-
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
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Exactly, and I use this argument often, that the money is really on the denial side of the debate, considering the bias of the established industrial complex that has no desire to change if it might negatively impact profits. Still the "bought and paid for" climate science myth persists, mainly because denying climate change allows people to avoid uncomfortable choices.
Since we're talking about science and stuff, can you cite a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal which backs up your statement that Florida will "certainly" be under water in 100 years, unless we take action? Can you even cite a climate scientist who says this will happen, with total certainty?
Made a fast research on Google and found this article:
Sea Level Rise -- National Geographic
It doesn't mention Florida but it speaks about sea level rise.
Then please give a look to this:
Find out if your house will be underwater by 2100
No scientist worth her salt will say anything will happen "with total certainty." As Raffy.Rome points out, the simply geographic fact is that a very large portion of Florida is only a few meters above sea level, and sea level has risen over the past decade. With large chunks of Antarctic and Arctic ice shelves calving off their supporting land, sea level will rise further. These are facts that you can readily substantiate. The impact of such a sea level rise has serious impacts, as shown by studies of previous incidents. The only real question is just how much higher the sea level will be in 2100. Studies about a similar period of high temperatures about 400,000 years ago suggest that the loss of ice could raise sea levels 10 meters or more. Even a 3.3 m (10 foot) increase would displace nearly a third of Florida's population.
Last edited:
That's not what Raffy said. He said it was "certain" that Florida would be under water, if I recall correctly.
It sounds like you don't agree with his assessment. Should his right to make that statement fall under this "technical board?"
It sounds like you don't agree with his assessment. Should his right to make that statement fall under this "technical board?"
I am sure that the Technical Board in his guidelines would certainly write down that because of Global Warming sea levels are rising. Than we cannot foresee when at this rate of rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere Florida would go underwater. If in 2050 CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will be 550 ppm (which could also happen) such a bad event could also happen in 2050.
P.S. Did you read the articles that I and Robert mentioned.
You said it was "certain." You still think your Technical Board would agree? The articles you linked to use a lot of qualifiers like "may," "estimated," and "potential." I didn't see "certain" or "definitive" in any of them.
I am sure that the Technical Board in his guidelines would certainly write down that because of Global Warming sea levels are rising. Than we cannot foresee when at this rate of rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere Florida would go underwater. If in 2050 CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will be 550 ppm (which could also happen) such a bad event could also happen in 2050.
P.S. Did you read the articles that I and Robert mentioned.
As I said it is very well known that because of Global Warming sea levels are rising and I am sure that in its guidelines the Technical Board would write down this. Then we don't know exactly when because of Global Warming Florida would go underwater.
To this concern I think that another guideline of the Technical Board would be: "We don't care when Florida could go underwater because of Global Warming but we want to avoid this to happen".
I find it interesting that, when I was much younger there was a LOT of scientific "evidence" provided that insisted there would be a coming ice age if we didn't change our global habits. I wonder if those are the same scientists who are worried about global warming today? I am NOT going to run out and purchase land on Britton Hill (Florida's highest land) in order to have my beachfront island vacation home. But it might be a good investment for those so inclined.
dhrivnak
Active Member
Yes there was some media sensation about this but VERY few scientific papers. But there seems to be agreement that SO2 BOTH reflected sunlight and caused acid rain. We cleaned up the acid rain issue which also allowed more sunlight to reach the earth.
And therein lies the power of science -- to inform about likely consequences. It is possible that all the air molecules in the room will jump into a corner, suffocating you; the probability of them so doing is so vanishingly small that no one worries about this. But science cannot rule out the possibility.
To stay OT, there are different standards already in law limiting free speech: you can say things privately that, if you said them on the media, would land you in court for slander. A false, or even less than fully correct, statement is not libelous. Here in our cozy TMC, we aren't holding ourselves forward as public experts (in policy or science), nor are we public figures speaking publicly; no one could prove harm from something said here.
The standard of libel/slander is higher than simply being wrong. For example, in the United States, one must prove that the statement was false, caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or a public official, the person must prove the first three steps and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth, which is usually specifically referred to as "proving malice". (I'm quoting from Wikipedia, which I believe is accurate on this point.)
The question (I think) is: could the standards of libel and slander be applied to public speech regarding scientific matters, using the same standard as a celebrity or public official? That is, if someone knowingly and malaciously publishes a false statement about a scientific matter, should that be actionable under law? Does it matter whether the scientific matter is climate change, evolution, or microbiology?
Now that the SCOTUS has said corporations are people, I'm not sure why it's outrageous to think that a scientific theory can't be slandered.
An interesting point. If I was a well known climate scientist (I'm not) and had published a paper that has some specific fact in it, and a politician or public figure implied that climate scientists were lying and denied that specific fact, would that be libelous? There are some examples (although I can't find one at the moment, and it might have been under Australian law) where even though the individual was not named, they were still harmed by implication and people drawing through the dots.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I find it interesting that between 1965 and 1979 only 10% of scientific papers predicted cooling, 62% predicted warming, yet you feel that 10% is a LOT.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
More: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2...th-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/
It's also essential to look at the particular mechanism for the climate shift. Although I certainly haven't surveyed all these cooling models, it seems unlikely that any of them claimed that CO2 emissions were leading to cooling. My recollection from that time is that it was concern about increasing the albedo of the planet because of aerosols, SO2, and similar.
I won't argue the meaning of the word "LOT" and what it takes in another's opinion, however I distinctly remember my college professor extremely animated by reading Science News in March of 1975. Funny thing was, he was a sociology professor and we had to write a paper on the sociological and cultural aspects of what would happen if the world returned to an ice age. What I remember was that there were plenty of references in scientific journals to support his theory that we were going into an ice age.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I also remember that Science News article. I think what happened is it made an impression on you, reinforced by your sociology professor and the paper you had to write. This impression was out of proportion to the actual amount of scientific research backing that position, and memory is often out of kilter with reality.
RichardC
Cdn Sig & Solar Supporter
What is illegal is to make false or misleading representations for the purpose of promoting a product or a business interest. As noted on the website of the Canadian Competition Bureau:
See: http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02776.html
Under the Canadian Competition Act the making of false or misleading representations for the purpose of promoting a product or a business interest can give rise to criminal or civil sanctions. Section 52 of the Act, which provides for criminal sanctions, states as follows:
Thus intentionally making untrue statements, for the purpose of promoting a business interest (e.g., the sales of fossil fuels), may (quite appropriately in my view) give rise to substantial criminal penalties of up to 14 years imprisonment or to fines in the discretion of the court.
These laws have nothing to do with freedom of speech, but are intended to serve to prevent corporations from directly making statements that they know to be false and misleading with respect to climate change (and other matters in which they have a commercial interest). This is part of the legacy of the Phillip-Morris case and other similar cases involving false and misleading representations.
This leads to questions about the ongoing sources of disinformation to oppose public interest action on climate change: by whom and how are such campaigns being organized and funded? I would nominate the corrupt political system and dark money as two apparent answers to this question.
To those who are still laboring away in this and other venues to persuade others that manmade climate change is a hoax, please note that Exxon, Shell and the other major fossil fuel companies now acknowledge the reality of manmade climate change. They now recognize, despite the compelling economic reasons for them to deny climate change, that the scientific evidence is so overwhelming that to deny it would expose them to legal liability on the same legal theories used against the denier corporations in the tobacco industry. The fact that the fossil fuel companies, which clearly have the most (on the order of thousands of billion of dollars) to lose from effective regulatory action on climate change, have, after a careful and exhaustive review of the evidence by the best scientists that money can buy, concluded that there is no plausible basis whatsoever upon which to challenge the accuracy or the validity of climate science would seem to be clear and conclusive evidence that there is no longer any real debate, that the science is valid, and it has now been conclusively demonstrated that manmade emissions are in fact causing climate change (as has been agreed by every national and international science academy and other similar scientific bodies for a number of years).
Last edited:
