Free Speech and Climate Change Skeptics & Deniers

[RichardC]

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.

Karma,

While I would defer to your expertise in this area, I would have thought that claims against the funders, their PR agencies, lobbyists, think tanks and others for intentional misrepresentations to advance business interests would be an easier claim to bring than against the politicians, due to the separation of powers doctrine. As I understand it, the courts are reluctant to take on matters that could appear to be a political question.

Some different lines of attack could possibly include: (a) asking the FTC and sympathetic states to use their extensive investigative powers to pursue the sources of the misrepresentations under Section 5 of the FTC Act (and the corresponding provisions in state laws); (b) bring a private right of action on similar grounds (i.e., for misrepresentations) in states, such as California, which permit such actions to be brought; (c) pursue information about inappropriate campaign contributions and other similar activities under various freedom of information and lobbyist registration laws; (d) the use by states, such as New York, New Jersey and Louisiana of their parens patriae powers to bring claims against those who are principal contributors to climate change (and potentially to the disinformation campaign that facilitates the continuing emissions) which would seem to remain viable in the wake of the USSC decision in Hood; (e) requests that the SEC investigate the adequacy of the disclosure by fossil fuel companies of their indirect contributions to denier organizations; (f) potential Rule 10b-5 claims for material non-disclosure relating to either inadequate treatment of climate change risks to enterprise value or the support of denier activities; or (g) nuisance or other claims?

I have no doubt that there are other potential legal claims which could be pursued.

Your thoughts?

 

[Raffy.Roma]

I have no doubt that there are other potential legal claims which could be pursued.

Your thoughts?

Agree. And the money got from the legal claims could be used to finance Reasearch and Development in the field of Renewable Sources of Energy.

Most important point is to get rid of oil as soon as possible.

 

[Robert.Boston]

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???

RichardC laid out who would be subject to prosecution (under existing laws -- no need for some new ministry). To connect the dots, in neither of your examples is the person profiting by the misrepresentation. There's no law against being a hypocrite, but there are laws prohibiting companies from misrepresenting facts to sell their wares.

 

[Chipper]

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/defa...ric Vehicle Owner Survey Report-July 2012.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 - - -

I have contacted every known Tesla owner in the Chattanooga/Hamilton County area and to date, I am the ONLY Tesla owner driving on sunshine. I have also spoken with many owners at the Supercharger here (I like to hang out there and speak with owners) and there has only been one other owner I have spoken with who is using solar. My statistic would seem to indicate that the number is closer to 10% that 60%. My point is simply neither of our "surveys" is valid as a means of making assumptions related to the whole. If those of us who agree that climate change is a very real concern--if WE are the ones using poor statistical data--why would others believe what we have to say. If you were to say, "Nearly 60% of all respondents to my survey indicate..." I would heartily agree. But when you categorically state a statistic that may or may not be true...sorry!

 

[Nathan Smith]

Chipper -- agree with you 1000%, well said.

 

[dhrivnak]

I have contacted every known Tesla owner in the Chattanooga/Hamilton County area and to date, I am the ONLY Tesla owner driving on sunshine. I have also spoken with many owners at the Supercharger here (I like to hang out there and speak with owners) and there has only been one other owner I have spoken with who is using solar. My statistic would seem to indicate that the number is closer to 10% that 60%. My point is simply neither of our "surveys" is valid as a means of making assumptions related to the whole. If those of us who agree that climate change is a very real concern--if WE are the ones using poor statistical data--why would others believe what we have to say. If you were to say, "Nearly 60% of all respondents to my survey indicate..." I would heartily agree. But when you categorically state a statistic that may or may not be true...sorry!

Why not encourage them to vote in the poll then. If the data is there I will change my stance.

 

[Chipper]

You missed the point. My data IS there. It is just different from YOUR data. One of us is either wrong or...oh no....both of us???? Here is another example of how your "data" can be interpreted. After 50 votes there were 60% of all respondents driving on sunshine. However since then 150 more have voted and the numbers have decreased by 3%. If we were to extrapolate that out and the trend holds for every 150 new votes there would be a 3% drop. So if all 50,000 Tesla owners had voted we could assume less than 20% would be driving on sunshine, right?
Of course I recognize this is a ridiculous exercise. I am just trying to point out the fallacies of your posted logic.

 

[tomas]

Why not encourage them to vote in the poll then. If the data is there I will change my stance.

Fact is very small % of tesla owners use forum. Those that do, particularly those who post frequently, could be termed zealots. Now, I'm making a jump here, but I believe zealots FAR more likely to also have solar. Hence skewed results that do not reflect owner group as whole.

PS, I'm happy to be a zealot!

 

[tigerade]

A fun proposal from climate scientist Peter Doran to convince hard-line climate contrarians - send them to space.

Bringing opinions on climate change closer to reality: Peter Doran at TEDxUofIChicago - YouTube

 

[RichardC]

A fun proposal from climate scientist Peter Doran to convince hard-line climate contrarians - send them to space.

Bringing opinions on climate change closer to reality: Peter Doran at TEDxUofIChicago - YouTube

In a similar vein, the following TEDx talks put the climate change debate in a clear context:
Climatechange is simple: David Roberts at TEDxTheEvergreenStateCollege
The realityof climate change | David Puttnam | TEDxDublin
TEDxPSU- Michael Mann - A Look Into Our Climate: Past To Present To Future
Slayingthe "zombies" of climate science | Dr. Marshall Shepherd |TEDxAtlanta
Globalwarming - fact or fiction? David Bromwich at TEDxColumbus
TEDxNASA- Bruce Wielicki - Climate Change: Fact And Fiction
Thetrue cost of oil: Garth Lenz @ TEDxVictoria
ClimateChange: Why you should be angry and why anger isn't enough: John Ashton atTEDxBedfordSchool

 

[James Anders]

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.

This sounds great. We could start at once with Jon Gruber and then go on to President Obama who both knowingly made false statements of fact with the intent to deceive.

And if someone believes that the earth is 6000 years old (which is silly) - how is that an intent to deceive for personal gain? That indeed should be protected by the 1st amendment.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

This sounds great. We could start at once with Jon Gruber and then go on to President Obama who both knowingly made false statements of fact with the intent to deceive.

This thread is not for political personal attacks without even reporting evidences.

[To moderator: Request of moderation for the above mentioned reason]

 

[James Anders]

This thread is not for political personal attacks without even reporting evidences.

[To moderator: Request of moderation for the above mentioned reason]

Raffy - No attacks. Gruber has publicly admitted his deception under oath. Just Google "Gruber Lies" and you can watch numerous YouTube clips of Gruber admitting his deception.

As for the President - well there are numerous documented examples of things he said that were/are simply not true. For example, many people here had to give up their doctor. Many people lost their health care plans. Here's a simple one. He promised to televise all health care negotiation on C-SPAN. He did not. There are numerous documented examples.

Again, this is not a personal attack. I am simply pointing out to Karma that he's correct and that many public officials lie all the time.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

As for the President - well there are numerous documented examples of things he said that were/are simply not true. For example, many people here had to give up their doctor. Many people lost their health care plans. Here's a simple one. He promised to televise all health care negotiation on C-SPAN. He did not. There are numerous documented examples.

Don't believe President Obama can have done this on such a delicate matter like health care. Anyway main point is that this matter is completely off topic with respect to this thread. For this reason I asked the intervention of the Moderator.

 

[RichardC]

This sounds great. We could start at once with Jon Gruber and then go on to President Obama who both knowingly made false statements of fact with the intent to deceive.

And if someone believes that the earth is 6000 years old (which is silly) - how is that an intent to deceive for personal gain? That indeed should be protected by the 1st amendment.

James, I am inclined to agree with you that evolution v. creation may not be the best example. However, the examples that you gave did not consider the critical requirement that the deception be promulgated to advance a business or commercial interest. More specifically, the full statement, with which I generally agree, that is relevant to this discussion is: "with the intent to deceive for personal gain (i.e.: API), this shouldn't fall within the protections of the First Amendment".

As previously noted, some of the ways in which the currently prevalent sources of climate change disinformation and misrepresentations could be pursued could include:

(a) asking the FTC and sympathetic states to use their extensive investigative powers to pursue the sources of the misrepresentations under Section 5 of the FTC Act (and the corresponding provisions in state laws); (b) bring a private right of action on similar grounds (i.e., for misrepresentations) in states, such as California, which permit such actions to be brought; (c) pursue information about inappropriate campaign contributions and other similar activities under various freedom of information and lobbyist registration laws; (d) the use by states, such as New York, New Jersey and Louisiana of their parens patriae powers to bring claims against those who are principal contributors to climate change (and potentially to the disinformation campaign that facilitates the continuing emissions) which would seem to remain viable in the wake of the USSC decision in Hood; (e) requests that the SEC investigate the adequacy of the disclosure by fossil fuel companies of their indirect contributions to denier organizations; (f) potential Rule 10b-5 claims for material non-disclosure relating to either inadequate treatment of climate change risks to enterprise value or the support of denier activities; or (g) nuisance or other claims?

 

[James Anders]

Richard,

I'm not sure why it just has to be to "advance a business or commercial interest". What about lying and knowingly providing false statements to advance one's political agenda? Seriously, Gruber has publicly admitted that he and others lied and misrepresented facts in order to push through legislation. So, business people can't lie - but politicians can?

I honestly can't see why this would be not included. Certainly, the advancement of one's political agenda could be viewed as a personal gain.

And Raffy - this is not off-topic at all. The discussion was about bringing legal action against people who lied or knowingly misrepresented facts to the public. The fact that we have such a timely and important news story concerning Jon Gruber's amazing revelations is indeed on-topic.

-J

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Richard,

I'm not sure why it just has to be to "advance a business or commercial interest". What about lying and knowingly providing false statements to advance one's political agenda? Seriously, Gruber has publicly admitted that he and others lied and misrepresented facts in order to push through legislation. So, business people can't lie - but politicians can?

I honestly can't see why this would be not included. Certainly, the advancement of one's political agenda could be viewed as a personal gain.

And Raffy - this is not off-topic at all. The discussion was about bringing legal action against people who lied or knowingly misrepresented facts to the public. The fact that we have such a timely and important news story concerning Jon Gruber's amazing revelations is indeed on-topic.

-J

Yes for Jon Gruber but what has the health care to do with the Climate Change/Global Warming issue?

 

[James Anders]

Raffy,

My post wasn't solely about health care. I simply used that as but one example of lying to the public in response to Karma's post. I mean, that was the issue we were discussing, right?

Remember, there are already laws (at least in the USA) on the books that cover certain forms of lying and making false statements.

Making false statements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Raffy.Roma]

@James

I know that in the USA it's very important the matter of "Making false statements". Wish it would be the same thing in Italy. I only wanted to point out that this thread is concerning the matter of making false statements concerning the Climate Change/Global Warming issue and not other issues.
But maybe that you mean that the common law concerning making false statements could be used to punish people making false statements concerning the Climate Change/Global Warming issue?

This would a fair point.

 

[James Anders]

@James

I know that in the USA it's very important the matter of "Making false statements". Wish it would be the same thing in Italy. I only wanted to point out that this thread is concerning the matter of making false statements concerning the Climate Change/Global Warming issue and not other issues.
But maybe that you mean that the common law concerning making false statements could be used to punish people making false statements concerning the Climate Change/Global Warming issue?

This would a fair point.

Yes, I was using those as an example. And I also wanted to point out that politicians should be included.

Regarding Climate Change specifically, like most things in science it is really hard to define truth/false. I suppose if one could document that a scientist or politician made a knowingly false or misleading comment and one could prove that this person knew it was false/misleading and did so for personal gain, then yes I think prosecution is warranted.

But what about those scientists and politicians who put forth a theory or idea because they truly believe it to be valid? What about those climate scientists who dare to publish papers that might disagree with majority? Do we outlaw free and open discussions? I get the impression that unless a scientist absolutely agrees with man-made climate change then whatever they have to say or publish is immediately discounted. This is not how science works. It is exactly opposite of how the scientific method is defined.

True scientists have nothing to fear from a competing or alternative theory. If their theory or model is more correct then the data/tests will prove it out.