Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Snowy L

Climate Change Denial To Be A Crime?

Recommended Posts

What is it with our current governments and their hate of free speech?

 

http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/11/courts-could-make-it-illegal-to-question-climate-change-5433637/

 

http://lastresistance.com/14170/climate-change-lemmings-say-climate-change-denial-worse-than-holocaust-denial/

 

 

Personally I don't deny that the Earth is warming up and will continue to do so for the next few thousand years, but I have a big problem accepting that it has been caused by man. In the context of glacial/interglacials there is nothing unusual about this warming and as we are 13,000 years in to this current interglacial we should be approaching peak warming in the next couple of thousand years. In fact the only thing unusual about this interglacial is that it's relatively weak compared to the last 4 peaks.

 

Global-temps.png

 

 

Thoughts? Should certain air vibrations that come out of our mouths be criminal offences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, a priori  climate-change 'denial' is rather pathetic; every bit as pathetic as is Holocaust denial...That said, should it be criminalized? No way! So long as the right to free-speech is allowed to work both ways, we should all be prepared to accept it?? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any reasonable links about this, rather than spammy, tabloidish websites?

I wonder if this is, yet again, climate change deniers twisting the suggestion of prosecuting those who deliberately and knowingly peddle lies for pay into "they want to jail all sceptics"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Climate Change Denial to be a Crime" - Talk about a misleading title. This is based on nothing more than tabloid hearsay and "allegedly".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The major difference between any other warming is the number of folks on the earth, not too many 400,000 years ago, now several billion, all need feeding, all needing somewhere to live and not be flooded by possible rising sea levels etc etc. Rare for me to venture into this type of discussion as I find stereotyped mind sets are often to the fore!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it with our current governments and their hate of free speech?

 

http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/11/courts-could-make-it-illegal-to-question-climate-change-5433637/

 

http://lastresistance.com/14170/climate-change-lemmings-say-climate-change-denial-worse-than-holocaust-denial/

 

 

Personally I don't deny that the Earth is warming up and will continue to do so for the next few thousand years, but I have a big problem accepting that it has been caused by man. In the context of glacial/interglacials there is nothing unusual about this warming and as we are 13,000 years in to this current interglacial we should be approaching peak warming in the next couple of thousand years. In fact the only thing unusual about this interglacial is that it's relatively weak compared to the last 4 peaks.

 

Global-temps.png

 

 

Thoughts? Should certain air vibrations that come out of our mouths be criminal offences?

 

I doubt that would actually become law and I have no problem if people question climate change based on scientific evidence, rather than because they apparently know so much more from sitting in their armchair (odd how people don't do this so much with doctors and various other professions?). Unfortunately this post is a good example, as, sorry but I am going to have to correct your paragraph which is pretty incorrect.

If you actually study Quaternary climate in depth, is very hard to try and suggest it hasn't been caused by man. The orbital forgings that lead to the glacial-interglacial cycles and associated greenhouse gas and temperature trends, especially for interglacials, are relatively well understood. Each interglacial is different, however temperature trends can generally be explained by trends in orbital forcing and associated factors. Typically, as shown in your graph the current pattern of interglacials (apart from MIS-11, the first interglacial in the graph) feature an early peak in temperature coinciding with insolation maxima in the northern Hemisphere, before gradually declining as summer isolation declines. Greenhouse gases also follow this early peak and then decline with insolation.

 

This also occurred during the 'Holocene climatic optimum' and the Holocene fits this pattern of orbital forcing. Apart from the fact we have recently departed from this normal trend for temperature and especially CO2.

 

Indeed the Holocene has recently become unique in now having a relatively rapid warming when other indicators suggest the Earth should in the long term be gradually cooling.. except for greenhouse gas levels. Further, carbon isotopes provide very strong evidence that the hugely anomalous CO2 levels have been released via burning of fossil fuels.. rather than from natural sources.

 

It would therefore be interesting to see the sources of your knowledge and also which temperature reconstruction that graph shows.

 

Some of what you say is somewhat true in that if you ignore causes, there is nothing unusual in the scale of predicted warming relative to glacial-interglacial changes, and it is also true that some previous interglacials were up to a few degrees warmer, but we are adjusted to the current climate and if we jumped to that warmth naturally or anthropogenically, the associated climate change and sea level rise would cause similar problems.. If we somehow experienced an abrupt change on the scale of glacial-interglacial changes we would be in even more trouble.. indeed past changes caused the expansion and collapse of the ranges of many species.

 

But anyway, relating to the topic of this thread I would imagine this is not true.. and no I don't believe it should be criminal (unless important organisations do it while ignoring evidence..) however inversely, the fact that Florida banned state officials from using the term 'climate change' and 'global warming' along with others is sadly true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Whilst I fully accept the existence of anthropogenic warming and appreciate the seriousness and urgency of tackling this subject, to criminalise the deniers would be a grave mistake and the start of a slippery slope of disallowing other portions in relation to 'Freedom of Speech' and where would that end - some type of Orwellian society completely under the thumb of the state? 

 

Rightly or wrongly we actually make progress through allowing the dissenters to have their say - apart from a few nutters, who really believes in a flat Earth, or that the Earth is the centre of universe these days?

 

There is little doubt that the amount of CO2 does have a warming tendency and pushes up global temperature. What I would like to see however would be a chart of CO2 concentrations to compare with the chart introduced by SL.

 

CO2 is also introduced into the atmosphere by, for example volcanic eruptions and over long periods of time during ice ages there is less 'weathering' a natural process which takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and into the ground and sea actually by weather and over time the concentrations build up. Where the land and sea surfaces are covered by ice this does not occur the same because liquid water is needed for this process.

 

However the rate of increase since circa 1750 appears to be unprecedented and to my mind there is little doubt that 'Man' has contributed to this significantly.

 

With the vast majority of climate scientists now accepting anthropogenic warming and this is gaining general acceptance amongst the public now the deniers are in a decreasing minority and often are paid by others with vested interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the word "denier" offensive and counter productive to any reasonable dialogue between both camps, just what are they denying other than the magnitude of warming being proposed. As for the headline, well its nonsense really as any such laws would never make it past the first hurdle gladly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the word "denier" offensive and counter productive to any reasonable dialogue between both camps, just what are they denying other than the magnitude of warming being proposed. As for the headline, well its nonsense really as any such laws would never make it past the first hurdle gladly.

No, a denier is one who denies that human activity is/will cause global warming or other climate change. 

Anyway, I'm not sure what is more silly:

1) the person who made the silly comment about making climate science denial a crime

2) the media for their misleading sensationalist headlines implying that it is a serious proposal

or

3) the so-called sceptics who are up in arms/panicking because they thnk everyone who accepts climate science wants to see them arrested and locked up for life ....

It's not a new Monty Python sketch is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's not a new Monty Python sketch is it?

I don't know, Essan...But, anyway, I'll take 1,000 lashes and a beheading! :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, a priori  climate-change 'denial' is rather pathetic; every bit as pathetic as is Holocaust denial...That said, should it be criminalized? No way! So long as the right to free-speech is allowed to work both ways, we should all be prepared to accept it?? :)

This all stems from a Sunday Telegraph article by Christopher Booker. In that article is a link to a Guardian report and in that article a link to a .pdf lecture given by a lawyer. If that lawyer said what Booker says he did I couldn't find it. Nor, for that matter, do I have the time atm to find the Booker, Sunday Telegraph article again and the links from that - doh.

But, clearly, Booker has managed to planet more of his nasty little mind seeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh? I've not read either of those 'publications'...You are not suggesting that not believing in AGW should be a crime, are you? Whatever the politics are, criminalization would be a mistake. The again, as you say, it was stirred-up by the Torygraph!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the second article is an insult to the millions who died in the camps in WW2 ,climate change should remain in the realms of an individual's beliefs IMO ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh? I've not read either of those 'publications'...You are not suggesting that not believing in AGW should be a crime, are you? Whatever the politics are, criminalization would be a mistake. The again, as you say, it was stirred-up by the Torygraph!

 

Of course talk of criminalization is a nonsense but when you consider that the climate pundits for the Telegraph, Sun. Mail, and Times are Booker, Delingpole, Rose and Ridley then locking them in the Tower for the deliberate dissemination of lies and subversive activity seems extremely attractive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was more about 'paid misleaders' and whether they should be held accountable for the damage they do whilst plying their wares?

 

So what do you do? The discredited doctor who started the 'autism scare'  with his take on the MMR jab would appear a similar to do with innocents being hurt at the end end of a trail started by Him?

 

If folk in the developing world suffer more as a result of the deliberate misleading by a few individuals then should those individuals be taken to task for the demonstrable harm they allowed to occur ?

 

All of that said I'm sure history will make its own decisions over what we allowed to occur whilst Science pleaded with us for action?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

climate change, area 51, the moon landings, aliens, 911, JFK, ghosts, 'i cant believe its not butter'

unbelievers!

machine gun them all!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh? I've not read either of those 'publications'...You are not suggesting that not believing in AGW should be a crime, are you? Whatever the politics are, criminalization would be a mistake. The again, as you say, it was stirred-up by the Torygraph!

No, I'm absolutely not suggesting that. I'm suggesting Booker has made allegations about what a lawyer said in a lecture that I can't find to be corroborated by any facts or evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I`ve heard a rumour a year ago about this it won`t happen. 

This the first link came up today.

http://www.newsweek.com/should-climate-change-deniers-be-prosecuted-378652

climate change, area 51, the moon landings, aliens, 911, JFK, ghosts, 'i cant believe its not butter'

unbelievers!
machine gun them all!!

That's worse than in Saudi Arabia.
Quote.

Arrest Climate-Change Deniers

http://gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-deniers-1553719888
Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics.

Let's make a clear distinction here: I'm not talking about the man on the street who thinks Rush Limbaugh is right, and climate change is a socialist United Nations conspiracy foisted by a Muslim U.S. president on an unwitting public to erode its civil liberties.

You all know that man. That man is an idiot.
Who is this idiot and who`s he talking about. :unknw:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check this out. I'm not a climate change denier but this is ridiculous.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/philippe-verdier-french-weatherman-question-climate-change

 

I think comments like this:

 

"We are hostage to a planetary scandal over climate change – a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear"

 

are quite damaging to the guy's own credibility, and whether he likes it or not, the credibility of the scientific organisation he works for.

 

 

To see it from another perspective, if, for example, a government spokesperson wrote a book and did a big promotional tour about white pride and how the holocaust was faked to guilt us into letting the Jews take over the world, I'd expect that person to be out of a job rather quickly.

 

Likewise, if a doctor in a prominent hospital wrote a book about the wonders of homeopathy and how we're being turned into mindless drones through vaccinations, I wouldn't be surprised if they came looking for his resignation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think comments like this:

 

"We are hostage to a planetary scandal over climate change – a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear"

 

are quite damaging to the guy's own credibility, and whether he likes it or not, the credibility of the scientific organisation he works for.

 

 

To see it from another perspective, if, for example, a government spokesperson wrote a book and did a big promotional tour about white pride and how the holocaust was faked to guilt us into letting the Jews take over the world, I'd expect that person to be out of a job rather quickly.

 

Likewise, if a doctor in a prominent hospital wrote a book about the wonders of homeopathy and how we're being turned into mindless drones through vaccinations, I wouldn't be surprised if they came looking for his resignation.

 

 

Fair enough but he is a television weather man not an employee of a scientific organisation. Would you support a correspondent who specialises in science/medicine to be fired if they wrote a paper on homeopathy? They'd look bloody silly but as long as they continued to do their real job properly they shouldn't be fired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough but he is a television weather man not an employee of a scientific organisation. Would you support a correspondent who specialises in science/medicine to be fired if they wrote a paper on homeopathy? They'd look bloody silly but as long as they continued to do their real job properly they shouldn't be fired.

 

Ah right, for some reason I thought he worked with the French Met, not just some channel. 

 

I personally wouldn't think someone is capable of reporting accurately on science/medicine if they supported homeopathy, but then most media organisations appeal to their user base, which is why you see the same few scientists always on FOX news and such calling climate change a conspiracy. So it depends, is his credibility damaged among the user base, or is it appealing to them? The media is less concerned with accurate reporting nowadays, it's all about the bottom line really.

 

In the case of Mr Verdier, he is a household name in France and works for what I assume is a mainstream station. The French public, as far as I'm aware, are generally supportive of action on climate change and don't have the same level of hostility towards climate science as the US or to a lesser extent, the UK. So the question is more to do with whether the French public will be put off watching weather reports with Mr Verdier enough to lower ratings? If the answer is yes, then it's a fairly clear cut decision, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst obviously climate change denial in terms of individual free speech is never going to be criminalised, should deliberate mis-information and/or witholding information be a crime ?:

 

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst obviously climate change denial in terms of individual free speech is never going to be criminalised, should deliberate mis-information and/or witholding information be a crime ?:

 

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

 

If that were the case , plenty on both sides of the divide would be in bother, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that were the case , plenty on both sides of the divide would be in bother, no?

 

Have you any examples from the other side that compare to Exxon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...