controls and it was the placebo effect.

How photons react with a randomly selected molecule of CO2 is orders of magnitude easier to predict than how a drug will react with a randomly selected human. Yet we feel compelled to fine people for making false statements about the latter but not the former.

The fact that drug labeling IS based on scientific data is why I use it as an example... if a statement is intended to be factual AND it is in direct conflict with the scientific data then it should be illegal. Just like false claims about drugs.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

I'm asking what actions would be taken and against whom. If the way things are today is unacceptable, what are some of the legal actions we could be taking, against whom and on whose authority?

As for 400ppm....I'm of the opinion that it is a huge huge red flag that needs to be addressed urgently by any reasonable means. I've annoyed more than a few acquaintances screaming it in their faces. That doesn't mean it's not possible that we shift to 100% renewables within 30 years, all the excess CO2 is absorbed, and the Earth keeps on spinning. We simply don't(and really can't) know enough to justify silencing the oil industry in such a "big brother" fashion.

We all seem to have varying opinions on this so let's just let it be. It's never going to happen, so it's moot anyway.

Pennsylvania's old gas puppet governor leaves and our new pro-renewables governor is inaugurated in two weeks. Let us celebrate incremental progress!

 

[Johan]

I'm asking what actions would be taken and against whom. If the way things are today is unacceptable, what are some of the legal actions we could be taking, against whom and on whose authority?

Against whom: Organizations, and their financiers, that systematically spread obvious lies and disinformation regarding man-made climate change with the intent of misleading the public for the economic gain of those financing these organizations.
What actions: The actions that should be taken would be legal ones: prosecution, fines, cease and desist orders.
On the authority of whom: These actions should be taken on the authority of relevant organizations such as for example in the the US the Environmental Protection Agency.

 

[tomas]

OK, gotta weigh in. Cigarette smoking did not become unacceptable to most as a result of lawsuits. It was a tidal shift of public opinion. Same has happened with regards to same sex marriage. 30 years ago, you would not have expected the majority backing that exists today. I'm not lumping these things together, as they are not related. One reflects an increasing public commitment to health, the other a rise in libertarian philosophies. But both are examples of how dramatically public opinion can shift over a couple of decades, and how public policy will generally follow that shift.

Lawsuits to punish the deniers or profit-motivated liars will not accomplish a thing except fatten some lawyers' pockets, and give offending businesses another obstacle to navigate. Punishments are usually so trivial in the scheme of things that they do not affect the market.

Public sentiment is what will drive the legislation and public policy that may or may not address climate change in time.

So, if you were to ask me whether I want to invest a dime (or emotional capital) towards punitive lawsuits... I'd say no. Not that I would not like to see those who fabricate or lie about this serious issue punished. It's just that effort, emotion, money are much more productively spent promoting public appreciation of the imperative and recruiting more advocates from all camps and walks of life.

 

[RichardC]

I'm asking what actions would be taken and against whom. If the way things are today is unacceptable, what are some of the legal actions we could be taking, against whom and on whose authority?

This question is being addressed in a separate thread: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/39978-Climate-Change-Legal-Action

We simply don't(and really can't) know enough to justify silencing the oil industry in such a "big brother" fashion.

If you review the climate change thread you will see that we do in fact know more than enough to justify silencing the oil industry. What's more the oil industry knows that the evidence more than justifies their silence. Their public recognition of the reality of manmade climate change may be viewed as reflecting the results of their assessment of the risks posed by publicly denying the certainty of the science. As reflected in the following statement from Shell (and in particular the highlighted passages), the uncertainty that you repeatedly refer to does not exist: http://www.shell.com/global/future-...es/urging-action-to-fight-climate-change.html

The climate is changing and human activity appears to be to blame, yet people still question the scientific evidence. Why do you think that is? Can there be any doubt? There is no doubt. This is basic physics and chemistry that has been known for 150 years. The relationship between the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and the surface temperature of the planet was established by the physicist John Tyndall in 1864 and the physical chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
I think that people argue about the science because it has huge implications for the way we live our lives. That’s what people are struggling to come to grips with, and perhaps it’s human nature to question the science rather than look for solutions.
Fossil fuels, land use change, and the manufacture of cement have contributed to the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. Coal has been a huge factor because even though it produces nearly twice as much CO2 as natural gas it is still being burnt in increasing quantities because it is abundant and cheap.

Many scientists believe the effects will be hard to manage if society fails to keep global temperature rises below 2°C compared to the pre-industrial era. Can we succeed?

The problem is the total amount of carbon that accumulates in our atmosphere over time. To simply reduce the rate of emissions isn’t good enough because the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere will still rise. Man-made emissions must fall to nearly zero and that’s tremendously difficult to achieve.
Shell’s future energy scenarios don’t see the 2°C objective being met. However, they do suggest that you can bring emissions down to nearly zero within this century and effectively stop the further build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere.

What lies ahead if people don’t deal effectively with the problem?

The one thing we will collectively regret most is that sea levels will just keep on rising.
Many people don’t realise that the climate system is very sensitive and that small changes in global temperature have very big impacts on sea levels. For example, during the last ice age when global temperatures dropped by only 4-5°C, sea levels fell by 135 metres.

See also: http://climatenexus.org/learn/private-sector/fossil-fuel-companies#Support for scientific consensus

Support for the Scientific Consensus

No major non-national oil company now denies the connection between carbon emissions and dangerous warming. The oil companies’ statements on climate change show a common acceptance of the science. These companies include Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Total and Hess.
Their shift demonstrates the strength of the scientific consensus, especially in light of the fact that many of these companies previously funded climate change denial organizations like the now-disbanded Global Climate Coalition, Greening Earth Society, Natural Resources Stewardship Council and American Energy Freedom Center. While there is no way to know for certain what finally changed their approach, the sheer magnitude of scientific evidence has pushed oil companies and even the industry lobby group American Petroleum Institute (API) to acknowledge the reality of human-caused climate change. As all the major public oil companies above have stated, there is now no doubt – indeed, it is counterproductive to deny – that climate change is a critical problem affecting everyone and everything around the world.

 

[nwdiver]

We all seem to have varying opinions on this so let's just let it be. It's never going to happen, so it's moot anyway.

I'm sure the skeptics in 1890 thought the same thing about the snake oil salesmen that were infesting their towns. Then the FDA came along and it was put up or shut up. I agree that analogy may not be perfect put it is a federal agency prosecuting people for saying things that are factually incorrect...

In terms of 'never gonna happen' on the federal level that might be true but I bet a more progressive state like Vermont could get a law passed. That would be interesting. Even if the lawsuit is difficult to prosecute due to interstate commerce laws just getting a ruling against deniers would be useful PR.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Who is to say that we're not 75% renewable in 2040, all this elevated CO2 gets harmlessly absorbed into the oceans and we're back at 280 ppm with no harm done? Unlikely, but not really any less likely than the ultra-catastrophic warming scenarios some folks throw around.

Not unlikely, impossible. CO2, unlike other GHGs, manages to stay for a loooooong period in the atmosphere (1 century).

You see that you yourself are victim of misinformation spread around about the Climate Change/Global Warming issue? Not only this you are victim of such misinformation double. In fact from your words it looks like if the Climate Change/Global Warming issue is a problem that can be easily solved. It's not like this. The efforts that are being done at Global Level have the purpose only to put a limit to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2050 when we will have (if we are lucky) 450 ppm of CO2. But we could also have 550 ppm in 2050. At that point the Climate Change/Global Warming issue will not be solved, maybe that we will be forced to use geoengineering......

Now do you understand why we started this thread?

 

[RichardC]

OK, gotta weigh in. Cigarette smoking did not become unacceptable to most as a result of lawsuits. It was a tidal shift of public opinion. Same has happened with regards to same sex marriage. 30 years ago, you would not have expected the majority backing that exists today. I'm not lumping these things together, as they are not related. One reflects an increasing public commitment to health, the other a rise in libertarian philosophies. But both are examples of how dramatically public opinion can shift over a couple of decades, and how public policy will generally follow that shift.

Lawsuits to punish the deniers or profit-motivated liars will not accomplish a thing except fatten some lawyers' pockets, and give offending businesses another obstacle to navigate. Punishments are usually so trivial in the scheme of things that they do not affect the market.

Public sentiment is what will drive the legislation and public policy that may or may not address climate change in time.

So, if you were to ask me whether I want to invest a dime (or emotional capital) towards punitive lawsuits... I'd say no. Not that I would not like to see those who fabricate or lie about this serious issue punished. It's just that effort, emotion, money are much more productively spent promoting public appreciation of the imperative and recruiting more advocates from all camps and walks of life.

I strongly disagree. The lawsuits attacking the cigarette companies' lies about the dangers posed by their products was key to the shift in public sentiment. As with global warming, the scientific evidence was clear for decades (for example, see the 1957 Statement of the US Surgeon General), the government further intervened in the 1960's to prohibit advertising and to mandate health warnings, yet despite this information and these limitations young people continued to take up smoking in massive numbers and smoking was not socially unacceptable. In fact I recall that smoking was still permitted in university classes in the 1980's.

As subsequent litigation has made clear, notwithstanding the restrictions on advertising and health warnings, members of the tobacco industry had engaged many of the same groups now spreading disinformation about climate change, to spread disinformation and create doubt about the harmful effects of cigarette smoke. See: http://publichealthlawcenter.org/to...ion/united-states-v-philip-morris-doj-lawsuit

United States v. Philip Morris (D.O.J. Lawsuit)

Overview

In 1999, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) sued several major tobacco companies for fraudulent and unlawful conduct and reimbursement of tobacco-related medical expenses. The circuit court judge dismissed the DOJ’s claim for reimbursement, but allowed the DOJ to bring its claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The DOJ then sued on the ground that the tobacco companies had engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to (1) mislead the public about the risks of smoking, (2) mislead the public about the danger of secondhand smoke; (3) misrepresent the addictiveness of nicotine, (4) manipulate the nicotine delivery of cigarettes, (5) deceptively market cigarettes characterized as “light” or “low tar,” while knowing that those cigarettes were at least as hazardous as full flavored cigarettes, (6) target the youth market; and (7) not produce safer cigarettes.
In February 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that disgorgement of illegal profits, a remedy aimed at past violations, is not a valid remedy since it does not prevent or restrain future RICO violations. In July 2005, the circuit court granted health group organizations, including the Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, motion to intervene in the lawsuit for the purpose of being heard on the issue of the permissible and appropriate remedies that the court should order.

Outcome

On August 17, 2006 Judge Kessler issued a 1,683 page opinion holding the tobacco companies liable for violating RICO by fraudulently covering up the health risks associated with smoking and for marketing their products to children. “As set forth in these Final Proposed Findings of Fact, substantial evidence establishes that Defendants have engaged in and executed – and continue to engage in and execute – a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO.”
The tobacco companies filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The court granted the motion, and on May 22, 2009 the three-judge panel unanimously upheld Judge Kessler’s decision finding the tobacco companies liable. The court upheld most of the ordered remedies, but denied additional remedies sought by public health interveners and the Department of Justice. The court also found that the First Amendment does not protect fraudulent statements, stating that “Defendants knew of their falsity at the time and made the statements with the intent to deceive. Thus, we are not dealing with accidental falsehoods, or sincere attempts to persuade.” The court dismissed the defendants’ argument that their statements were protected by the First Amendment.

It was not until the tobacco industry was successfully sued (and faced multi-billion dollar punitive damages awards) for its continuing and intentional misrepresentations about the health effects of tobacco that the tide was turned and smoking became clearly unacceptable.

See also the following comments of Robert Kennedy Jr.: http://ecowatch.com/2014/10/01/jailing-climate-deniers-robert-kennedy-jr/

I do, however, believe that corporations which deliberately, purposefully, maliciously and systematically sponsor climate lies should be given the death penalty. This can be accomplished through an existing legal proceeding known as “charter revocation.” State Attorneys General can invoke this remedy whenever corporations put their profit-making before the “public welfare.”

In 1998, New York State’s Republican Attorney General, Dennis Vacco successfully invoked the “corporate death penalty” to revoke the charters of two non-profit tax-exempt tobacco industry front groups, The Tobacco Institute and the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR). The two groups Vacco annulled were creatures of a decade long campaign funded principally by tobacco giant, Brown & Williamson to avoid costly health regulations that would diminish the profit margins of an industry that was killing one out of five of its customers. “Doubt is our Product,” explained Brown & Williamson’s notorious 1969 memo outlining the reptilian communications strategy that hatched its front groups.
Vacco complained that these companies were “[feeding] the public a pack of lies in an underhanded effort to promote smoking so as to addict America’s kids.” Attorney General Vacco seized their assets and distributed them to public institutions.

Laws in every state maintain that companies that fail to comply with prescribed standards of corporate behavior may be either dissolved or, in the case of foreign corporations, lose their rights to operate within that state’s borders. These rules can be quite expansive and, in contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ****recent rulings on campaign finance law, companies, under state laws, enjoy far less protection than human beings. New York, for example, prescribes corporate death whenever a company fails to “serve the common good” and “to cause no harm.”

The differences in public attitudes and political action toward climate change between the EU (which is much less tolerant of lying to the public under the guise of free speech) and North America, would appear to confirm that our permitting deniers to spread disinformation without limitation is quite effective at blocking the required changes at both the public and the political levels. We are now thirty years past the clear scientific warning on climate change and are not even close to making the progress on this issue necessary to leave the planet in a habitable form.

 

[nwdiver]

OK, gotta weigh in. Cigarette smoking did not become unacceptable to most as a result of lawsuits.

Hmmm.... really? It started becoming unacceptable ~1970.... the same year as the Public Health Cigarette smoking act... when tobacco companies were forced to tell the truth right on their product... coincidence?


Looks like we need some of this...

 

[tomas]

Hmmm.... really? It started becoming unacceptable ~1970.... the same year as the Public Health Cigarette smoking act... when tobacco companies were forced to tell the truth right on their product... coincidence?

But public smoking bans didn't get momentum until the late 80s (e.g., restaurants, planes), UK astonished me by banning in pubs in the 00's, and CVS set great precedent and stopped selling in the current decade. You many be able to draw a direct line back to the smoking act and the warnings on packages... but I think it is tenuous. Same response re the tenuous line to the lawsuits, Richard... I do not agree that they directly caused the change in public sentiment. In fact, quite the reverse, I'd say the lawsuits were successful because public sentiment was already moving.

Also, particularly in todays political environment - where exactly the people who need to be convinced on this issue have a deepening distrust of government - a government or courts driven approach on climate change could be counter-productive.

Either way, fine... those who want to invest in lawsuits to invoke change may do so. I prefer to go to public sentiment by more direct routes and pad less legal pockets along the way. We're all fighting the same battle, so room for multiple opinions and tactics.

 

[ggr]

Those 97% were not scientists. There was really no science in the dark ages, only superstition and religion. The first ones to claim that the earth was in fact round, circling the sun, were the first scientists. Your arguments are so flawed since you are trying to apply the freedom of opinion and free speech (very important concepts) to the wrong type of issue.

Supporting your point, Eratosthenes not only proved the earth was round, but measured its radius surprisingly accurately using the geometry of shadows.

 

[RichardC]

Hmmm.... really? It started becoming unacceptable ~1970.... the same year as the Public Health Cigarette smoking act... when tobacco companies were forced to tell the truth right on their product... coincidence?


Looks like we need some of this...

View attachment 67942

Agreed, that lines up well with the remedies ordered in the RICO case against the tobacco companies:

• General Injunctions – The tobacco companies must refrain from the following activities: engaging in racketeering activities; managing or reconstituting the Council for Tobacco Research, the Tobacco Institute, the Council for Indoor Air Research (third-party front groups used by the industry to perpetuate their racketeering activities) or any successor entities; or making false statements about cigarettes. ...
Remedies in Litigation:
• Corrective Communications – The court ordered the tobacco companies to disseminate through newspapers, television, package onserts, retail displays and corporate websites, corrective statements about addiction, the adverse health effects of smoking, the adverse health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke, ...

See: http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sit...rview-2013.pdf

The corresponding remedy here would permanently shut down the network of denier astroturf organizations and cause their funders to have to publish complete retractions based on the known science (as determined by the IPCC, national academies of science, etc.).

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Not unlikely, impossible. CO2, unlike other GHGs, manages to stay for a loooooong period in the atmosphere (1 century).

See, it's that kind of absolute thinking that is a bit dangerous and when you start talking about silencing other interested parties(not matter how nefarious), I get even more concerned. When I'm correct I don't worry about silencing haters/deniers/misinformed, because I'm correct. I'm not a climate scientist, you also are not a climate scientist(that I can tell). Speaking in absolutes about things you don't 100% understand? Threatening legal action for those with alternate opinions? Just not good IMO.

If we're at 75% renewable by 2040 oceanic absorption and CO2 levels heading back toward historical norms in not nearly an impossibility. I have a few NOAA/NASA folks who I will run this scenario by and see what they think. The reason we'll be "lucky" to be at 450ppm by then is the monumental effort required to transition the world's energy sources, but if something like functioning cold fusion were to pop up right now in China things might be different by 2040. As of today, people see oil use wildly expanding as China/India/Brazil/etc start pushing into the middle class, but with solar so cheap I don't see it going that way.

Germany went from 2% solar to 8% in an absolute flash while driving hardware costs below the cost of pretty much any other form of production. Tesla is putting out by far the best passenger vehicle available and happens to be pure EV. What exactly does the movement to renewable energy have to gain by trying to silence oil companies? Your energy is much better spent elsewhere.

And people stopped smoking because it was no longer cool and then got wildly expensive. You guys think it was the warning labels? Really?

 

[jerry33]

And people stopped smoking because it was no longer cool and then got wildly expensive. You guys think it was the warning labels? Really?

I think it was more the "no smoking here" signs and the removal of advertisements. As people were unable to smoke all day long at their job, they became less addicted. It didn't hurt that you no longer see every TV and movie star smoke at every opportunity in their films and shows.

 

[RichardC]

.. Threatening legal action for those with alternate opinions? Just not good IMO ...

No one is proposing legal actions against alternative opinions. The focus of legal attention is intentionally misleading representations made to advance commercial interests by misleading the public with respect to a factual matters which are provable in a court of law.

... If we're at 75% renewable by 2040 oceanic absorption and CO2 levels heading back toward historical norms in not nearly an impossibility. ...

Please provide some peer-reviewed scientific support for this postulation (which represents a departure from my understanding of the scientific consensus).

... What exactly does the movement to renewable energy have to gain by trying to silence oil companies? ...

Four points in response:

• First, the oil companies publicly acknowledge the reality of climate change. They are not being silent and they are not denying climate change. The oil companies' acknowledgement is evidence that there is no such thing as skepticism with respect to climate change (only deniers - who for the most part are being funded through dark money pools).
• Second, the entire society, the planet, our children and grandchildren all benefit directly by the removal of the denialist disinformation which is currently an impediment to intelligent, evidence-based action to address climate change. Manmade climate change is recognized by every national science academy and every international organization from the World Bank to the International Energy Agency as a very urgent and serious problem which demands immediate and effective action.
• Third, the trouble and massive expense that the denier organizations are going to in order disseminate factually incorrect information and to conceal the identity of the funders of this disinformation campaign is compelling evidence that the campaign is in fact causing much harm and needs to be stopped immediately.
• Fourth, since there is no benefit whatsoever associated with the dissemination of disinformation by dark money astroturf organizations, there is substantial harm, and, in my view, such conduct would appear to violate misleading advertising laws, why should it be permitted?

... And people stopped smoking because it was no longer cool and then got wildly expensive. You guys think it was the warning labels? Really?

Then why is smoking still wildly (and increasingly) popular in countries, such as China, which have not yet implemented similar warming labels and legal restrictions?

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Please provide some peer-reviewed scientific support for this postulation (which represents a departure from my understanding of the scientific consensus).

A quick google and a NOAA link tells me, "Air-sea gas exchange is a physio-chemical process, primarily controlled by the air-sea difference in gas concentrations and the exchange coefficient, which determines how quickly a molecule of gas can move across the ocean-atmosphere boundary. It takes about one year to equilibrate CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the surface ocean with atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB]..."

Now, I'm not sure where the equilibrium lies, but I do know that 90% of the CO2 we've dumped into the atmosphere is now in the planet's oceans. It doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me that if the CO2 pump were abruptly cut to 30% of today's levels because we had widespread renewables usage, the atmospheric concentration could be expected to drop from 400ppm to somewhere around 320ppm which had been about the historical ceiling.

I'm not saying that's remotely likely, what I'm saying is that we simply don't know what would happen in that scenario. We have very little real understanding of long term climate an how the planet reacts to and handles large amounts of CO2, or how the planet would react to an abrupt end to emissions.

Concentrations are absurdly high and when that has happened in the past, sea levels have logically risen with temperature. We're about 5 minutes into this insane CO2 dump and don't really know much about what we're doing to the planet or how it would react. Given how gray this topic is, I think it's illogical to say anyone is "right" or "wrong". I like the Musk approach. He said we're essentially taking a major risk that we don't need to be taking.

Then why is smoking still wildly (and increasingly) popular in countries, such as China, which have not yet implemented similar warming labels and legal restrictions?

It's still cool to smoke in China and more importantly it's very cheap. Let us also not forget we have the luxury of being able to substitute massively unhealthy amounts of sugary carbs to quell our anxiety, depression and hunger. Not so much in the 3rd World.