US Attorney General to Prosecute Climate Change Deniers?

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...eral-we-may-prosecute-climate-change-deniers/

[h=1]US Attorney General: We’ve ‘Discussed’ Prosecuting Climate Change Deniers[/h]

“The similarities between the mischief of the tobacco industry pretending that the science of tobacco’s dangers was unsettled and the fossil fuel industry pretending that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled has been remarked on widely, particularly by those who study the climate denial apparatus that the fossil fuel industry has erected.”
“Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice brought and won a civil RICO action against the tobacco industry for its fraud. Under President Obama, the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme,”



​

 

[fromderinside]

They are on their way. Certainly by the squawking by oil apologists its seems so.

Suing Oil Companies for Free Speech = Censorship https://drhurd.com/2016/03/10/58418/

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

A lot of right wing news sources are all atwitter over this. I suspect the AG's ire was aimed at the Exxon type disinformation campaigns they seem to have been involved it. I note the New York state AG has already been investigating Exxon.

 

[JonA]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...eral-we-may-prosecute-climate-change-deniers/

[h=1]US Attorney General: We’ve ‘Discussed’ Prosecuting Climate Change Deniers[/h]

“The similarities between the mischief of the tobacco industry pretending that the science of tobacco’s dangers was unsettled and the fossil fuel industry pretending that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled has been remarked on widely, particularly by those who study the climate denial apparatus that the fossil fuel industry has erected.”
“Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice brought and won a civil RICO action against the tobacco industry for its fraud. Under President Obama, the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme,”​

Of course people wouldn't have to worry about denying climate change if the extreme left's reaction to it weren't "let's unplug civilization" and other head-in-the-sand nonsense.

 

[ronburgundy]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...eral-we-may-prosecute-climate-change-deniers/

[h=1]US Attorney General: We’ve ‘Discussed’ Prosecuting Climate Change Deniers[/h]

“The similarities between the mischief of the tobacco industry pretending that the science of tobacco’s dangers was unsettled and the fossil fuel industry pretending that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled has been remarked on widely, particularly by those who study the climate denial apparatus that the fossil fuel industry has erected.”
“Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice brought and won a civil RICO action against the tobacco industry for its fraud. Under President Obama, the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme,”​

Of course people wouldn't have to worry about denying climate change if the extreme left's reaction to it weren't "let's unplug civilization" and other head-in-the-sand nonsense.

The deniers have been lying about the science long before and independent of any extremist proposed solutions. Any sensible solution to the objective dangers is still likely to cost profits to some of those currently making billions from activities contributing to the problem. Thus, they have inherent profit motive to lie about climate science and deny AGW.

 

[blastula]

US Attorney General to Prosecute Climate Change Deniers?

Let's hope so.

 

[ronburgundy]

US Attorney General to Prosecute Climate Change Deniers?

Let's hope so.

Its a very thorny issue requiring clear cut and objective distinctions between expressing dissent from consensus scientific views versus knowingly misrepresenting what those views or the data are. Any prosecution of the former is attack on science which requires freedom to dissent from even the most mainstream positions (which often turn out to be wrong). They would have to limit prosecution to only things that would count as false advertising, meaning making directly false claims about what the science says (not just expressing disagreement with that science) in an effort to deceive consumers you are trying to sell things to.

I would guess that 99% of what counts as Climate Change denial would not qualify for such prosecution.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except there is one major difference with tobacco, they denied the harmful affects of a product they were selling. What product are the deniers selling that people would not buy if they thought it would cause global warmer? Would people not drive cars or use gas?

 

[laughing dog]

Of course people wouldn't have to worry about denying climate change if the extreme left's reaction to it weren't "let's unplug civilization" and other head-in-the-sand nonsense.

A very simplistic and silly conclusion. Doing something about climate change means there will be winners and loser. The losers are funding climate change denial in order to maintain their gains which has nothing to do with the cries from ecological extremists.

 

[JonA]

Of course people wouldn't have to worry about denying climate change if the extreme left's reaction to it weren't "let's unplug civilization" and other head-in-the-sand nonsense.

The deniers have been lying about the science long before and independent of any extremist proposed solutions. Any sensible solution to the objective dangers is still likely to cost profits to some of those currently making billions from activities contributing to the problem. Thus, they have inherent profit motive to lie about climate science and deny AGW.

They are making billions.

But so is everyone else.

The energy (and subsequent power - in all its forms) that our societies get from burning fossil fuels makes pretty much everything we consider modern possible: advanced technology; life-saving medicine; warm and well-lighted houses, schools, offices, hospitals, and shopping centers; convenient and relaxed lifestyles; and on and on.

Prosecuting fossil fuel companies would be nothing more than a sad effort to blame someone we don't like for a problem we all created. Done purely for political gain and not to effect any real change at all.

 

[laughing dog]

The deniers have been lying about the science long before and independent of any extremist proposed solutions. Any sensible solution to the objective dangers is still likely to cost profits to some of those currently making billions from activities contributing to the problem. Thus, they have inherent profit motive to lie about climate science and deny AGW.

They are making billions.

But so is everyone else.

The energy (and subsequent power - in all its forms) that our societies get from burning fossil fuels makes pretty much everything we consider modern possible: advanced technology; life-saving medicine; warm and well-lighted houses, schools, offices, hospitals, and shopping centers; convenient and relaxed lifestyles; and on and on.

Prosecuting fossil fuel companies would be nothing more than a sad effort to blame someone we don't like for a problem we all created. Done purely for political gain and not to effect any real change at all.

Prosecuting people for lying about science should be a very careful exercise as ronburgundy points out. When done properly, prosecuting this type of lying about science for clear financial interests should reduce this despicable behavior. Clearing the air so that public opinion is based on facts not bullshit is a public good, and should be encouraged. This has nothing to do with political gain.

 

[TSwizzle]

Burn the heretics!!

 

[Bomb#20]

US Attorney General to Prosecute Climate Change Deniers?

Let's hope so.

Carbon is accumulating in the atmosphere; this is scientifically proven to have harmful effects; the people responsible for carbon accumulating in the atmosphere as fast as it is are therefore responsible for those harmful effects. Do we all agree on that? So what's going on is, some of the people responsible for the harm perceive it to be to their advantage not to be held responsible for the harm. They are lying and/or expressing an unreasonable degree of skepticism about the science, thereby communicating to the public and the public authorities the message "It's not our fault." And it seems some among the public and the public authorities are arguing that it's a crime for the people at fault to misrepresent science and deny that global warming is their fault.

So I have a question, to blastula and to anyone else who thinks it's appropriate to prosecute people responsible for global warming for misrepresenting science and pleading "Not guilty":

Are you also in favor of prosecuting anti-nuclear-power activists? They misrepresent science too, and carbon accumulating in the atmosphere as fast as it is is their fault too.

 

[laughing dog]

Are you also in favor of prosecuting anti-nuclear-power activists? They misrepresent science too, and carbon accumulating in the atmosphere as fast as it is is their fault too.

If they are lying about science for material gain, then yes. Otherwise, no.

 

[fromderinside]

Are you also in favor of prosecuting anti-nuclear-power activists? They misrepresent science too, and carbon accumulating in the atmosphere as fast as it is is their fault too.

If they are lying about science for material gain, then yes. Otherwise, no.

No more cows. No more cows. No more cows ...

 

[Tigers!]

Prosecuting people for lying about science should be a very careful exercise as ronburgundy points out. When done properly, prosecuting this type of lying about science for clear financial interests should reduce this despicable behavior. Clearing the air so that public opinion is based on facts not bullshit is a public good, and should be encouraged. This has nothing to do with political gain.

Who decides who is lying? I am reminded about the story of an emperor and his clothes.

Nice to see free speech is so safe.

 

[fromderinside]

Who decides who is lying? I am reminded about the story of an emperor and his clothes.

Nice to see free speech is so safe.

EYUP! When the experiments have been run and the evidence analyzed the discussion is over.

How do you like them clothes?

 

[laughing dog]

Prosecuting people for lying about science should be a very careful exercise as ronburgundy points out. When done properly, prosecuting this type of lying about science for clear financial interests should reduce this despicable behavior. Clearing the air so that public opinion is based on facts not bullshit is a public good, and should be encouraged. This has nothing to do with political gain.

Who decides who is lying? I am reminded about the story of an emperor and his clothes.

I agree it might be hard to show someone is lying, but if one can show
a) a statement is false, and
b) the utterer knew it was false when he/she made it, then

one has shown that person is lying. The logic is not hard to understand.

Nice to see free speech is so safe.

There are laws against false advertising, incitements to violence and slander - all infringements on "free speech". So what exactly is your point?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Who decides who is lying? I am reminded about the story of an emperor and his clothes.

I agree it might be hard to show someone is lying, but if one can show
a) a statement is false, and
b) the utterer knew it was false when he/she made it, then

one has shown that person is lying. The logic is not hard to understand.

Nice to see free speech is so safe.

There are laws against false advertising, incitements to violence and slander - all infringements on "free speech". So what exactly is your point?

Except if it's political speech then there is a much higher burden than just commercial speech. And harm would have to be shown. However in our politically correct days it won't have to reach that burden.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except there is one major difference with tobacco, they denied the harmful affects of a product they were selling. What product are the deniers selling that people would not buy if they thought it would cause global warmer? Would people not drive cars or use gas?

Big carbon would be hurt if we got serious about global warming.

We would still use fossil fuels, just less of them.

- - - Updated - - -

The deniers have been lying about the science long before and independent of any extremist proposed solutions. Any sensible solution to the objective dangers is still likely to cost profits to some of those currently making billions from activities contributing to the problem. Thus, they have inherent profit motive to lie about climate science and deny AGW.

They are making billions.

But so is everyone else.

The energy (and subsequent power - in all its forms) that our societies get from burning fossil fuels makes pretty much everything we consider modern possible: advanced technology; life-saving medicine; warm and well-lighted houses, schools, offices, hospitals, and shopping centers; convenient and relaxed lifestyles; and on and on.

Prosecuting fossil fuel companies would be nothing more than a sad effort to blame someone we don't like for a problem we all created. Done purely for political gain and not to effect any real change at all.

You're forgetting nuclear power. We could replace all our coal plants with nuke plants with no loss of quality of life.