SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
There's just no way I would be able to post what you just did and look someone in their eyes with a straight face. Period.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Free Speech and Climate Change Skeptics & Deniers
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
.... that's more than a little bit of a straw man since NOTHING in science is 100% by definition; there are always unknown unknowns... think something OTHER than CO2 has been responsible for a past climate shift currently 'blamed' on CO2? Fine, do the research and publish it. But DO NOT make false public statements without the evidence to back it up. I fail to grasp how this is controversial... drug companies can't make false claims about their products... fossil fuel companies and their shills shouldn't be able to make false claims about climate science. There is MORE certainty about the role of CO2 in climate change than there is about the ability of Ibuprofen to fight cancer.... maybe Ibuprofen CAN fight cancer... should Pfizer be able to make that claim without published studies to back-up the claim?
Last edited:
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Exactly.
How could someone do research and publish it? You've already made it illegal to even posit such a hypothesis.
Don't agree. This means that you didn't understand the sense of this thread. In our views we accept the ideas of Climate Skeptics provided that they are founded from a scientific point of view.
What we want to avoid is misinformation on the matter of Climate Change/Global Warming be spread on the media. But if you manage to demonstrate FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW that the Climate Change/Global Warming is not an issue we are very happy to examine your data. We want science to win for what is concerning the matter of Climate Change/Global Warming and not politics.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
EXACTLY!... there's nothing wrong with investigating wether Ibuprofen can fight cancer.... there's A LOT wrong with just claiming it does because that would be more convenient.
Last edited:
I'm against any law that somehow suppresses speech, but I'm all for suing those bastards that repeat the same easily scientifically disproven facts. Anybody should be free to say whatever garbage they want to, but should face the consequences thereafter.
Matter of fact, I would hope Green Peace and others would focus on suing those voices repeating the same nonsensical arguments instead of irrationally attacking nuclear power and big hydro. Some in the pro nuclear side have stated repeatedly that it really looks like green peace and others have taken coal affiliated money to go attack other environmental interests and leave coal alone. After all they have hundreds of millions of dollars in yearly budget, then why don't they fight the great legal environmentalist fight ?
How much it would cost to sue those lying bastards all the way to the supreme court ? The focus shouldn't be to prove climate change is 100% the truth (shaky ground) but to prove the other side is lying through their teeth.
PS: I'm far more concerned about cheap Oil reducing the EV / Plugin EV demand growth. But it looks like US$ 70 / barrel oil is still expensive enough to drive people towards EVs.
Matter of fact, I would hope Green Peace and others would focus on suing those voices repeating the same nonsensical arguments instead of irrationally attacking nuclear power and big hydro. Some in the pro nuclear side have stated repeatedly that it really looks like green peace and others have taken coal affiliated money to go attack other environmental interests and leave coal alone. After all they have hundreds of millions of dollars in yearly budget, then why don't they fight the great legal environmentalist fight ?
How much it would cost to sue those lying bastards all the way to the supreme court ? The focus shouldn't be to prove climate change is 100% the truth (shaky ground) but to prove the other side is lying through their teeth.
PS: I'm far more concerned about cheap Oil reducing the EV / Plugin EV demand growth. But it looks like US$ 70 / barrel oil is still expensive enough to drive people towards EVs.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
LOL.... that's funny.... but it's also off-topic and IMO deserves its own thread and discussion...
dhrivnak
Active Member
I agree but I would not expect the fossil fuel industry to give up without a fight. And a rather large fight I do believe. So we need to do our part in showing there is a real cleaner and viable option. The more than half of Tesla owners now driving on Sunshine is a great start. Driving on Sunshine - Page 14
This highly suspect statistic based on a single forum survey is one of the many reasons I have to take all other arguments and statistics presented in this discussion with a very skeptical acceptance. Using this survey as your basis one would have to assume that fewer and fewer Tesla owners are choosing to "drive on sunshine" since the number used to be closer to 60%. Right?
RichardC
Cdn Sig & Solar Supporter
The actual number (or percentage) of Tesla owners who are driving on sunshine is irrelevant. What matters is the theft of our children's and grandchildren's future by fossil fuel industry manipulation of the political process to effectively exclude any meaningful consideration of the public interest from the political decision making process. The public comments to the NY Times article say it all, selected examples follow:
The question posed at the end of the above comment is the same one that I would ask of anyone who at this point in time (which is more than 25 years after there was a clear scientific consensus as the reality and serious implications of manmade climate change, the strength and certainty of which consensus has only increased in the intervening years) professes skepticism about climate change. If you are truly skeptical, do yourself, and us, a favor and educate yourself. Ask questions, but don't profess to have more knowledge than you actually possess. If you read all of the materials cited on the Climate Change threads of this web site, you will be well on your way to a basic understanding. Which leaves those who knowingly deny the truth.
Free speech is a concept which has been so brutalized by the courts (e.g., in Citizen's United) as to have been morphed to include a constitutional right to corrupt the US political process. Free speech is not a concept that can be used to defend the making of false and misleading statements to advance a commercial interest (which conduct would clearly violate the laws of any civilized country). Consequently, the oil companies and other similar interests all publicly acknowledge reality of manmade climate change and the need for action to reduce CO2 emissions. But at the same time, politicians, lobbyists, and PR flacks are quite clearly being paid to say (under the rubric of free speech) things that would violate the law if said directly by the corporate beneficiaries of their statements. Consequently I would argue that there is no such thing as a free speech right to lie to the public about climate change and that those who are directly or indirectly funding the spread of such lies to advance commercial interests should be subject to prosecution on the same basis as if the underlying commercial entities had directly made the false statements themselves.
As noted in the following comment, for a start the public needs to have absolute transparency into the interests which are funding the corruption of the political system. I would also argue for further changes, for example to eliminate the silly concept that corporations (which are artificial "persons") should have constitutional rights, such as free speech rights; for stricter limits on and greater transparency with respect to the activities of lobbyists and PR agencies in the political realm (including removal of the deductibility of payments for such services, why are taxpayers, in effect subsidizing, corporate lobbying and PR activities through tax deductibility); and for stricter limits and restrictions on campaign contributions (it is now clear that large campaign contributions do in fact corrupt the political process and are indefensible in a free and democratic society).
The question posed at the end of the above comment is the same one that I would ask of anyone who at this point in time (which is more than 25 years after there was a clear scientific consensus as the reality and serious implications of manmade climate change, the strength and certainty of which consensus has only increased in the intervening years) professes skepticism about climate change. If you are truly skeptical, do yourself, and us, a favor and educate yourself. Ask questions, but don't profess to have more knowledge than you actually possess. If you read all of the materials cited on the Climate Change threads of this web site, you will be well on your way to a basic understanding. Which leaves those who knowingly deny the truth.
Free speech is a concept which has been so brutalized by the courts (e.g., in Citizen's United) as to have been morphed to include a constitutional right to corrupt the US political process. Free speech is not a concept that can be used to defend the making of false and misleading statements to advance a commercial interest (which conduct would clearly violate the laws of any civilized country). Consequently, the oil companies and other similar interests all publicly acknowledge reality of manmade climate change and the need for action to reduce CO2 emissions. But at the same time, politicians, lobbyists, and PR flacks are quite clearly being paid to say (under the rubric of free speech) things that would violate the law if said directly by the corporate beneficiaries of their statements. Consequently I would argue that there is no such thing as a free speech right to lie to the public about climate change and that those who are directly or indirectly funding the spread of such lies to advance commercial interests should be subject to prosecution on the same basis as if the underlying commercial entities had directly made the false statements themselves.
As noted in the following comment, for a start the public needs to have absolute transparency into the interests which are funding the corruption of the political system. I would also argue for further changes, for example to eliminate the silly concept that corporations (which are artificial "persons") should have constitutional rights, such as free speech rights; for stricter limits on and greater transparency with respect to the activities of lobbyists and PR agencies in the political realm (including removal of the deductibility of payments for such services, why are taxpayers, in effect subsidizing, corporate lobbying and PR activities through tax deductibility); and for stricter limits and restrictions on campaign contributions (it is now clear that large campaign contributions do in fact corrupt the political process and are indefensible in a free and democratic society).
Last edited:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Thank you for that Richard...
I am deeply deeply frustrated by the level of dissonance and procrastination that plagues most of the public... Doubt in the scientific community withered away nearly 30 years ago yet most people are unwilling to take the necessary steps. The rampant misinformation isn't helping and IMO qualifies as criminal behavior in instances where it's intentional.
The BBC did a really informative 3 part series about 3 years ago. Certainly worth watching;
I'm also planning to take an uncredited free on-line class put together by The University of Queensland on Climate Science Denial. Yep... it's practically its own field now...
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x#.VITdPFaUdbg
I am deeply deeply frustrated by the level of dissonance and procrastination that plagues most of the public... Doubt in the scientific community withered away nearly 30 years ago yet most people are unwilling to take the necessary steps. The rampant misinformation isn't helping and IMO qualifies as criminal behavior in instances where it's intentional.
The BBC did a really informative 3 part series about 3 years ago. Certainly worth watching;
I'm also planning to take an uncredited free on-line class put together by The University of Queensland on Climate Science Denial. Yep... it's practically its own field now...
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x#.VITdPFaUdbg
Last edited by a moderator:
Great post Richard. Would like to point out a sentence from your post for all people who thought that this thread was anti-democratic. Added two words to your sentence (in bold). Hope that you agree with me.
As an attorney of 20 plus odd years (although I'm not a constitutional scholar), I'm very intrigued with the idea of filing suit against a person or corporation for making a false statement of fact, with the intent to deceive, and this includes suits against elected officials. When someone states in a public forum that the earth is 6000 years old, or that climate change is "cyclical" and not man made, and they do so either with the intent to deceive for personal gain (i.e.: API), this shouldn't fall within the protections of the First Amendment. I'm fundamentally sickened by the theory that if you repeat the same lie often enough, it will eventually gain traction and be considered an alternative to empirically-based, fact. And, I think the scientists among the founding fathers would be sickened by this as well.
dhrivnak
Active Member
The pole now is at 57% using solar with 199 people voting. Yes it did drop from the 60% we had in the first 50 votes but 3% is not a large drop in my book. So unless you have any other data I will continue to say over 50%. In a California survey 2 years years ago https://energycenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/nav/policy/research-and-reports/California%20Plug-in%20Electric%20Vehicle%20Owner%20Survey%20Report-July%202012.pdf where 96% of respondents were Leaf owners 39% of the people said they charge their EV from Solar with another 17% planning on it. With the amount of solar doubling in the last 2 years and with many Tesla owners on the forefront of technology is it easy to see over half the Tesla owners on solar.
I am open to ANY data you have to the contrary.
- - - Updated - - -
Last edited:
RichardC
Cdn Sig & Solar Supporter
Raffy, while I am quite comfortable with the proposition that intentionally making false and misleading statements to advance a business interest is illegal under the Competition Act in Canada, for a description see:
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02776.html
under the Federal Trade Commission Act in the US, and under a variety of other federal, state and provincial laws (and under similar laws in the European Union and other OECD countries), to my knowledge such laws do not make the issuance of false and misleading statements to advance a political interest illegal.
Furthermore, while it might seem tempting to make misstatement to advance a political interest an illegal act, I doubt that it would be possible to sufficiently clearly define the scope of a "political interest" so as to render the question, of whether such law had been violated, a justiciable one (for example, under US law the courts are prohibited from ruling on political questions).
However, I don't believe that such a measure with respect to political interests is required. At the heart of the matter is the trillions of dollars that fossil fuel companies stand to lose if the public interest is protected and sensible laws to reduce GHG emissions are enacted. See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-fuel-firms-trillions-should-they-be-worried/
It is my expectation that the billions of dollars being spent to artificially create the impression of scientific uncertainty with respect to climate change (which uncertainty is relied upon by politicians to oppose sensible public interest laws to reduce GHG emissions) will ultimately be found to originate from the fossil fuel industry which is the direct beneficiary of the resulting political inaction, and that much of that spending (once it is properly attributed to its ultimate source) is being spent to fund the intentional dissemination of false and misleading information about climate change to advance the business interests of the fossil fuel industry. The fact that the funding sourcing are concealing their spending on these disinformation and denial campaigns appears to provide prima facie evidence of both the illegality of these initiatives, and of the funders' intent to conceal their wrongdoing by using dark money trusts in an effort to prevent both private parties and law enforcement agencies from holding them to account. See:
http://www.ibtimes.com/climate-chan...ervative-donors-spend-billions-derail-1518282
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...te-change-direct-action-and-mass-mobilization
http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/05/climate-deniers-election-wins/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
Consequently, if a thorough investigation were to find that the funding chain extends back to the industry, then the illegality of the representations should be quite easy to prove.
dhrivnak
Active Member
I have heard it said that actions speak far louder than words. So if we have a "Ministry of Truth" commission; should they also prosecute anyone who speaks out about the impending doom of climate change but yet drives a gas guzzling car? Or people who push for change yet have not outfitted their homes with the latest energy saving lights and gadgets? Where will one draw the line???
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Just because there's a grey area between truth and fiction doesn't mean there isn't 'truth' or 'fiction'. The statement 'Climate Change isn't a problem' could be argued to reside in that grey area... here is a short selection of statements that are pure fiction.
- Fossil Fuel emissions aren't high enough to be responsible
- CO2 levels aren't rising
- Volcanoes emit more CO2 than burning fossil fuels
- CO2 has never driven climate change
- CO2 doesn't cause warming
The line is promoting pure fiction as fact to cloud reality and delay action.
RichardC
Cdn Sig & Solar Supporter
Our laws are quite clear as to where the line is drawn. Using the Canadian law, with I am most familiar, what is prohibited is the making of any deceptive representations for the purpose of promoting a product or a business interest. I quote the following from the Competition Bureau web site:
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02776.html
The fact that the fossil fuel industry does not dispute climate change science is clear evidence that the science is settled, and that the expenditure of around a billion dollars a year to artificially generate "doubt" about climate change is therefore an intentional campaign to deceive and mislead the public to advance a business interest.
