Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Y'all can blame the failure of Climate Science on Exxon-Mobil, the Koch Bros, Sponge Bob or toe fungus --- if that makes you stop crying.. But there's not an ounce of truth in the charge that you are failing because of ANY of that..
holy smokes, these globull warming-aka "climate change" cult members are becoming damn scary
links in article at site
Well, let's have a look at what the nutty professor actually said. Articles like this, on both sides of the fence, rarely live up to their headlines.
Professor Torcello said:The importance of clearly communicating science to the public should not be underestimated. Accurately understanding our natural environment and sharing that information can be a matter of life or death. When it comes to global warming, much of the public remains in denial about a set of facts that the majority of scientists clearly agree on. With such high stakes, an organised campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent.
And so we have his opening statement. Right off the bat, we see that the people he is talking about charging with a crime are not just "deniers". They are people funding an organized campaign to spread disinformation. In the parlance of this debate, he is talking about the fossil fuel industry executives at Exxon Mobil and others who have shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars to denier blogs and pseudoscientists for the purpose of convincing the public that... well that all the things you people claim about the Earth's climate are true.
Professor Torcello said:The earthquake that rocked L'Aquila Italy in 2009 provides an interesting case study of botched communication. This natural disaster left more than 300 people dead and nearly 66,000 people homeless. In a strange turn of events six Italian scientists and a local defence minister were subsequently sentenced to six years in prison.
The ruling is popularly thought to have convicted scientists for failing to predict an earthquake. On the contrary, as risk assessment expert David Ropeik pointed out, the trial was actually about the failure of scientists to clearly communicate risks to the public. The convicted parties were accused of providing “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information”.
So here we have people actually going to jail not for putting out bad information, but simply for failing to put out good information. If this is valid, how could it not be criminal to intentionally mislead the public? I think the good professor has something here.
Professor Torcello said:As one citizen stated:
We all know that the earthquake could not be predicted, and that evacuation was not an option. All we wanted was clearer information on risks in order to make our choices.
Crucially, the scientists, when consulted about ongoing tremors in the region, did not conclude that a devastating earthquake was impossible in L’Aquila. But, when the Defence Minister held a press conference saying there was no danger, they made no attempt to correct him. I don’t believe poor scientific communication should be criminalised because doing so will likely discourage scientists from engaging with the public at all.
I find it unclear where the statement from "one citizen" ends and the Professor begins anew. I'm going to guess the Professor resumes with the sentence beginning "Crucially...". But I'll go back and check.
Here's another good point: criminalizing poor communication between scientists and the public will discourage scientists from engaging with the public at all. Think of the treatment Mann and Jones have received at your hands. What if, seeing that, some fellow developing a new medical treatment or uncovering an unknown poison or inventing a marvellous new engine - chooses to simply keep it to himself? What if those who have fueled the incredible growth in mankind's knowledge and technology should choose to stop?
Professor Torcello said:But the tragedy in L’Aquila reminds us how important clear scientific communication is and how much is at stake regarding the public’s understanding of science. I have argued elsewhere that scientists have an ethical obligation to communicate their findings as clearly as possible to the public when such findings are relevant to public policy. Likewise, I believe that scientists have the corollary obligation to correct public misinformation as visibly and unequivocally as possible.
Many scientists recognize these civic and moral obligations. Climatologist Michael Mann is a good example; Mann has recently made the case for public engagement in a powerful New York Times opinion piece: If You See Something Say Something.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/if-you-see-something-say-something.html?_r=1
I have put an active link to Mann's OpEd if anyone in interested. I haven't read it yet but I am going to.
Misinformation and criminal negligence
Still, critics of the case in L’Aquila are mistaken if they conclude that criminal negligence should never be linked to science misinformation. Consider cases in which science communication is intentionally undermined for political and financial gain. Imagine if in L’Aquila, scientists themselves had made every effort to communicate the risks of living in an earthquake zone. Imagine that they even advocated for a scientifically informed but costly earthquake readiness plan.
If those with a financial or political interest in inaction had funded an organised campaign to discredit the consensus findings of seismology, and for that reason no preparations were made, then many of us would agree that the financiers of the denialist campaign were criminally responsible for the consequences of that campaign. I submit that this is just what is happening with the current, well documented funding of global warming denialism.
Professor Torcello said:More deaths can already be attributed to climate change than the L’Aquila earthquake and we can be certain that deaths from climate change will continue to rise with global warming. Nonetheless, climate denial remains a serious deterrent against meaningful political action in the very countries most responsible for the crisis.
Climate denial funding
We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.
Criminal negligence is normally understood to result from failures to avoid reasonably foreseeable harms, or the threat of harms to public safety, consequent of certain activities. Those funding climate denial campaigns can reasonably predict the public’s diminished ability to respond to climate change as a result of their behaviour. Indeed, public uncertainty regarding climate science, and the resulting failure to respond to climate change, is the intentional aim of politically and financially motivated denialists.
My argument probably raises an understandable, if misguided, concern regarding free speech. We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions. Protecting the latter as a form of free speech stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that undermines the very concept.
What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial? Those who purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.
wow, putting people in jail b/c their facts don't match your facts.
and just look at the liberals here in support!
They really really hate freedom.
pure evil
wow, putting people in jail b/c their facts don't match your facts.
and just look at the liberals here in support!
They really really hate freedom.
pure evil
liberalism = authoritarianism = totalitarianism
Don't believe me....look at the liberal reaction to the OP. The great liberal tyrants of history would be proud.
Corporations, which have virtually unlimited treasury, take their totalitarianism and invest in politicians. In other words, these totalitarian institutions get their ideas through, like climate denial. Totalitarianism is alive and well in the private multi-national corporations.
Look at their internal structure. CEO, who appoints his own board who sets all their salaries. Then on down the line you are directly accountable to your superior and must keep your inferiors from wearing the wrong dress or taking extended breaks. Basically, if you fail to follow rules you are out. Don't forget, labor unions are the enemy of the private corporation. The corporation prefers to do settlements in the dark outside court rooms. Why? Because they know they cannot exploit the masses as easily when they are accountable. Private power in this respect is unaccountable. And here they run the political system.
So yeah, if you wanna talk totalitarian, then lets talk totalitarian. Private corporations are totalitarian, which are definitely pressing for neo-liberalism.
You didn't answer the question....why do you suppose mann has spent so much money and effort in an attempt to hide good, solid data?
He hasn't.
That was simple.
Now, answer this question. Who fed you that nonsense, and why were you so eager to fall for it?
wow, putting people in jail b/c their facts don't match your facts.
and just look at the liberals here in support!
They really really hate freedom.
pure evil
You damned dumb lying fucks were trying to prosecute Mann for presenting the facts concerning the warming. Now that his graph has been confirmed by more than a dozen other studies, and Cookynelli got his ass kicked in the election in Virginia, you are still yapping about criminal prosecution for a leading scientist doing his job.
There is not a Scientific Society in the world that states that global warming, and the climate change that causes, is not a fact. Not a single Academy of Science of any nation, not even Outer Slobovia. And not a single major University. Yet you assholes still state that the science is not settled.
The science is settled. We are the cause of the rapid changes that we are seeing. What is not settled are the effects, and timing of those effects. Thus far, they have been faster than even the 'climate alarmists' predicted. But you fools will go on denying that anything at all is happening even when it happens in your back yard.
Kind of like the guy with the oxygen bottle, in the final stages of lung cancer, that has to turn it off two or three time a day to have a smoke.
wow, putting people in jail b/c their facts don't match your facts.
and just look at the liberals here in support!
They really really hate freedom.
pure evil
Hardly. The thought is that it ought to be considered criminal to intentionally mislead the public on matters that affect public safety.
PS: "Pure evil" occurs in only two places: the Bible and Marvel Comics. Take your pick.
I've often thought that the IPCC should be marched in front of a wall and shot for their deliberate campaign of misinformation. They are definitely committing fraud.I don't think they're criminally negligent. The fossil fuel industry's misinformation campaign is not committing a sin of omission. They are actively passing known falsehoods. They are committing fraud. In the case of elected civil servants using the powers of their office to participate in this activity (Senator Inhofe and others come to mind) I think the laws cover their actions and impeachment and jail are a real possibility. For the civilians, however, who run this nation's fossil fuel industries, I see no laws they break by paying others to lie to us for them. I do see the potential for private lawsuits. Unfortunately, by the time it is possible to identify individuals or groups with sufficient legal standing for a successful suit, it will be far, far too late to do any good. It's easy enough to argue that it's already too late.
I've often thought that the IPCC should be marched in front of a wall and shot for their deliberate campaign of misinformation. They are definitely committing fraud.I don't think they're criminally negligent. The fossil fuel industry's misinformation campaign is not committing a sin of omission. They are actively passing known falsehoods. They are committing fraud. In the case of elected civil servants using the powers of their office to participate in this activity (Senator Inhofe and others come to mind) I think the laws cover their actions and impeachment and jail are a real possibility. For the civilians, however, who run this nation's fossil fuel industries, I see no laws they break by paying others to lie to us for them. I do see the potential for private lawsuits. Unfortunately, by the time it is possible to identify individuals or groups with sufficient legal standing for a successful suit, it will be far, far too late to do any good. It's easy enough to argue that it's already too late.
There is no self reflection from denialist. Although denialists can in fact engage in self-reflection, that's the moment they cease being who they are. For them change is death. So better to slur hate speech condemning self-reflective people then to question the end of your own identity.
So, FCT, what do you think of Darkwind's comment? Should the IPCC (whoever that might actually be) be lined up and shot?
Its motto is Academic rigour, journalistic flair
That's funny. I wonder if the other articles in the same edition had to do with Elvis sightings and what Bat Boy is up to these days?
So, FCT, what do you think of Darkwind's comment? Should the IPCC (whoever that might actually be) be lined up and shot?
Shame on him.. I would prefer the political and mgt side of the ipcc be slowly deprived of money and starved to death... The science side will be mocked into submission.
wow, putting people in jail b/c their facts don't match your facts.
and just look at the liberals here in support!
They really really hate freedom.
pure evil
You damned dumb lying fucks were trying to prosecute Mann for presenting the facts concerning the warming. Now that his graph has been confirmed by more than a dozen other studies, and Cookynelli got his ass kicked in the election in Virginia, you are still yapping about criminal prosecution for a leading scientist doing his job.
There is not a Scientific Society in the world that states that global warming, and the climate change that causes, is not a fact. Not a single Academy of Science of any nation, not even Outer Slobovia. And not a single major University. Yet you assholes still state that the science is not settled.
The science is settled. We are the cause of the rapid changes that we are seeing. What is not settled are the effects, and timing of those effects. Thus far, they have been faster than even the 'climate alarmists' predicted. But you fools will go on denying that anything at all is happening even when it happens in your back yard.
Kind of like the guy with the oxygen bottle, in the final stages of lung cancer, that has to turn it off two or three time a day to have a smoke.
Humans have developed from tribes to global commerce. Much change has taken place.
Technologies have generated the ability to destroy the world. Many methods can be employed, chemical, nuclear, and other WMD for virtual dissolution of hemisphere or continent. Furthermore, no one denies our development is threatening local ecosystems. To think our development can never reach a point to threaten global ecosystem and thus threaten our future as a species is denying obvious truth.
