Free Speech and Climate Change Skeptics & Deniers

[ggr]

Raffy,

I have a hard time of knowing where you are coming from. Most major media touts the idea of catastrophic climate change. I think there is global warming and that man may be responsible for some of it. However, I do not believe it is going to be catastrophic. Just think of what life would be like without the cheap energy that fossil fuels provide. There is no alternate at this time that can economically supplant fossil fuels. So how do you propose getting off our addiction to fossil fuels? I believe by having cheap plentiful energy and new technology we have actually improved our environment.

I shouldn't bite, but I will. I'm an Australian, and it is already catastrophic! The rate of out-of-control bushfires is much higher. The Great Barrier Reef is only pretty good now due to coral die off and bleaching. The current drought is still going, despite one of the geographically largest cities in the world (Brisbane) being mostly under water from flooding a couple of years ago.

We have shown that we can offset a lot of carbon-emitting fossil fuel power generation with Solar and Wind Power. Sure, we can't (yet) supplant all fossil fuel production... but we can offset some of it, and actually save money for society (but not the oil companies) while doing it.

We may have (temporarily) improved our quality of life, but I don't understand how you can say "actually improved our environment"? In what way have we done that?

 

[deonb]

WHEN WHAT THEY SAY IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

Do you understand the concept of a scientific fact?

Umm. From the link you just posted:
"Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."


But anyway, that wasn't my point. I just stated it in a simple way because Raffy expressed that he has difficulty understanding English because it's his second language.

My point was that Raffy is advocating censorship when it comes to media, but not when it comes to speech on the internet (though he originally wanted to censor the internet as well). But how do you draw the line between traditional media and new media, like blogs? Sites that started as blogs, like Huffington Post are now many many many times more popular than traditional media. So if you don't go after them, the entire exercise is pointless.

He then reclassified Huffington Post as traditional media, which is a slippery slope... Does that mean you take any blogging site the moment it becomes popular and the moment it passes x number of viewers, suddenly the owners have to start censoring their site or they land in jail? You can't do that - neither from a legal perspective or an enforceability perspective - that means your personal enemies can simply click-fraud you and have you thrown you in jail.

The only enforceable way to do that is to say that no speech is protected. That nobody is allowed to post any dissent against scientific speech on the internet. Not so much as a facebook page or even a tweet.

There are countries today that patrol their citizens for posting dissenting speech on the internet and lash those who engage in it... is that really your utopia?

 

[rays427]

nwdiver,

I have solar and it was only economic for me because of the government incentives. I actually believe we should be going solar as much as possible but it doesn't easily replace fossil fuels. My solar system produces up to 60Kwh/day during the summer but today it was around 3 Kwh. My monthly average has varied from about 7 to 55 Kwh/day. My actual use of electricity is higher in the winter than the summer. I live in a heavily forested area. Most homes are shaded and cannot generate enough electricity to justify solar even with the government incentives. Solar can be cheaper but it depends on where you live and what time of year it is. For me it's great during the summer but not so great during the winter. I don't have enough roof space or money to install a system big enough to handle my power needs during the winter.

 

[nwdiver]

Umm. From the link you just posted:
"Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."

Exactly... Raffy IS NOT proposing that we silence dissent. If you think AGW is a hoax... present your evidence for peer review. We welcome it. What you CANNOT do is make public empty statements with ZERO factual backing in opposition to the consensus...

- CO2 has risen 40% in the last 100 years
- Fossil Fuels ARE responsible
- Doubling CO2 will cause global temps to rise >3C

If anyone thinks that is wrong they need to put up (present your evidence), shut up or be fined/prosecuted... it's that simple.

I have solar and it was only economic for me because of the government incentives.

While I disagree with that assessment (the cost of PV continues to fall) Here is one very salient point... Even if there were no alternatives to fossil fuels (There absolutely are) does that have ANY impact on the reality of the problem? No? Then best keep those debates separate.

 

[FlasherZ]

For the portion of Illinois served by Ameren-IP, solar power in Illinois doesn't provide a payback during the rated lifetime of the equipment even with the subsidies (25% rebate Illinois, 30% federal tax credit). Payback at Illinois' rates occurs at about 30 years, that's 2-3 inverters and the lifetime of the panels. Illinois' power is primarily nuclear, followed by coal. This is net metering without excess generation (so price arbitrage by power companies doesn't come into play). Solar still costs $4/W to install prior to incentives. In Southern Illinois, a 9 kW system will generate about 11.5 MWh/year, or $575/year offset at current prices. Without incentives, that's 62.5 years payback. With incentives (25% rebate and 30% tax credit on the balance), you're still looking at 33 years.

You can argue the electricity price will go up over time based on government regulations, but then you have to balance that against inflation and the opportunity cost of that money you invested there. Illinois electricity is 49% nuclear, 42% coal, just under 6% renewables and 3% natural gas.

The reason that solar cost is important is that it does represent a cost vs. benefit. Instead of just making some broad-brush assumption that we have to stop anything involving CO2, period, we need to figure out what the incremental cost is for these types of activities, and what the benefits are. We need to see some more consensus on these activities and how likely they are to arrest the continued growth of CO2. Just saying "I disagree with that assessment", in the face of real evidence (science, remember?) is rather hypocritical.

Now, to get it back on topic - what's the difference between the HuffPost and flasherz-blog.com, or any other web site? Good luck tackling that one, the courts in the US haven't been able to figure out what can officially be called "the media" or who can officially be called "journalists".

I think we've worn out this topic. For those extremist environmentalists calling for jail time for anyone who dares question the Great and Powerful Oz^H^HGlobal whatever-it-is-this-week, good luck to you. In the meantime, I'm going to stand on the side of welcoming alternative opinions and research.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

I shouldn't bite, but I will. I'm an Australian, and it is already catastrophic! The rate of out-of-control bushfires is much higher. The Great Barrier Reef is only pretty good now due to coral die off and bleaching. The current drought is still going, despite one of the geographically largest cities in the world (Brisbane) being mostly under water from flooding a couple of years ago.

We have shown that we can offset a lot of carbon-emitting fossil fuel power generation with Solar and Wind Power. Sure, we can't (yet) supplant all fossil fuel production... but we can offset some of it, and actually save money for society (but not the oil companies) while doing it.

Well said

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly... Raffy IS NOT proposing that we silence dissent. If you think AGW is a hoax... present your evidence for peer review. We welcome it. What you CANNOT do is make public empty statements with ZERO factual backing in opposition to the consensus...

Well said. You understood exactly my thought.

- - - Updated - - -

The reason that solar cost is important is that it does represent a cost vs. benefit. Instead of just making some broad-brush assumption that we have to stop anything involving CO2, period, we need to figure out what the incremental cost is for these types of activities, and what the benefits are. We need to see some more consensus on these activities and how likely they are to arrest the continued growth of CO2. Just saying "I disagree with that assessment", in the face of real evidence (science, remember?) is rather hypocritical.

Agree. Of course we need time to get rid of oil and CO2 emissions. No extreme positions in this thread. We consider ourselfes "moderate".

 

[deonb]

Exactly... Raffy IS NOT proposing that we silence dissent. If you think AGW is a hoax... present your evidence for peer review. We welcome it. What you CANNOT do is make public empty statements with ZERO factual backing in opposition to the consensus...

- CO2 has risen 40% in the last 100 years
- Fossil Fuels ARE responsible
- Doubling CO2 will cause global temps to rise >3C

If anyone thinks that is wrong they need to put up (present your evidence), shut up or be fined/prosecuted... it's that simple.

If you think Evolution is a hoax... present your evidence for peer review. We welcome it. What you CANNOT do is make public empty statements with ZERO factual backing in opposition to the consensus...

- All cells on earth, from bacteria, to human blood cells, to cells in the leaves on tree, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any other life form on Earth. There was a common ancestor.
- Fossils records show that the simplest fossils are found in the oldest rocks
- Humans share 96% of genes with chimpanzees, 90% with cats, 75% with mice and so on.
- All chordates embryos (humans, dogs, snakes, fish etc.) have gill slits & tails which reform into the other bones during other stages of development.

If anyone thinks that is wrong they need to put up (present your evidence), shut up or be fined/prosecuted... it's that simple.

 

[Robert.Boston]

The difference is that 'evolution denialists' aren't creating nearly the same level of policy gridlock to address a critical problem, nor am I aware of any major company astro-turfing the creationists so that it can add billions to its profits. The biggest problem caused by 'evolution deniers' is the compromised teaching of science in schools, which risks creating a new generation of American students with sub-par understanding of the scientific method.

 

[Auzie]

The difference is that 'evolution denialists' aren't creating nearly the same level of policy gridlock to address a critical problem, nor am I aware of any major company astro-turfing the creationists so that it can add billions to its profits. The biggest problem caused by 'evolution deniers' is the compromised teaching of science in schools, which risks creating a new generation of American students with sub-par understanding of the scientific method.

That scares me more than global warming. The question can then be re-framed, what is more critical to fight for, preserve critical thinking or preserve today's scientific facts from being attacked and denied publicly.

 

[deonb]

The difference is that 'evolution denialists' aren't creating nearly the same level of policy gridlock to address a critical problem

Vatican call for Western nations to prevent spread of Communism in Europe - leading to the cold war, leading to nuclear armament.
Vatican block of request to the WHO by India for population growth assistance.

nor am I aware of any major company astro-turfing the creationists so that it can add billions to its profits.

Catholic Church
Mormon Church

The biggest problem caused by 'evolution deniers' is the compromised teaching of science in schools, which risks creating a new generation of American students with sub-par understanding of the scientific method.

Which is why people on here now feel that they need to regulate what Americans are allowed to hear, because they don't trust that Americans can make up their own mind anymore based on Scientific evidence.

My 15-year old sister-in-law, who at a young age was very interested in science, who studied physics and quantum mechanics at the young age of 12 gave up all of her science studies a few months ago, because she realized it was in conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church. She knew enough to know she had to pick one or the other... and so she did.

It's not just innocent.


I'm not advocating that churches should be banned, or not be allowed to say whatever they want - even though that a lot of people feel that may be the best way to protect humanity against itself.

But when it comes to legislation to prevent free speech - you can't just pick and chose certain topics. You want your restrictions? Fine, but then give me mine as well.

 

[roblab]

The difference is that 'evolution denialists' aren't creating nearly the same level of policy gridlock to address a critical problem, nor am I aware of any major company astro-turfing the creationists so that it can add billions to its profits. The biggest problem caused by 'evolution deniers' is the compromised teaching of science in schools, which risks creating a new generation of American students with sub-par understanding of the scientific method.

I was taught science and creationism. I never felt, later in college, that my science was sub par. It depends a lot on the teacher. Although I do also think that most scientists and most creationists are afraid to say that there are areas that they just don't know about, and would rather proclaim loudly that they know how it was, or is, or is to be.

There is faith required in both systems, and both groups are biased, although both groups will hotly deny this.

 

[Auzie]

Vatican call for Western nations to prevent spread of Communism in Europe - leading to the cold war, leading to nuclear armament.
Vatican block of request to the WHO by India for population growth assistance.


Catholic Church
Mormon Church


Which is why people on here now feel that they need to regulate what Americans are allowed to hear, because they don't trust that Americans can make up their own mind anymore based on Scientific evidence.

My 15-year old sister-in-law, who at a young age was very interested in science, who studied physics and quantum mechanics at the young age of 12 gave up all of her science studies a few months ago, because she realized it was in conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church. She knew enough to know she had to pick one or the other... and so she did.

It's not just innocent.


I'm not advocating that churches should be banned, or not be allowed to say whatever they want - even though that a lot of people feel that may be the best way to protect humanity against itself.

But when it comes to legislation to prevent free speech - you can't just pick and chose certain topics. You want your restrictions? Fine, but then give me mine as well.

We are just witnessing and being a part of evolution unfolding. Some actions lead to our species undoing itself, different choices may lead to survival.

The gravity of choices invokes a lot of passion amongst posters here. The disagreement seems to be on which choices are most likely to work for the benefit of all.

 

[Robert.Boston]

My 15-year old sister-in-law, who at a young age was very interested in science, who studied physics and quantum mechanics at the young age of 12 gave up all of her science studies a few months ago, because she realized it was in conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church. She knew enough to know she had to pick one or the other... and so she did.

I'm very surprised by this, because Pope Francis unequivocally stated "God is not a demigod or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life. Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.” Huffington Post states, "In 1950, Pope Pius XII proclaimed there was no opposition between evolution and Catholic doctrine. In 1996, St. John Paul II endorsed Pius’ statement." So someone at a more local level was pushing your sister away from the direct teaching of Rome.

I fear I've introduced an unwelcome tangent in this discussion. Please let's keep this on track re "Free Speech and Climate Change Skeptics/Deniers".

 

[Raffy.Roma]

The gravity of choices invokes a lot of passion amongst posters here. The disagreement seems to be on which choices are most likely to work for the benefit of all.

That's right. It's not easy to invoke measurements that may seem antidemocratic (with the risk of being labelled fascist), but I am doing it because of the gravity of the Climate Change/Global Warming issue.

 

[Auzie]

That's right. It's not easy to invoke measurements that may seem antidemocratic (with the risk of being labelled fascist), but I am doing it because of the gravity of the Climate Change/Global Warming issue.

Raffy I see passion on both sides of the argument. We all want the same, to preserve the environment, and the fact that people feel passionately about the environment is promising and may be more important that the words spoken in passion. Words spoken in passionate exchanges are more likely than not to be misplaced and unbalanced.

It just may be more efficient to channel that passion from words into action. Perhaps people are frustrated because they have taken the ineffective action, trying to convert someone else to their point of view, rather than acting on their beliefs.

The disagreement does not seem insurmountable. Most of the proposed solutions can be and already are implemented with not much conflict.

If people feel that some deniers deserve to be taken to court, then what is in the way?

If people feel that education or some other action is called for, then again, action aligned with these words speaks much louder than any words here.

 

[flankspeed8]

With the Black and White areas of climate science;


- Doubling CO2 will cause average global temps to equalize >3C higher than than at 280ppm. No doubt.
If I attempt to influence public policy with lies or misinformation for ANY reason I should be prosecuted.

I hope this will not open me up to prosecution, but how can you claim said consequence is an absolute certainty? I am not a scientist, but I remember many claiming that Katrina was a precursor to what was going to be the norm. Since then, we have entered into one of the quietest times of hurricane activity? We can't even predict weather patterns in the next 24 hours with certainty (recent NYC blizzard of the millennium?) but we somehow know for a fact that the temp will rise x amount in x number of years? It seems that the biggest disservice proponents of climate change/global warming have done to their own argument is the absolute hysterics that have been used. IIRC I remember HRH Prince Charles saying that we have already passed the point of no return several years ago. Al Gore has made some absolutely wild claims that about cc/gw yet seems to live a pretty heavy carbon lifestyle without guilt or explanation. I do believe that the earth is warming. It has been since the ice age. If not, where I am posting from would be under 100' of glacial ice. Was human kind responsible for that or was it nature? I do believe that we need to conserve and look for alternatives, but reject the absolute hysteria with which so many use to manipulate/force/guilt people into THEIR thinking. It is the same tactics they accuse their opponents of.

 

[nwdiver]

Instead of just making some broad-brush assumption that we have to stop anything involving CO2, period, we need to figure out what the incremental cost is for these types of activities, and what the benefits are. We need to see some more consensus on these activities and how likely they are to arrest the continued growth of CO2. Just saying "I disagree with that assessment", in the face of real evidence (science, remember?) is rather hypocritical.

Please explain how the viability of AGW solutions effects the REALITY of the problem... I'm more than happy to debate solutions; just not side-by-side with the problem.

I hope this will not open me up to prosecution, but how can you claim said consequence is an absolute certainty? I am not a scientist, but I remember many claiming that Katrina was a precursor to what was going to be the norm.

Math and Physics

The physical characteristics of CO2 are very well known.

The wavelengths of energy received from the sun and radiated from the earth are very well known.

The change in Earths Radiative balance has been independently calculated numerous times since it was first done by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius over 100 years ago. There is more doubt surrounding the number of protons in an atom of Uranium.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

I do believe that we need to conserve and look for alternatives, but reject the absolute hysteria with which so many use to manipulate/force/guilt people into THEIR thinking. It is the same tactics they accuse their opponents of.

No hysteria. Please read the thread on the Climate Change/Global Warming issue. (It will take some time. In fact such a thread is huge). You cannot judge if you don't know the situation.

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

Then you will understand that the situation concerning the Climate Change/Global Warming issue is serious and dangerous.

 

[nwdiver]

Was human kind responsible for that or was it nature? I do believe that we need to conserve and look for alternatives, but reject the absolute hysteria with which so many use to manipulate/force/guilt people into THEIR thinking. It is the same tactics they accuse their opponents of.

Don't know where you're getting this 'hysterics' bit... this thread has simply been about honesty. Natural Climate change DOES happen... obviously... guess what the primary driver is for natural climate change...

Yup... CO2. Think physics cares wether the additional CO2 came from a warming ocean or a tailpipe? And no... the current rise is not natural... we're adding ~2x as much CO2/yr as would be required for the observed rise.

Global CO2 is now ~400ppm...

 

[FlasherZ]

Please explain how the viability of AGW solutions effects the REALITY of the problem... I'm more than happy to debate solutions; just not side-by-side with the problem.

I find it pointless to go on and on about a problem without considering solutions that solve that problem, and this thread suggests ensuring that anyone who is skeptical is suppressed so that when solutions are put forth, they can be foisted upon the people of the world without opposition or question.