Free Speech and Climate Change Skeptics & Deniers

[Auzie]

I agree, but i find this view just as fantasy as Raffy's. We do not have a system right now that allows for give and take. Too much money flows into polictians, creating a hostile environment for making the right policies.

I disagree that a working democracy is a fantasy. We are getting closer and closer to it every day. Making voting easier is the key.

One day when we make it possible to vote using the phone, politicians will become redundant, as we may vote for the bills directly. If there are no politicians, there is no one to corrupt or lobby. The focus will be shifted to bills promotion and educating the public on various proposals. I think we are going that way. My expectation is that one of the North European countries may get there first.

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking as someone who works with scientists every day (many of them in the environmental field), their target is always to provide the information for society to make informed decisions. Society makes policy through elected bodies and we have to take responsibility for our electoral system(s) and those we elect.

I like that bit on taking responsibility. Taking personal responsibility is so much harder than expecting government to do all heavy lifting and then blaming it when it does not work.

If each one of us do their bit to preserve the environment, we can go a long way.

Mahatma Gandhi captured it nicely: Be the change you wish to see.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Here's an excellent article in the New York Times on skepticism vs. denialism: What's in a Name?

 

[Danal]

I disagree that a working democracy is a fantasy. We are getting closer and closer to it every day. Making voting easier is the key.

One day when we make it possible to vote using the phone, politicians will become redundant, as we may vote for the bills directly.

Consider reading "The Prefect" by Alistair Reynolds. It thoroughly explores some of the pro/con of such a democracy. And is also quite entertaining.

 

[Auzie]

Consider reading "The Prefect" by Alistair Reynolds. It thoroughly explores some of the pro/con of such a democracy. And is also quite entertaining.

Thanks for the recommendation. The science fiction art (books, movies) contemplates likely futures and sometimes accurately predicts them. Here is a list of some books that had accurate future predictions.

Back to working democracy, we have much closer examples now, here on earth. Switzerland democratic model has a parallel system of direct and representative voting. It seems to be working fine.

Large countries are likely to have more difficulties in achieving such models as they must incorporate more cultural diversity and diverse thinking and ideals. US is very diverse, large, polarized and that causes tensions. We see similar effects in European Union now. Trying to integrate not so compatible partners may bring more trouble than benefit. It is up to participants to decide if the trade off they make is worth it. Both Texas and New York must sacrifice its unique views and ideals if they wish to be parts of USA. In the trade off, they loose a bit of who they are and gain something else.

The challenge is to get such diverse polarized public to act as a unified force with common goal, to preserve the environment. There are many ways to get there and all different paths may have to be pursued, not just one.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

I disagree that a working democracy is a fantasy. We are getting closer and closer to it every day. Making voting easier is the key.

One day when we make it possible to vote using the phone, politicians will become redundant, as we may vote for the bills directly. If there are no politicians, there is no one to corrupt or lobby. The focus will be shifted to bills promotion and educating the public on various proposals. I think we are going that way. My expectation is that one of the North European countries may get there first.

Agree. And in a working democracy it will be easier to face and work out the CO2 emissions "corrupting" the atmosphere IMO.

- - - Updated - - -

If each one of us do their bit to preserve the environment, we can go a long way.

Mahatma Gandhi captured it nicely: Be the change you wish to see.

This ^_^

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Auzie again"

 

[Raffy.Roma]

We're not lacking for sound advice. We lack the courage to accept reality. There is no disagreement among the worlds science organizations... NOAA, NASA, NAS...

Agree 100%

 

[TheTalkingMule]

One day when we make it possible to vote using the phone, politicians will become redundant, as we may vote for the bills directly. If there are no politicians, there is no one to corrupt or lobby. The focus will be shifted to bills promotion and educating the public on various proposals. I think we are going that way. My expectation is that one of the North European countries may get there first.

This is definitely the way we are headed within 20-30 years and no one seems to talk about it. Perhaps it's too much of a threat to the current corrupt system to even talk about it.

As a transition to direct representation, I've been pushing the idea of electing mindless surrogate reps in the US House.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's an excellent article in the New York Times on skepticism vs. denialism: What's in a Name?

I don't think there is anyone in this thread who lacks understanding of man-made climate change or the difference between denialism and skepticism. That's not the problem people have with this horrendous idea, it's just an inherently un-American concept that most people reject out of hand.

 

[nwdiver]

I don't think there is anyone in this thread who lacks understanding of man-made climate change or the difference between denialism and skepticism. That's not the problem people have with this horrendous idea, it's just an inherently un-American concept that most people reject out of hand.

What concept is inherently un-American?

 

[falconeer]

What concept is inherently un-American?

Restricting Freedom of Speech.

I've been reading through your posts in this thread, and what you don't seem to understand is the basic concept of 'Freedom of Speech'.

What you seem to be saying, (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that anyone not using scientific evidence should be punished for expressing their opinion: tell me how that doesn't go against freedom of speech?

It is absolutely NOT a requirement to have evidence (scientific or otherwise) for expressing ANY viewpoint under Freedom of Speech. 'Freedom' does not mean 'Freedom to argue for anything only if using evidence'.

A prime example of this is religious and/or political beliefs: anyone is free to express those without the approval of a governing body: you do not need speech to be vetted by some council/judge. Also, there isn't a split between topics that are immune from 'Free Speech' and ones that aren't: every topic is equally fair game.

Now to be clear, that doesn't mean that scientific consensus and evidence shouldn't determine government policy: of course they should. I believe that it is the governments place to (within reason) mitigate climate change. Climate science should also be part of the science education curriculum, as it is a scientific theory with strong evidence. What I am strongly against is restriction of Freedom of Speech and expression by people (and no, corporations are not people my friend :wink: )

 

[nwdiver]

Restricting Freedom of Speech.

So... it should be ok for GM to claim that the volt gets >200mpge?

- Pfizer should be able to claim ibuprofen cures cancer?
- Airborne should be able to claim that their product will make you impervious to disease for 12 hours?

No... that's insane... no one on this thread has suggested restricting free speech... there have been some misinterpretations... the theme of this thread is that public statements that are FALSE should be restricted. You can say whatever you want so long as it's FACTUAL.

Here's some specifics....

- CO2 levels are not rising; WRONG.
- CO2 can't warm the planet; WRONG.
- human emissions are insignificant; WRONG.
- GM Volt get 200mpge; WRONG.
- Ibuprofen cures cancer; WRONG.
- Airborne protects you from the flu; WRONG.

That's not called freedom.... that's called FRAUD.

 

[falconeer]

Did you read my last sentence correctly? Freedom of speech is a right given to individual people NOT corporations. Selling a product or service is inherently regulated and is obviously not part of free speech. Is that more clear?

- - - Updated - - -

So... it should be ok for GM to claim that the volt gets >200mpge?

- Pfizer should be able to claim ibuprofen cures cancer?
- Airborne should be able to claim that their product will make you impervious to disease for 12 hours?

No... that's insane... no one on this thread has suggested restricting free speech... there have been some misinterpretations... the theme of this thread is that public statements that are FALSE should be restricted. You can say whatever you want so long as it's FACTUAL.

Here's some specifics....

- CO2 levels are not rising; WRONG.
- CO2 can't warm the planet; WRONG.
- human emissions are insignificant; WRONG.
- GM Volt get 200mpge; WRONG.
- Ibuprofen cures cancer; WRONG.
- Airborne protects you from the flu; WRONG.

That's not called freedom.... that's called FRAUD.

Again read, my first post. That is NOT what 'Free Speech' means. You absolutely can say something that is not "factual". You can only be punished if you are providing a product or service (typically corporations) then you can be sued for false advertising. I do not work for Chevy, so I can say that the the Volt is powered by unicorn feces and I can also say it gets 5,000 mpge, without government punishment. Instead, my public statements can be debunked or ridiculed by anyone however they please. This is the process of Freedom of Speech in public debates. You don't have to like it, you may think it is terrible in some cases (and you may or may not be right about that) but lets at least understand the concept.

 

[nwdiver]

Again read, my first post. That is NOT what 'Free Speech' means. You absolutely can say something that is not "factual". You can only be punished if you are providing a product or service (typically corporations) then you can be sued for false advertising. I do not work for Chevy, so I can say that the the Volt is powered by unicorn feces and I can also say it gets 5,000 mpge, without government punishment. Instead, my public statements can be debunked or ridiculed by anyone however they please. This is the process of Freedom of Speech in public debates. You don't have to like it, you may think it is terrible in some cases (and you may or may not be right about that) but lets at least understand the concept.

Well... that's just a fundamental disagreement... there was a time in our history that it was 'buyer beware'...

Heroin was sold as a cough suppressant for children. We created the FTC for a reason... we needed it to protect the public from harmful products. Misinformation now poses a greater public danger than Heroin did 100 years ago. We needed regulation to fix that problem... why is this any different?

I'm not suggesting that we start handing out fines the minute someone steps out of line... there should be fair warning, an explanation and an opportunity to present your side. But we can't have idiots on Faux News perpetuating a fantasy that's getting people killed. We can't have pseudo-celebs on day-time TV spreading misinformation about vaccines that's getting people killed.

The duty of the public to provide for it's health and general welfare supersedes the 'freedom' of a few nut-jobs to commit fraud.

 

[bonnie]

nwdiver, You're continuing to give company examples & as pointed out, Freedom of Speech doesn't give companies the right to say whatever they want to say. While companies today can't make false claims about what the product does, anyone NOT part of the company can say it cured their cancer, grew hair, and improved their eyesight.

- - - Updated - - -

And to further clarify: Not NOT saying that other options shouldn't be considered. But you cannot ignore a basic right, guaranteed by the constitution here in this country - you'd need a constitutional amendment to get that changed and would face a wall of pushback.

Sometimes when you want to reach a goal, you have to look at how best to reach it. Attempting to destroy what most to believe is a basic right will probably prove to be an unnecessary distraction and will not prove to be successful.

The argument is NOT about if people should or should not be allowed to say things that are false or unproven. This is about the reality of getting to that point, given current rights and beliefs.

Make sense?

 

[nwdiver]

nwdiver, You're continuing to give company examples & as pointed out, Freedom of Speech doesn't give companies the right to say whatever they want to say. While companies today can't make false claims about what the product does, anyone NOT part of the company can say it cured their cancer, grew hair, and improved their eyesight.

That kinda cuts to the heart of what this thread is about... why should corporate dis-affiliation make something wrong right? wrong is wrong. If I don't work for Pfizer but I wrote a book about the miracle of ibuprofen how is that any less damaging than if pfizer had paid me to do it?

This campaign of opinions = facts and everything is equal is absolutely insane... people are dying... it is putting our future at risk and it must stop.

I'm not arguing that there's not currently a distinction between fraud and publicizing something false... I'm saying that distinction needs to be dissolved.

And to further clarify: Not NOT saying that other options shouldn't be considered. But you cannot ignore a basic right, guaranteed by the constitution here in this country - you'd need a constitutional amendment to get that changed and would face a wall of pushback.

Sometimes when you want to reach a goal, you have to look at how best to reach it. Attempting to destroy what most to believe is a basic right will probably prove to be an unnecessary distraction and will not prove to be successful.

The argument is NOT about if people should or should not be allowed to say things that are false or unproven. This is about the reality of getting to that point, given current rights and beliefs.

Make sense?

The FTC didn't exist in 1776.5 either... are we not better off knowing that there's clinical evidence supporting the claims of medicine we buy? (with the obvious exception of homeopathy). There is a line between fraud and speech... erasing that line won't make us any less free than when the government banned 'snake oil'... but it will make our future more secure.

 

[bonnie]

That kinda cuts to the heart of what this thread is about... why should corporate dis-affiliation make something wrong right? wrong is wrong. If I don't work for Pfizer but I wrote a book about the miracle of ibuprofen how is that any less damaging than if pfizer had paid me to do it?

This campaign of opinions = facts and everything is equal is absolutely insane... people are dying... it is putting our future at risk and it must stop.

I'm not arguing that there's not currently a distinction between fraud and publicizing something false... I'm saying that distinction needs to be dissolved.

I'm not arguing the right or wrong. I'm pointing out that to achieve what you're talking about, you need to get a right guaranteed by the constitution in the country, set aside. You can want it all you want, but realistically, it's not going to happen.

The issue is important enough that all available time should be spent on an avenue that has higher odds of being successful.

- - - Updated - - -

If I don't work for Pfizer but I wrote a book about the miracle of ibuprofen how is that any less damaging than if pfizer had paid me to do it?

The law would interpret that as Pfizer had induced you to write that book and it would fall under the corporate umbrella. (And this is an area I know well.)

 

[brianman]

Random observation about free speech...

If evidence and facts are required to back up public commentary, we will no longer have comedians. I simply can't vote for that.

 

[bonnie]

That kinda cuts to the heart of what this thread is about... why should corporate dis-affiliation make something wrong right? wrong is wrong. If I don't work for Pfizer but I wrote a book about the miracle of ibuprofen how is that any less damaging than if pfizer had paid me to do it?

This campaign of opinions = facts and everything is equal is absolutely insane... people are dying... it is putting our future at risk and it must stop.

I'm not arguing that there's not currently a distinction between fraud and publicizing something false... I'm saying that distinction needs to be dissolved.



The FTC didn't exist in 1776.5 either... are we not better off knowing that there's clinical evidence supporting the claims of medicine we buy? (with the obvious exception of homeopathy). There is a line between fraud and speech... erasing that line won't make us any less free than when the government banned 'snake oil'... but it will make our future more secure.

Okay. I see I'm failing in my approach at saying I'm not arguing the right or wrong. Because it appears each reply to me is about right or wrong.

So let's try this approach: Okay, you're right. The law should make it illegal to do that. Unfortunately you have constitutional rights that need to be set aside first. So where are you going to start to get that to change? What do you recommend?

- - - Updated - - -

Random observation about free speech...

If evidence and facts are required to back up public commentary, we will no longer have comedians. I simply can't vote for that.

Made me laugh out loud.

 

[nwdiver]

Sorry... gonna have to disagree here... satire is satire; IMO you can poke fun at something while still understanding the seriousness of it...

...'Time' has different meanings to different people...

View attachment 71334

Case in point...

Satire is Satire... I think most of us can tell when someone is joking and when they're trying to convey information...

- - - Updated - - -

So let's try this approach: Okay, you're right. The law should make it illegal to do that. Unfortunately you have constitutional rights that need to be set aside first. So where are you going to start to get that to change? What do you recommend?

In 1776 - ~1900 it was 'buyer beware' you had the constitutional right to say anything you wanted about the product you were selling... how did that change?

This isn't as 'outlandish' as it seems... if I disparage someones business publicly with false accusations they have the right to sue me for libel. What has been proposed is that we expand these libel laws to include harm to health and general welfare. If a climatologist witnesses the publicizing of information he knows to conflict with factual information he should be able to press a libel suit in court just as if he were the owner of that business.

So Oprah could be sued for her segment on vaccines with Jenny McCarthy in a trial no different than any libel case. Or at minimum barred from presenting that information again without the evidence to support their claims.

 

[brianman]

Satire is Satire... I think most of us can tell when someone is joking and when they're trying to convey information...

Counter evidence: Top Gear regarding Tesla Roadster, and judicial response.

 

[nwdiver]

Counter evidence: Top Gear regarding Tesla Roadster, and judicial response.

How is that counter evidence? They WERE sued... not every lawsuit is going to win... I disagree with the judge, that WASN'T satire...

There are going to be grey areas of disagreement... but also Black and White areas where someone is OBVIOUSLY WRONG and OBVIOUSLY serious about it.