Free Speech and Climate Change Skeptics & Deniers

[Raffy.Roma]

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.

+ 1

 

[TheTalkingMule]

People using statements involving absolute certainty when discussing global warming are almost as harmful as people who deny it for political or financial gain. We have indications, that is all.

I prefer the Elon Musk logic that we're essentially taking an unnecessary risk that might end human civilization and that's not smart.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

People using statements involving absolute certainty when discussing global warming are almost as harmful as people who deny it for political or financial gain. We have indications, that is all.

I prefer the Elon Musk logic that we're essentially taking an unnecessary risk that might end human civilization and that's not smart.

Don't agree. There are some scientific arguments concerning the matter of Climate Change/Global Warming that are not controvertible. Of course these arguments can be debated for a better understanding. IMO main things is that misinformation on such a delicate matter like that of Climate Change/Global Warming is not spread on the media for economical or political purposes.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Perhaps we should create a committee to decide what can be talked about? What should we do with those saying things we don't like?

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Perhaps we should create a committee to decide what can be talked about? What should we do with those saying things we don't like?

It's not a matter concerning democracy and freedom. You are always free to say whatever you want, BUT when it comes to the use of the media (which are so powerful to bias people) it shouldn't be allowed to spread misinformation on such a delicate matter like Climate Change/Global Warming for economical and/or political reasons IMO.

 

[James Anders]

Don't agree. There are some scientific arguments concerning the matter of Climate Change/Global Warming that are not controvertible. Of course these arguments can be debated for a better understanding. IMO main things is that misinformation on such a delicate matter like that of Climate Change/Global Warming is not spread on the media for economical or political purposes.

There are no scientific arguments that are not controvertible.

To claim so, flies in the face of science.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

There are no scientific arguments that are not controvertible.

Don't agree. For instance it's not controvertible that CO2 resonates at the infrared frequency. Just an example.

 

[RichardC]

There are no scientific arguments that are not controvertible.

To claim so, flies in the face of science.

However, with respect to matters involving the application of well established laws of physics. knowledge is advanced through the scientific method until a plausible scientific theory is arrived at, repeatedly tested, challenged, confirmed, updated and refined, until such time as a scientific consensus is arrived at. This process is summarized in Wikipedia as follows:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[SUP][1][/SUP]
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[SUP][2][/SUP] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

Once the scientific consensus has developed to the point at which the entire scientific community, as reflected by national academies of science and other similar national and international science bodies, unanimously agree, then anyone seeking to controvert the scientific consensus needs to bring a well defined theory and evidence to the debate.

The last climate scientist who had met that standard was Professor Richard Muller, who had challenged the scientific consensus on man-made climate and undertook a massive research project to prove that man-made emissions were not the source of climate change, with the following results:

Op-Ed Contributor

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

By RICHARD A. MULLER

Published: July 28, 2012

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions. ...

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/o...imate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

With respect to the science of man-made climate change, the laws of physics are clear and well understood, the volumes of GHGs being dumped into the atmosphere is also clear and uncontroversial, the retention of GHGs in the atmosphere and the rapidly rising concentrations of GHGs (especially CO3 and methane) are well documented, and the resulting energy imbalance (and accumulation of energy in the oceans, earth, ice and atmosphere) has also been well documented and conforms to the consensus scientific theory. The unanimity of national academies of science reflects the overwhelming evidence of each and all of the foregoing facts. While individuals are entitled to their opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts. The laws of physics and the other facts upon which man-made climate change are based, are in no way influenced by human opinion. Any credible challenge to the scientific consensus must be supported by compelling evidence that the scientific facts upon which the consensus is based are materially wrong.

To date no such evidence has been proffered.

 

[nwdiver]

Don't agree. For instance it's not controvertible that CO2 resonates at the infrared frequency. Just an example.

The way to phrase this would be that there are scientific arguments that have never been 'falsified'... which by definition would encompass ALL of science.

An explanation or description (Theory or Law) that is falsifiable, tested and not falsified is by definition science and any rational, scientifically literate person would accept it as reality.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

That's why I think that this kind of propaganda should be punished.

Free Speech and Skepticism on Climate Change

To this concern I would like to point out that my thought originates because of the importance having the media to bias public opinion.

 

[Chipper]

That's why I think that this kind of propaganda should be punished.

Free Speech and Skepticism on Climate Change

I think they tried that once. Ask your fellow countryman Galileo how that worked out for him.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

I think they tried that once. Ask your fellow countryman Galileo how that worked out for him.

Galileo was an innovator. You want to compare Climate Skeptics to Galileo?

I don't understand your point. From my point of view I think that the media cannot be used unproperly considering their power to bias public opinion.

 

[JRP3]

Freedom of speech means you have to take the bad with the good. Stifling free speech means you end up stifling the good with the bad.

 

[ggies07]

It's a fine line, but I'm starting to agree with Raffy.Roma. We are supposedly dealing with our fate as a species when talking about climate change, so why are we not more strict on the media? The rules we have created do not matter to nature.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

This thread is depressing.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Preface: IANAL

Remember that Raffy is bringing his POV from Italy, where freedom of speech is constitutionally protected but with a different set of precedents and limits. The Italian Constitution (Article 21) gives everyone "the right to freely express their thoughts in speech, writing, or any other form of communication" but limits it: "Publications, performances, and other exhibits offensive to public morality shall be prohibited." Thus Italy could in principle restrict public discussion of, say, the mechanics of gay sex as "offensive to public morality." Obviously, such a law would be challenged in both the Italian and EU courts. More on-topic, there is a question whether denying climate change and actively speaking out to stop measures to address it is "offensive to public morality." Quite possibly.

There is no such exception in the U.S. Constitution, although there are limited exception under common law, e.g. obscenity, defamation and incitement. These common-law exceptions are (I believe) much narrower than the Italian prohibition. That's why I was intrigued by the potential of going after speech sponsored by the Big Energy companies. There's a very colorable case that they are engaged in providing the public false and misleading information about their products, which does not enjoy First Amendment protection.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

More on-topic, there is a question whether denying climate change and actively speaking out to stop measures to address it is "offensive to public morality." Quite possibly.

Thank you Robert. Actually you got the main point IMO. Considering the damages that the Climate Change/Global Warming issue is provoking to mankind I think that misinformation on such a delicate matter is "offensive to public morality". To this concern I would like to point out that the US Department of Defence considers the Climate Change/Global Warming issue more dangerous than terrorism. So I think that also in the USA somebody agrees with me.

 

[nwdiver]

There are laws that keep Pfizer from claiming Ibuprofen can cure cancer since there is no scientific consensus this is true. The same should apply to media outlets that claim Global Warming is a hoax. ALL the evidence clearly shows Global warming is a very real threat. If someone of some corporation keeps making claims that have been shown to be unequivocally false there needs to be consequences.

 

[RichardC]

There are laws that keep Pfizer from claiming Ibuprofen can cure cancer since there is no scientific consensus this is true. The same should apply to media outlets that claim Global Warming is a hoax. ALL the evidence clearly shows Global warming is a very real threat. If someone of some corporation keeps making claims that have been shown to be unequivocally false there needs to be consequences.

I agree, and would suggest that the United States v. Philip Morris case be viewed as governing precedent. A summary of the case, from the Public Health Law Center, follows:

United States v. Philip Morris (D.O.J. Lawsuit)

Overview

In 1999, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) sued several major tobacco companies for fraudulent and unlawful conduct and reimbursement of tobacco-related medical expenses. The circuit court judge dismissed the DOJ’s claim for reimbursement, but allowed the DOJ to bring its claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). ...

Outcome

On August 17, 2006 Judge Kessler issued a 1,683 page opinion holding the tobacco companies liable for violating RICO by fraudulently covering up the health risks associated with smoking and for marketing their products to children. “As set forth in these Final Proposed Findings of Fact, substantial evidence establishes that Defendants have engaged in and executed – and continue to engage in and execute – a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO.”

The tobacco companies filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The court granted the motion, and on May 22, 2009 the three-judge panel unanimously upheld Judge Kessler’s decision finding the tobacco companies liable. The court upheld most of the ordered remedies, but denied additional remedies sought by public health interveners and the Department of Justice. The court also found that the First Amendment does not protect fraudulent statements, stating that “Defendants knew of their falsity at the time and made the statements with the intent to deceive. Thus, we are not dealing with accidental falsehoods, or sincere attempts to persuade.” The court dismissed the defendants’ argument that their statements were protected by the First Amendment.

See: http://publichealthlawcenter.org/to...ion/united-states-v-philip-morris-doj-lawsuit

With respect to the application of the First Amendment, in a decision equally applicable to those falsely denying the reality and serious threat of man-made AGW, the court found that the First Amendment does not protect fraudulent statements, stating that “Defendants knew of their falsity at the time and made the statements with the intent to deceive. Thus, we are not dealing with accidental falsehoods, or sincere attempts to persuade.”

The fraudulent intent of many of those funding the spread of climate change denialism is apparent from their concealment of their identity through the use of "dark money" vehicles, as discussed by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle in his peer reviewed paper: "Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations".

A new study conducted by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle, PhD, exposes the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the powerful climate change countermovement. This study marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort.

Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are “dark money,” or concealed funding.

The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.

Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science in Drexel’s College of Arts and Sciences, conducted the study during a year-long fellowship at Stanford University’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. The study was published today in Climatic Change, one of the top 10 climate science journals in the world.

The climate change countermovement is a well-funded and organized effort to undermine public faith in climate science and block action by the U.S. government to regulate emissions. This countermovement involves a large number of organizations, including conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative foundations, with strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians.

See: http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/#sthash.LfGAhbMW.dpuf

Is there any reason that those knowingly propagating falsehoods about climate change should not be held legally liable?

 

[Raffy.Roma]

There are laws that keep Pfizer from claiming Ibuprofen can cure cancer since there is no scientific consensus this is true. The same should apply to media outlets that claim Global Warming is a hoax. ALL the evidence clearly shows Global warming is a very real threat. If someone of some corporation keeps making claims that have been shown to be unequivocally false there needs to be consequences.

+ 1