Free Speech and Climate Change Skeptics & Deniers

[TheTalkingMule]

So who should we appoint to the panel that decides which scientific opinions can be voiced on the internet or in the mainstream media? How are we going to enforce the decisions of that authority? It's just a silly and certainly Un-American concept.

 

[nwdiver]

So who should we appoint to the panel that decides which scientific opinions can be voiced on the internet or in the mainstream media? How are we going to enforce the decisions of that authority? It's just a silly and certainly Un-American concept.

..... probably the same people that determine ibuprofen indeed cannot cure cancer.... except in the field of climate science instead of medicine. There are certain claims that have been unequivocally falsified by the scientific community. "CO2 emissions have no warming effect on earths climate" is certainly one of those claims.

 

[Chipper]

..... probably the same people that determine ibuprofen indeed cannot cure cancer.... except in the field of climate science instead of medicine. There are certain claims that have been unequivocally falsified by the scientific community. "CO2 emissions have no warming effect on earths climate" is certainly one of those claims.

I will oppose any and all efforts to deny the expression of free speech to any individual or entity. When we allow ANY government to limit free speech more than currently specified in law, we are giving up one of our basic rights as Americans. I would be extremely opposed to any steps taken in this direction.

 

[nwdiver]

I will oppose any and all efforts to deny the expression of free speech to any individual or entity. When we allow ANY government to limit free speech more than currently specified in law, we are giving up one of our basic rights as Americans. I would be extremely opposed to any steps taken in this direction.

.... so are you upset that it's currently illegal for pfizer to make false claims about their products? Should it just be buyer beware? OR... should there be some level of common sense laws when it comes to saying things that simply aren't true...

If I start selling pills and claim they will protect you from HIV without any evidence to support that claim I'm going to get a very terse letter from the FCC... why should a coal company be able to claim that burning coal doesn't warm the planet?

 

[CliffG]

...
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".



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?

That was a different Court. Some would say that the Citizens United ruling shows that the "dark money" has already purchased a majority on the current Court.

 

[nwdiver]

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

Agree 100%... if you make a public statement that you know or should know is false there must be legal consequences. That doesn't mean that you can't say we shouldn't take action on AGW... 'opinions' will always be protected. That means that you can't make factual statements that are false.

 

[RichardC]

So who should we appoint to the panel that decides which scientific opinions can be voiced on the internet or in the mainstream media? How are we going to enforce the decisions of that authority? It's just a silly and certainly Un-American concept.

Such panels exist, they are commonly referred to as the courts of law. They daily make decisions regarding scientific facts and disputes that are far more complicated than man-made climate change, which can be readily understood by any person of normal intelligence with a high school level understanding of physics and mathematics.

The fact that all major oil companies (who stand to lose trillions of dollars if there were to be effective action on climate change) now expressly acknowledge the reality of man-made climate change is conclusive evidence that there is no longer any plausible basis for doubt about the basics or the reality of man-made climate science (and that any false claims that they may wish to make to the contrary would be actionable, as materially false and misleading representations made to advance a commercial interest).

 

[nwdiver]

Perhaps a pithy way to summarize 1st amendment rights is "You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts"

If your statement has been falsified you no longer have the right to claim it is true.

 

[astrotoy]

Sorry for getting in so late in this thread. It is quite simple to me. As Jerry McGuire said "Show me the money." Who are the ones funding the climate change deniers? If you had a VERY BIG asset, and it was being threatened with a major devaluation, what would you do? Would a few facts get in the way? Look at what the car dealers are doing. It has nothing to do with customer service, etc. It has everything to do with the value of their dealerships and the threats to that value if the Tesla sales model starts to catch on elsewhere. Big Tobacco wasn't about freedom of choice - it was about their business model being threatened.

If the Saudi's were smart, they would be investing their Sovereign Wealth Funds in alternate energy (maybe they are). So when the effect of the Chinese moving away from fossil fuels gains momentum, they will be be ready.

 

[CliffG]

If the Saudi's were smart, they would be investing their Sovereign Wealth Funds in alternate energy (maybe they are).

Heard of Masdar City? Granted, it's in one of the Emirates, and granted they still have lots of money to squeeze out of the oil, but someone's looking to the future.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Such panels exist, they are commonly referred to as the courts of law. They daily make decisions regarding scientific facts and disputes that are far more complicated than man-made climate change, which can be readily understood by any person of normal intelligence with a high school level understanding of physics and mathematics.

The fact that all major oil companies (who stand to lose trillions of dollars if there were to be effective action on climate change) now expressly acknowledge the reality of man-made climate change is conclusive evidence that there is no longer any plausible basis for doubt about the basics or the reality of man-made climate science (and that any false claims that they may wish to make to the contrary would be actionable, as materially false and misleading representations made to advance a commercial interest).

So if I say the Earth is round and happen to own a boat manufacturing company, the 99.9% of people who know for sure that the Earth is flat can prosecute me? Let's just go ahead and err on the side of not stifling scientific or even moronic descent.

 

[nwdiver]

So if I say the Earth is round and happen to own a boat manufacturing company, the 99.9% of people who know for sure that the Earth is flat can prosecute me? Let's just go ahead and err on the side of not stifling scientific or even moronic descent.

The preponderance of the evidence is that the earth is round... I don't thing there's much risk of a lawsuit against you...

Should I be able to sell magic pills that cure cancer without pesky government regulators asking for clinical trials?

 

[Robert.Boston]

So if I say the Earth is round and happen to own a boat manufacturing company, the 99.9% of people who know for sure that the Earth is flat can prosecute me? Let's just go ahead and err on the side of not stifling scientific or even moronic descent.

It is trivial for any boat manufacturer to prove that its product can sail around the globe; the "flat earth" theory is readily falsifiable, and has been falsified by countless sailors over the centuries.

If you owned a tobacco company and asserted that your product did not cause cancer, that is a falsifiable claim. The US courts have determined that such a claim was indeed false, awarded billions of dollars in claims to people, and required tobacco companies to label their products accurately.

If you owned an oil company and asserted that your product did not cause serious damage to the environment, that is a falsifiable claim. The overwhelming preponderance of experts in this field have determined that such a claim is indeed false. Your hypothetical oil-company-owning self should be prepared for massive claims and write-offs of assets.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

"Deniers" have an evolutionary benefit and are vital to the way we work out our societal issues. Silencing deniers is like shutting down 10% of the neurons in your brain, each singularly useless piece is vital to the whole.

Yes this issue is nearly beyond a doubt, but that doesn't mean you can go around silencing arguments you don't like. Hell, we're basing half our logic on 400k year old ice samples that indicate CO2 concentrations and temperature. That's not what I would call scientifically definitive to the point where we can safely silence anyone with a dissenting opinion regardless of the origin of that "scientific" opinion.

If this is the direction we'd like to go, I have several perpetually optimistic Flyers fans that I feel should be locked up each fall. A lifetime of evidence indicates we will NEVER win another Cup, but that doesn't stop them from believing.

 

[Nathan Smith]

If you owned an oil company and asserted that your product did not cause serious damage to the environment, that is a falsifiable claim. The overwhelming preponderance of experts in this field have determined that such a claim is indeed false. Your hypothetical oil-company-owning self should be prepared for massive claims and write-offs of assets.

Robert.Boston I don't think you analogy works... In the case of tobacco companies, thier actions led to monterary loss by the government(s) (both federal and state) due to payment of health care cost. No such loss has yet been paid for damage to the environment and thus how would you even be able to bring suit?

I would say freedom of speech follows similar logic (ie: don't restrict it until compelling loss has occurred and restricting it would prevent further unwarranted loss).

 

[sandpiper]

Robert.Boston I don't think you analogy works... In the case of tobacco companies, thier actions led to monterary loss by the government(s) (both federal and state) due to payment of health care cost. No such loss has yet been paid for damage to the environment and thus how would you even be able to bring suit?

I would say freedom of speech follows similar logic (ie: don't restrict it until compelling loss has occurred and restricting it would prevent further unwarranted loss).

I've always wondered if there really is an added health care cost for smokers. You can't just take the cost of care and assume that if the individual didn't smoke, they would be cost free. We all die eventually of something. And that something is often enough expensive. Is lung cancer more costly than the alternative - which may be another form of cancer, or heart disease, stroke, dementia or something else? It seems to me that smoking pulls the costs forward. If you die 20 years early, then I suppose we're paying now, saving later, and so we're losing out on the investment opportunity for that money.

One the other side, society also doesn't have to cover the post-retirement social security costs for as long, since there may not BE much of a retirement. That would be a savings.

Perhaps some statisticians took all of this into account, when looking at the tobacco companies.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

So who should we appoint to the panel that decides which scientific opinions can be voiced on the internet or in the mainstream media? How are we going to enforce the decisions of that authority? It's just a silly and certainly Un-American concept.

As I said previously in this thread a Technical Board named by the Government. Don't agree with your last sentence.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes this issue is nearly beyond a doubt, but that doesn't mean you can go around silencing arguments you don't like. Hell, we're basing half our logic on 400k year old ice samples that indicate CO2 concentrations and temperature. That's not what I would call scientifically definitive to the point where we can safely silence anyone with a dissenting opinion regardless of the origin of that "scientific" opinion.

You mean that for instance the NASA Carbon Counter doesn't give us precise indications about CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere?

NASA carbon counter reaches final orbit, returns data

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1135/


We should remeber that today CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 400 ppm and that this circumstance never occurred in the last million years.

I would like to point out that nobody wants to silence arguments that we don't like. The sense of this thread is that we would like to avoid the media to be used to spread misinformation on the Climate Change/Global Warming issue that affects negatively public opinion.
The punishment on this matter is invoked as an extreme mean to avoid misinformation on such a delicate matter like that of Climate Change/Global Warming issue. I mean everybody can have his own opinion on this matter but misinformation concerning the Climate Change/Global Warming issue on the media should be avoided considering the big power of the media to bias public opinion. So not a restriction of democratic rights but a guarantee for environmental issues.

 

[nwdiver]

"Deniers" have an evolutionary benefit and are vital to the way we work out our societal issues. Silencing deniers is like shutting down 10% of the neurons in your brain, each singularly useless piece is vital to the whole.

No... SKEPTICS have an evolutionary benefit. SKEPTICS don't use motivated reasoning to cherry pick evidence. 'Deniers' have ZERO value to society.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Robert.Boston I don't think you analogy works... In the case of tobacco companies, thier actions led to monterary loss by the government(s) (both federal and state) due to payment of health care cost. No such loss has yet been paid for damage to the environment and thus how would you even be able to bring suit?

I'm sure RichardC can do a more comprehensive list, but governments are already carrying much higher costs due to climate change. E.g.,

* Billions in clean-up following unprecedented storms, e.g. Superstorm Sandy, and billions more spent hardening infrastructure such as electric substations against future storms.

* Massive disruption to fishing industry in New England resulting in premature closure of fishing grounds or cancellation of our Maine shrimping season.

* Catastrophic losses of timber in Colorado due to pine bark beetles that used to freeze over winter, but now can live for longer seasons,

* Crippling droughts in California, causing billions of losses to farmers, increasing electricity bills, and requiring billions in expenditures on new desalination facilities.

So, plenty of directly measurable, costly problems created by climate change.

 

[RichardC]

Deniers and Costs of Climate Change

TheTalkingMule "Deniers" have an evolutionary benefit and are vital to the way we work out our societal issues. Silencing deniers is like shutting down 10% of the neurons in your brain, each singularly useless piece is vital to the whole.

I strongly disagree. Scientific skeptics help to advance the course of science by challenging each and every theory and assumption, and helping to refine and improve the science. Deniers serve no useful purpose whatsoever. Their impacts are exclusively harmful and damaging. They do not contribute to the development of the science or of scientific theories, and they poison the public sphere with disinformation, thereby inhibiting the implementation of the sound policies and laws that are required to protect the health and safety of our children and future generations.

In my experience deniers are driven by a variety of motivations, including:

1. Economic self interest - Members of this group are suffering from a conflict of interest between their immediate economic interests in some aspects of the fossil fuel complex, and the future interests of civilization. The most damaging members of this categories are the paid trolls (lobbyists, PR flacks and politicians) who are very well paid (increasingly through "dark money" from concealed sources) to lie publicly about climate change to facilitate continuing pollution and dangerous climate change.
2. Free market idealogy - Members of this group are prepared to disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of man-made climate change (and the fact that pollution it is a paradigmatic example of a market failure) to deny the existence of man-made climate change on the basis that markets are infallible. Members of this group fail to acknowledge that markets are not a natural phenomena but rather require the rule of law in order to function, and that a fundamental function of such laws is to prevent individuals from imposing harm on others, which climate change clearly does.
3. Anti-government idealogy - Similar in many respect to the free market idealogues, members of this group are prepared to disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of man-made climate change (and the fact that the regulation of pollution for public health purposes has, for centuries, been a fundamental function of government) to deny the existence of man-made climate change on the basis that to acknowledge it would in some measure justify regulatory intervention. Members of this group fail to acknowledge that laws and regulations are fundamental to the protection of public health and security, and that a fundamental function of such laws is to prevent individuals from imposing harm on others, which climate change clearly does.
4. Lack of knowledge and/or capacity for critical thinking - Individuals in this category are typically the target of the lobbyists, PR flacks and politicians in the first category, who use emotionally-based messaging relating to the second and/or third categories in an effort to broaden public support for inaction on climate change. These disinformation efforts have been frightening effective, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus as to the reality and seriousness of man-made climate change problem, at preventing effective public policy responses.

Deniers have and continue to cause harm by helping to block the implementation of the laws which could quite easily have eliminated this problem if implemented 25 years ago when the man-made climate change problem was sufficiently clearly understood and the dangers apparent to scientists and policy makers. As reflected in the following summary, deniers have much to answer for, which explains why many of those funding the denialist movement are seeking to conceal their identity. See: Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort | Now | Drexel University

The failure to address man-made climate change is now imposing costs on our governments and citizens on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars a year and is a real and increasing threat to public safety, order, economic activity and security in the coming years. Specific examples include:

1. Flooding - Heavy rainfall, expected to worsen as climate change progresses, swells rivers and leads to extreme flooding events, such as those experienced in 2008 and 2013 throughout Europe. Such events have resulted in loss of life and damaging economic impacts; the floods of June 2013 led to an estimated €12 billion in economic losses across nine EU Member States. These costs stress the resources of both insurers and governments. The U.S. has sustained 170 weather/climate disasters since 1980 where overall damages/costs reached or exceeded $1 billion (including CPI adjustment to 2013). The total cost of these 170 events exceeds $1 trillion. See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/372na7_en.pdf and Billion-Dollar Weather/Climate Disasters: Overview | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
2. Hurricanes and typhoons - The first decade of the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century saw 3,496 natural disasters from floods, storms, droughts and heat waves. That was nearly five times as many disasters as the 743 catastrophes reported during the 1970s – and all of those weather events are influenced by climate change. The bottom line: natural disasters are occurring nearly five times as often as they were in the 1970s. But some disasters – such as floods and storms – pose a bigger threat than others. Flooding and storms are also taking a bigger bite out of the economy. But heat waves are an emerging killer. See: Eight ways climate change is making the world more dangerous | Environment | The Guardian
3. Drought - There is strong scientific opinion that the frequency and severity of droughts are increasing. The Prairie droughts of 1979 cost $3.4-billion, and droughts in the 1980s cost more than $10-billion. The droughts of the 1990s, from a meteorological perspective, were more serious that those of the 1930s, and the droughts from 2001 to 2004 were severe and widespread. If current production systems, insurance and government programs are insufficient to sustain profitable agriculture in a variable climate at the moment, what's the prospect under future climate change? Recent U.S. droughts have been the most expansive in decades. At the peak of the 2012 drought, an astounding 81 percent of the contiguous United States was under at least abnormally dry conditions, resulting in an estimated $30 billion in damages. Climate change increases the odds of worsening drought in many regions of the U.S. and the world in the decades ahead. See: Climate change in the land of great drought - The Globe and Mail and Drought and Climate Change | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
4. Starvation - Millions of people could become destitute in Africa and Asia as staple foods more than double in price by 2050 as a result of extreme temperatures, floods and droughts that will transform the way the world farms. Climate change is expected to lower grain yields and raise crop prices across the developing world, leading to a 20-percent rise in child malnutrition, a new study finds. See: Millions face starvation as world warms, say scientists | Global development | The Guardian and Climate Change Will Worsen Hunger, Study Says | Worldwatch Institute
5. Forest fires - U.S. wildfires cost as much as $125 billion annually and the current scientific consensus is that wildfire risk will increase in many regions of the world as climate change leads to warmer temperatures, more frequent droughts, and changing precipitation patterns. Fires are expected to become more frequent and intense, and fire seasons are projected to last longer as a result of climate change. The last few years have seen unprecedented losses of human life as well as valuable forests. For example see: LA Times and http://glisa.umich.edu/media/files/NCA/MTIT_Forestry.pdf
6. Sea Level rise - A possible rise in sea levels by 0.5 meters by 2050 could put at risk more than $28 trillion worth of assets in the world's largest coastal cities, according to a report compiled for the insurance industry. By 2050—without adaptation—the losses from coastal flooding globally are projected to rise to $US1 trillion per year, ... By 2100 the losses from coastal flooding are projected to be 0.3–9.3% of global GDP per year. The high-end projection is a scenario for global economic collapse. See: Sea level rise could cost port cities $28 trillion - CNN.com and http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/56812f1261b168e02032126342619dad.pdf
7. Species extinction - Climate change alone is expected to threaten with extinction approximately one quarter or more of all species on land by the year 2050, surpassing even habitat loss as the biggest threat to life on land. Under a "business as usual" scenario, where greenhouse gas emissions aren't significantly reduced, about 50 percent of plants and one-third of animals are likely to vanish from half of the places they are now found by 2080, ... See: Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss | The Center for Health and the Global Environment and Climate Change Could Cause Widespread Species Loss | Global Warming Effects
8. Loss of permafrost -Rapid thawing of the Arctic could trigger a catastrophic "economic timebomb" which would cost trillions of dollars and undermine the global financial system, say a group of economists and polar scientists. Governments and industry have expected the widespread warming of the Arctic region in the past 20 years to be an economic boon, allowing the exploitation of new gas and oilfields and enabling shipping to travel faster between Europe and Asia. But the release of a single giant "pulse" of methane from thawing Arctic permafrost beneath the East Siberian sea "could come with a $60tn [£39tn] global price tag", according to the researchers who have for the first time quantified the effects on the global economy. It seems highly likely that the Arctic as we know it will disappear soon. By the end of this young century, a 30-70% decline in temperatures will ensure that permafrost, for example will disappear from gigantic areas of our North. Microbial decomposition of the preserved material in this soil will proceed at a comparable rate. Read more at Climate change and permafrost loss | Climate | The Earth Times and see:Rapid Arctic thawing could be economic timebomb, scientists say | Environment | The Guardian and
9. Economic and health impacts - Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study. See: Climate change is already damaging global economy, report finds | Environment | The Guardian
10. Breakdowns of security and war - Last month the Pentagon released a landmark report declaring climate change an "immediate risk" to national security and outlining how it intends to protect bases, prepare for humanitarian disasters and plan for global conflicts. Climate change is a 'threat multiplier' because it has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we already confront today—from infectious disease to armed insurgencies—and to produce new challenges in the future. See: Immediate Risk to National Security Posed by Global Warming - Scientific American and the 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap.