TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Free Speech and Climate Change Skeptics & Deniers

Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by Raffy.Roma, Oct 7, 2014.

  1. Raffy.Roma

    Raffy.Roma Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    3,209
    Location:
    Rome (Italy)
    Agree. From this point of view I agree with Robert Kennedy who would like to issue a law to punish climate skeptics.
     
  2. JRP3

    JRP3 Hyperactive Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,117
    Location:
    Central New York
    #2 JRP3, Oct 7, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2014
    That sounds a little too much like the thought police. Skepticism should not be restricted by law, but countered with evidence.
     
  3. tigerade

    tigerade Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    674
    Location:
    Georgia
    That would definitely not be helpful. Instead I think we should just as passionately flood the airwaves with science and reason as passionately as they flood the airwaves with fear, ignorance and denial.
     
  4. Raffy.Roma

    Raffy.Roma Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    3,209
    Location:
    Rome (Italy)
    #4 Raffy.Roma, Oct 7, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2014
    @JRP3 and Tiger

    You are right and I also agree with you. Problem is that we are in a dangerous situation and sometimes in dangerous situations extreme choices have to be done. IMO skepticism should be tolerated only in case of personal opinions. But when it comes to any person handling the media, that as it is very well known affect a lot people opinions, any sentences concerning the Climate Change/Global Warming issue should always have a scientific validation. In case of no scientific validation of any sentences concerning the Climate Change/Global Warming issue the punishment should be given.

    In other words IMO people shouldn't be allowed to use the media and make politics using the Climate Change/Global Warming issue while saying things that have not a scientific validation.
     
  5. brianman

    brianman Burrito Founder

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    15,487
    Ahem.
    And you didn't stop there:
    Further, it doesn't sound like you're talking about something as limited as "legal action" but something more broad like "criminal punishment".
     
  6. Raffy.Roma

    Raffy.Roma Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    3,209
    Location:
    Rome (Italy)
    To this concern I would like to better say my thought. IMO if a normal citizen states to be a climate skeptic there is nothing wrong with that. But I am very much concerned about politicians using the Climate Change/Global Warming issue to make politics in the media. This is different!
    I see too often politicians talking about the Climate Change/Global Warming issue and say things on this matter that have not scientific validation only for political purposes. The Climate Change/Global Warming issue is too an important matter and IMO a politician cannot go in television or to a newspaper to say what he thinks about this matter but not what is true from a scientific point of view.
    Since the media are so important to address public opinion I think that politicians (or journalists or whatever) saying things that have not a scientific validation to the media should be punished by law.
     
  7. brianman

    brianman Burrito Founder

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    15,487
    So you're for punitive censorship for politicians? I still disagree even though generally I dislike politicians.
     
  8. Raffy.Roma

    Raffy.Roma Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    3,209
    Location:
    Rome (Italy)
    #8 Raffy.Roma, Oct 10, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2014
    I am sorry but IMO it's really bad to use the Climate Change/Global Warming issue for political reasons by saying things that have no scientific validation.
     
  9. brianman

    brianman Burrito Founder

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    15,487
    Yet you're using that same justification to support censorship with punitive consequences.

    I guess political philosophy in Rome is just too alien for me to get. That wasn't a dig, I just think we see things differently at a core philosophical level.
     
  10. Raffy.Roma

    Raffy.Roma Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    3,209
    Location:
    Rome (Italy)
    It's just my opinion that has nothing to do with political philosophy in Rome. To this concern I would also like to remember that Robert Kennedy (USA) would like to issue a law in order to punish climate skeptics as I meant. I agree with Robert. IMO nothing wrong with this.
    And the Kennedy family has a very good reputation in the USA (and also in Italy).
     
  11. brianman

    brianman Burrito Founder

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    15,487
    I never said anything was wrong with you having your opinion. But I do find it amusing that if you had your way, and you were a politician that expressed your opinion that I could take action to have you punished if I was in a position to declare your opinion "not scientific enough".

    I think he's wrong too.

    You're welcome to think nothing is wrong with it, but I happen to strongly disagree.

    Disagreeing with your opinion (on science or anything else) isn't the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater.
     
  12. Chipper

    Chipper Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,182
    Location:
    Chattanooga, TN
    Why stop with politicians? How about movie stars? They can have a huge sway of public opinion. Or large corporate CEO's? (Of course we would have to qualify how large.) Or university professors, high school teachers, PTA presidents, priests, etc.? (Kennedy's have a good reputation in the USA???) Raffy, freedom of speech is a constitutional right in the US.
     
  13. Raffy.Roma

    Raffy.Roma Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    3,209
    Location:
    Rome (Italy)
    Freedom of speech is ok but IMO anybody cannnot use the Climate Change/Global Warming issue for its own political purpose and affect negatively the pubblic opinion. We are in a dangerous situation. In 2050 CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will be 450 ppm (in the best case because it could reach also 550 ppm) corresponding to an increase of the Temperature Anomaly of 2° Celsius.
    In one century Florida could go underwater.....

    That's why IMO we cannot afford any negative contribution due to misinformation to the public opinion coming from the media and whoever uses the media by saying things on the Climate Change/Global Warming issue that have no scientific validation for its political purpose should be punished by law. Just my opinion.

    Freedom of speech is ok but misinformation to the public opinion for political purposes is not freedom, it's a crime IMO.
     
  14. Robert.Boston

    Robert.Boston Model S VIN P01536

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    7,842
    Location:
    Portland, Maine, USA
    A serious difficulty in the political debate around climate change is accountability, or the lack thereof. If a mayor takes no steps to prepare his city of a major hurricane, afterwards he will be held to account, likely losing office. But with a slow-motion crisis, inaction today doesn't have a tangible effect until long after today's politicians retire. The political consequences of shutting down the coal industry, however, happen today.

    That said, politicians get their First Amendment rights, too. The consequence of spouting off uninformed opinions ought to be felt at the ballot box, not the courtroom. That requires an informed electorate, which in turn requires the press to do its job better. Idealistic, I know.
     
  15. jerry33

    jerry33 S85 - VIN:P05130 - 3/2/13

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    12,756
    Location:
    Texas
    The problem is that most people don't really have a good understanding of science and how it works, so they believe the message that they hear the most. Since the entrenched forces also have the deepest pockets, guess which messages are the most frequent.
     
  16. Raffy.Roma

    Raffy.Roma Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    3,209
    Location:
    Rome (Italy)
    + 1
     
  17. Chipper

    Chipper Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,182
    Location:
    Chattanooga, TN
    Freedom of speech is not just OK it is my Constitutional right. No one and certainly no government gets to choose what ANYone is allowed to say. Who gets to decide which information is "mis"information??
     
  18. Doug_G

    Doug_G Lead Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    15,852
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    Everyone should be allowed to speak his opinion, and for the most part, ARE allowed to speak their opinion in democracies*. (Depending on jurisdiction there are exceptions such as hate speech.)

    It is unfortunate that some people are deliberately spewing demonstrably incorrect information. The solution to that has to be deliberately spewing more correct information.

    (*no pedantic arguments on the definition please - you get my meaning)
     
  19. brianman

    brianman Burrito Founder

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    15,487
    Thanks Doug_G.

    Quick question I've asked before: At what point does it make sense to convert a huge discussion into a sub-forum, assign that sub-forum a moderator, and have that moderator split the original mega-topic into (hopefully) focused sub-topics? This thread might serve as a good template for that. To be clear, I'm not attempting to suggest a huge amount of work for admins but rather work by interested parties (in that thread's/sub-forum's topic of discussion) to foster productive, directed discourse.
     
  20. Robert.Boston

    Robert.Boston Model S VIN P01536

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    7,842
    Location:
    Portland, Maine, USA


    I've thought about how to split this thread, but the threads are too closely wound. Let me suggest, though, that debating how freedom of speech should apply is going to be split off if it continues.
     

Share This Page