Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Free Speech and Climate Change Skeptics & Deniers

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
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.

Scientific data are absolute thinking by definition. You cannot change this. IMO it's the other way round. Not considering scientific data as absolute thinking is dangerous.

FYI I attended something like 12 courses on Coursera about the Climate Change/Global Warming issue.
 
Threatening legal action for those with alternate opinions? Just not good IMO.

Please cite one example of where someone on this thread proposed legal action for proposing an alternative opinion... I looked and found nothing. I agree 100% that legal action against OPINIONS is a terrible idea.

Legal action against people saying crap like this...
- CO2 isn't ~400ppm;
- CO2 hasn't risen >25%,
- Humans haven't contributed sufficient CO2 to the atmosphere to have caused that rise
- CO2 can't alter the energy balance of the Earth.

That's a COMPLETELY different story and those morons should be prosecuted.
 
Treating the oceans as our garbage dump for unwanted stuff seems like a great idea at first--the ocean appears to be so vast, what could adding some [fill in the blank] do? As we're finding out, though, the answer is "quite a lot."

When the ocean absorbs CO2, it acidifies. Higher acidity affects all species to some degree, but some more than others. In particular, corals are 'bleaching', killing vast areas of coral reef and therefore removing valuable habitat for many other species. Here in the New England, the combination of warmer and more acidic water is wreaking havoc in the lobster and shellfish industries. The Maine legislature adopted a joint resolution linking carbon emissions to ocean acidification to impacts on Maine's economy. Prof. Bob Steneck gave a great presentation about ocean acidification to the Maine House that I'd highly recommend as a layman's introduction to the issues, summarizing nicely the academic research.
 
Why??? This population is largely convinced. Wouldn't it be more useful to draft a letter summarizing issue that members and guests could send to their elected representatives?
The presentation is something you could send along, in whole or in part, to people who need to understand the problem. This is a pocketbook issue for coastal states. I think a key way to cut through the FUD sown by deniers is to personalize the risk. Here in Maine, a substantial part of a major industry (fisheries) is built on a single species (the American lobster). This information transforms the debate from vague concerns about CO2 to specific and visible damage being done to my state's economy. This transformation makes it much easier for politicians of every stripe to support steps that reduce Maine's contribution to the problem.
 
Legal action against people saying crap like this...
- CO2 isn't ~400ppm;
- CO2 hasn't risen >25%,
- Humans haven't contributed sufficient CO2 to the atmosphere to have caused that rise
- CO2 can't alter the energy balance of the Earth.
I don't hear a lot of people saying things like that.

I hear people saying the Earth hasn't warmed over the last decade. This makes certain folks lose their minds, though technically it's true. It's cherry picking for marketing/positioning purposes. Do we really want to go around litigating all this nonsense? The only logical human beings who would want that considered would be lawyers IMO.
 
I don't hear a lot of people saying things like that.

I hear people saying the Earth hasn't warmed over the last decade. This makes certain folks lose their minds, though technically it's true. It's cherry picking for marketing/positioning purposes. Do we really want to go around litigating all this nonsense? The only logical human beings who would want that considered would be lawyers IMO.

Of course you are free to agree or disagree with us, but please read the above mentioned presentation by Prof. Steneck concerning the Ocean Acidification issue. Maybe that then you will make up your mind.
 
I don't hear a lot of people saying things like that.

I hear people saying the Earth hasn't warmed over the last decade. This makes certain folks lose their minds, though technically it's true. It's cherry picking for marketing/positioning purposes. Do we really want to go around litigating all this nonsense? The only logical human beings who would want that considered would be lawyers IMO.

I should have added 'The Earth hasn't warmed over the last decade' to the list there's no 'technically' about it... that statement is absolutely 100% false.

heat_content2000m.png
 
That is ocean heat not global average surface temperature. Global average temperature fluctuates as we all know and oil companies cherry pick those fluctuations to make statements like "temperature has not risen over the last ten years" technically true. However every decade has been warmer than the last, so clearly the planet is warming.
 
I note that professional skeptics are objecting to the use by deniers of the term "skeptic". Should we change the name of the thread to "Free Speech and Climate Change Denialism"? See: http://www.csicop.org/news/show/deniers_are_not_skeptics

Public discussion of scientific topics such as global warming is confused by misuse of the term “skeptic.” The Nov 10, 2014, New York Times article “Republicans Vow to Fight EPA and Approve Keystone Pipeline” referred to Sen. James Inhofe as “a prominent skeptic of climate change.” Two days later Scott Horsley of NPR’s Morning Edition called him “one of the leading climate change deniers in Congress.” These are not equivalent statements.

Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we are concerned that the words “skeptic” and “denier” have been conflated by the popular media. Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.

Real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularized by Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Inhofe’s belief that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” is an extraordinary claim indeed. He has never been able to provide evidence for this vast alleged conspiracy. That alone should disqualify him from using the title “skeptic.”

As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is “denial.” Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry.

We are skeptics who have devoted much of our careers to practicing and promoting scientific skepticism. We ask that journalists use more care when reporting on those who reject climate science, and hold to the principles of truth in labeling. Please stop using the word “skeptic” to describe deniers.
 
@Richard

To me it's ok if they want to be called deniers rather than skeptics. But what's the difference? :confused:

Anyway IMO the Moderator is the person who can better judge if it's necessary to change the name of the thread or not.

Thanks Raffy,

The issue relates to the fact that true skeptics (namely scientists) object to the use of the word "skeptic" by deniers (who are not skeptics).

Deniers benefit from the mislabelling, as the term "skeptic" gives them greater credibility than is merited. The reason that the change to the name of the thread is merited, relates to the fact that skepticism never requires free speech protections, whereas those seeking to disseminate denier disinformation may well resort to free speech arguments in an effort to overcome restrictions imposed by laws, such as the misleading advertising laws, on the knowing dissemination of false information.
 
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.

Somewhat true, but the delay was due to a small group of dedicated people (three cold-war
scientists) who were paid to produce psuedo-scientific reports (this started in
the early 1950's).
They were not publishing reports to the populace but to the media and to
legislators. That sufficed to sway public opinion for 20 years.

A very fine book about this is "Merchants of Doubt" by
Oreskes and Conway. It's quite a story. The original
three passed away, but follow-ons are the folks
battling against belief in climate change.
 
Somewhat true, but the delay was due to a small group of dedicated people (three cold-war
scientists) who were paid to produce psuedo-scientific reports (this started in
the early 1950's).
They were not publishing reports to the populace but to the media and to
legislators. That sufficed to sway public opinion for 20 years.

A very fine book about this is "Merchants of Doubt" by
Oreskes and Conway. It's quite a story. The original
three passed away, but follow-ons are the folks
battling against belief in climate change.

Yep... the tobacco industry has been forced to pay out $BILLIONS$ largely because it has come to light that they willingly, knowingly lied AND many of the same people that clouded the reality surrounding risks of smoking are now working to cloud the reality around climate change.

On the subject of skepticism vs denial there is a stark difference between the two... denial is a more appropriate word, climate skeptics largely ceased to exist ~30 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Agree. To this concern see also the Graph of the Temperature Anomaly:

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion - Page 14

My point was that even a stone cold denier who is strictly lying for profit can very easily cherrypick actual scientific data and deliver it in such a way that global warming seems to be a myth. It's pretty easy to take these NOAA global temp figures and say "global warming does not exist", and it would be awfully hard to prosecute given the plateau we're in currently.

201301-201312.png


If anything, legal action weakens the argument because it's as if there's something to hide. There's nothing to hide, the facts should just speak for themselves.
 
If anything, legal action weakens the argument because it's as if there's something to hide. There's nothing to hide, the facts should just speak for themselves.

That's the precise reason we NEED litigation... 'Joe-six-pack' has a hard enough time understanding kWh vs kW. If someone comes along with a slick graph of SURFACE temperatures and intentionally neglects to mention THERMAL CONTENT good 'ol Joe's gonna buy it hook line and sinker. This is where we NEED NOAA to send a nice warning letter telling whatever media outlet is trying to dupe their viewers that they saw what they did, it's illegal and if they do it again it's gonna cost them.

When they do it again, the Justice department hauls them into court and just like every evolution lawsuit before they get their butts kicked by some serious science... son.

Total_Heat_Content_2011_med.jpg


When XYZ media outlet pays NOAA their court-ordered fine NOAA gets to explain how what they did was misleading and deniers get exposed for what they really are... a faith-based free-market cult.