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.
The problems are:

A. How to distinguish the Culpable Deniers from the Innocent Deniers and Faux Skeptics.

B. How to prevent these laws from being used against the Climate Acceptors by the
Culpable Deniers.

Hi Jerry,

In response to A: The laws of most countries make the conduct of Culpable Deniers illegal. In Canada, misrepresentations may result in criminal, civil or regulatory proceedings. Using the criminal law provision (Section 52 of the Competition Act, reproduced below) as an example, the requirements are that the misleading representation:

  1. be false or misleading in a material respect;
  2. be made knowingly or recklessly; and
  3. be made for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest.
In response to B: The representations of climate scientists and the IPCC (which have been accepted by every science academy on the planet and all major oil companies) would have to be proven to be false and misleading (which is clearly not going to happen).

Excerpts of Section 52 of the Competition Act and from the Competition Bureau website on misleading advertising follow:

False or misleading representations
  • 52. (1) No person shall, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the supply or use of a product or for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest, by any means whatever, knowingly or recklessly make a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect.
  • Marginal note:proof of certain matters not required
    (1.1) For greater certainty, in establishing that subsection (1) was contravened, it is not necessary to prove that
    • (a) any person was deceived or misled;
    • (b) any member of the public to whom the representation was made was within Canada; or
    • (c) the representation was made in a place to which the public had access.
The Competition Act provides criminal and civil regimes to address false or misleading representations.

Section 52
of the Act is a criminal provision. It prohibits knowingly or recklessly making, or permitting the making of, a representation to the public, in any form whatever, that is false or misleading in a material respect. Under this provision, it is not necessary to demonstrate that any person was deceived or misled; that any member of the public to whom the representation was made was within Canada; or that the representation was made in a place to which the public had access. Subsection 52(4) directs that the general impression conveyed by a representation, as well as its literal meaning, be taken into account when determining whether or not the representation is false or misleading in a material respect.
Any person who contravenes section 52 is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of up to $200,000 and/or imprisonment up to one year on summary conviction, or to fines in the discretion of the court and/or imprisonment up to 14 years upon indictment.

Paragraph 74.01(1)(a)
of the Act is a civil provision. It prohibits the making, or the permitting of the making, of a representation to the public, in any form whatever, that is false or misleading in a material respect. Under this provision, it is not necessary to demonstrate that any person was deceived or misled; that any member of the public to whom the representation was made was within Canada; or that the representation was made in a place to which the public had access. Subsection 74.03(5) directs that the general impression conveyed by a representation, as well as its literal meaning, be taken into account when determining whether or not the representation is false or misleading in a material respect.
If a court determines that a person has engaged in conduct contrary to paragraph 74.01(1)(a), it may order the person not to engage in such conduct, to publish a corrective notice, to pay an administrative monetary penalty and/or to pay restitution to purchasers. When the court orders the payment of administrative monetary penalties, on first occurrence, individuals are subject to penalties of up to $750,000 and corporations, to penalties of up to $10,000,000. For subsequent orders, the penalties increase to a maximum of $1,000,000 in the case of an individual and $15,000,000 in the case of a corporation. The court also has the power to order interim injunctions to freeze assets in certain cases.

Additional information on
Restitution Orders and Interim Injunctions to Freeze Assets
In order to proceed on a criminal track both of the following criteria must be satisfied: (1) there must be clear and compelling evidence suggesting that the accused knowingly or recklessly made a false or misleading representation to the public. An example of such evidence is the continuation of a practice by the accused after complaints have been made by consumers directly to the accused; and (2) the Bureau must also be satisfied that criminal prosecution would be in the public interest. More information on the choice of track is available from the following publication Misleading Representations and Deceptive Marketing Practices: Choice of Criminal or Civil Track Under the Competition Act.

- - - Updated - - -

Part of being scientifically literate is understanding that the full scope of all knowledge is beyond individual knowability. A Cardiologist, although a doctor... must still consult with an oncologist if he thinks he has cancer and vice versa. This anti-science crap needs to stop. Parents listening to internet blogs instead of their pediatricians as to what vaccines their children should get is killing people. Politicians pandering to lobbyists instead of acting on climate science is killing people.

The monsters that are intentionally muddying the waters need to be prosecuted AND people need to accept the fact that there will always be someone that knows more about something than you do... If it's outside your field; get an expert. The consensus may not be infallible but its far more likely to be right than wrong.

No one is calling for the formation of the 'thought police'. We just need A LOT more accountability as to what is publicly advocated.

Well said!
 
At the risk of being seen to censor a thread about free speech, I've moved ten posts that crossed the line on personal attacks and rebuttals thereto to snippiness . Please, let's keep the discussion about ideas, not about individuals.

Labeling people has nothing to do with free speech, even kindergarteners are not allowed to do that, so that snip was very well placed. If people wish to be treated as adults, then they better behave as adults. It seems that just one careless and misplaced but hurtful word can easily escalate into war of words.

Here is Kierkegaard on labeling people: "When you label me, you negate me"

Perhaps this episode illustrates quite effectively that free speech has its limits, for the benefit of all involved.

It is difficult to navigate the wide blurry border between free speech, being truthful and hurling unpalatable semi-truths into someone's face or sometimes, like in this instance, hurling insults.

Even when a person feels certain that they have truth on their side, that does not necessarily translate into full right to deny someone else's different world view. It is my perception that many posters on these threads feel justified in squashing opposing views, because the opposing views are wrong and threatening for survival.

I wish it was that simple. Sometimes it might be, but most often it is not. Perhaps our duty to each other trumps our duty to the truth. That translates into tolerance, patience, education, not punishment.

If the science is the determining factor of what the truth is, how can we effectively, using consistent logic, reconcile the role of religion in society? Religion is so pervasive and omnipresent that if we wish to eliminate it in a similar manner due to a lack of scientific evidence, we may as well wipe out the world with it.

If the science is not the universal truth denominator, then we may never have a universal agreement on what the truth is. If we disagree on truth and are aware that we all may live and coexist with different world views, then we need something else than truth to underwrite our mutual relations. That brings us to respect and tolerance. If we position ourselves to respect and tolerate others, even when they live in a different world view, we may have a sustainable framework that is acceptable to all.

Infringements (trespassing, damages) can be effectively handled by the existing social structures.
 
And it would sure be nice if the spirit of the law was carried out, but I'm not hopeful. What's likely to happen is that the defendant will use one of the 3% of scientists to show that they were not making reckless statements, or knowingly misleading anyone. The law is based on proof, not truth, so the party with the most skilled legal team almost always wins. And if it gets as far as the Supreme Court, which is now packed with corporate shills, it's likely to get an unfavourable ruling.
 
And it would sure be nice if the spirit of the law was carried out, but I'm not hopeful. What's likely to happen is that the defendant will use one of the 3% of scientists to show that they were not making reckless statements, or knowingly misleading anyone.

That 3% is only relevant if they publish conflicting papers... you need facts to publish a paper... there are no conflicting papers.... weird.
 
And it would sure be nice if the spirit of the law was carried out, but I'm not hopeful. What's likely to happen is that the defendant will use one of the 3% of scientists to show that they were not making reckless statements, or knowingly misleading anyone. The law is based on proof, not truth, so the party with the most skilled legal team almost always wins. And if it gets as far as the Supreme Court, which is now packed with corporate shills, it's likely to get an unfavourable ruling.

The 3% reference is a red herring, as 100% of national science academies, scientific associations, national governments, etc. agree with the scientific consensus. The evidence for manmade climate change is much stronger than was the evidence of harm from smoking at the time that plaintiffs started to win cases against the tobacco companies.
 
If the science is not the universal truth denominator, then we may never have a universal agreement on what the truth is.

This is the main point. People not accepting well established scientific results on the Climate Change/Global Warming issue are only putting their own interests before the interests of the Earth and of the future of mankind IMO.
 
Last edited:
So where do I report for my re-education? Something must be wrong, because blog posts like the following make me want to look more closely at the data and help me to draw my own conclusions:
How Much Have Adjustments Contributed To Global Warming? | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

Under this thread's Jail-the-Misbelievers Act, this guy would unfortunately be in jail and I guess I would be, too. How can I line up for my government-mandated brainwashing - err, I mean, science education?
 
So where do I report for my re-education? Something must be wrong, because blog posts like the following make me want to look more closely at the data and help me to draw my own conclusions:
How Much Have Adjustments Contributed To Global Warming? | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

Under this thread's Jail-the-Misbelievers Act, this guy would unfortunately be in jail and I guess I would be, too. How can I line up for my government-mandated brainwashing - err, I mean, science education?

I gave a look to the article that you mentioned. To be honest I didn't understand very much it (maybe it's because of my bad English). But in the law-regulated-control-of-media-against-misinformation-about-the-Climate Change-Global Warming-issue system that I dream yes the person that published it would have gone to jail if he published it reporting facts that have not a scientific validation.

We should consider that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 400 ppm today, that this never happened in the last 800.000 years and that in 2050 we will have a CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of 450 ppm in the best case. In fact we could have also 550 ppm in 2050. So the situation is serious and also dangerous. In dangerous situations extreme solutions are needed.
 
I gave a look to the article that you mentioned. To be honest I didn't understand very much it (maybe it's because of my bad English). But in the law-regulated-control-of-media-against-misinformation-about-the-Climate Change-Global Warming-issue system that I dream yes the person that published it would have gone to jail if he published it reporting facts that have not a scientific validation.

We should consider that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 400 ppm today, that this never happened in the last 800.000 years and that in 2050 we will have a CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of 450 ppm in the best case. In fact we could have also 550 ppm in 2050. So the situation is serious and also dangerous. In dangerous situations extreme solutions are needed.

And this is how we get to 1984.

Sorry, Raffy. But a world where we send people to jail for having a sincere differing opinion (not to make a profit), is not a world where I choose to live. We will never big jails big enough to put all the people who disagree. Then what?

Jailing people will never be the solution.
 
And this is how we get to 1984.

Sorry, Raffy. But a world where we send people to jail for having a sincere differing opinion (not to make a profit), is not a world where I choose to live. We will never big jails big enough to put all the people who disagree. Then what?

Jailing people will never be the solution.

Bonnie you got the main point and first of all I would like to say that I completely agree with your post that is 100% correct. In fact we all can have different opinions also on the Climate Change/Global Warming issue.

But when it comes to the media having so much power to bias public opinion anybody has got to be precise about the Climate Change/Global Warming issue and people cannot spread misinformation (sometimes also for personal economical/political interests). So all the facts that anybody is reporting on the media about such an issue should have a scientific validation not to mislead public opinion otherwise he will be punished. When people will start to go to jail and/or be fined for misinformation about the Climate Change/Global Warming issue we will have not anymore misinformation on such issue (or much less) and the public opinion will be better addressed on such a delicate matter IMO.
 
When people will start to go to jail and/or be fined for misinformation about the Climate Change/Global Warming issue we will have not anymore misinformation on such issue (or much less) and the public opinion will be better addressed on such a delicate matter IMO.

That hasn't worked all that well for any other problem, has it? Fining corporations is different than sending people to jail. But I see a great deal of 'send them to jail' in this thread.
 
Bonnie you got the main point and first of all I would like to say that I completely agree with your post that is 100% correct. In fact we all can have different opinions also on the Climate Change/Global Warming issue.

But when it comes to the media having so much power to bias public opinion anybody has got to be precise about the Climate Change/Global Warming issue and people cannot spread misinformation (sometimes also for personal economical/political interests). So all the facts that anybody is reporting on the media about such an issue should have a scientific validation not to mislead public opinion otherwise he will be punished. When people will start to go to jail and/or be fined for misinformation about the Climate Change/Global Warming issue we will have not anymore misinformation on such issue (or much less) and the public opinion will be better addressed on such a delicate matter IMO.

So it's OK to have the opinion that, say "manmade climate change is non-existent" but if you publically promoto this opinion you go to jail? Because there will be little scientific validation to be found.
 
Maybe you are right Bonnie. But it's because some of us are really angry for the damages that the Climate Change/Global Warming issue is causing to the environment. I would like to mention in particular the Ocean Acidification issue caused by the high concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Saying people will be sent to jail, because you're angry, does not help your cause. I suggest you rethink your position about punishment, if you really want to achieve your goal. You're not going to get widespread support for this & it hurts everyone else who is trying to turn back the clock on global warming.

By the way, Robert Kennedy did NOT say people should be sent to jail for a differing opinion. He was talking about corporations realizing a financial gain, not individuals. We should be exact in our arguments, or that sloppiness will be used against those supporting global warming iniatives.
 
Don't agree. There is much scientific validation on the Climate Change/Global Warming issue. Such a scientific validation could also be improved by a Technical Board consisting of the best Scientists all over the world in the field of Climate Change/Global Warming.

Dude I'm saying there will be little scientific validation to be found for the deniers of AGW. So in other words your ideology here is a bit off: it's "allowed" to have an opinion but if you express it you will be "punished". Well not much of an opinion if you can't speak it.
 
Dude I'm saying there will be little scientific validation to be found for the deniers of AGW. So in other words your ideology here is a bit off: it's "allowed" to have an opinion but if you express it you will be "punished". Well not much of an opinion if you can't speak it.

One thing is the opinion, facts are another thing. You can express your opinion wherever you want but if you report on the media facts on the Climate Change/Global Warming issue that have not a scientific validation you are punished (fined thinking to post of Bonnie who convinced me).