US Attorney General to Prosecute Climate Change Deniers?

[laughing dog]

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.

"Our politically correct days"? WTF does that mean?

 

[JonA]

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

Frightening.

 

[JonA]

...

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

LOL.

Tell that to the environmentalists.

 

[bilby]

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

LOL.

Tell that to the environmentalists.

Yeah. Apparently real climate change is not as bad as imaginary radiation leaks and fictional cancer.

And tens of thousands of deaths from coal power every year is a statistic, while a few dozen deaths at a crappy soviet designed reactor once in six decades is a tragedy. (For extra 'think of the children' points, add the zero deaths at Fukushima, and the zero at Three Mile Island, with maximum wailing and arm waving to conceal the fact that zero is quite a small number).

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

Sounds like you're blaming the user and not the dealer.

*********

When an overwhelming number of experts bring data to your attention that your product is harmful, you have a duty to investigate and mitigate to the extent possible it's harmful effects.
Would a child car seat manufacturer be allowed to stick it's head in the sand like we are seeing with energy producers?

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

They wouldn't be prosecuted for selling a dangerous product, but for knowingly lying about it and acting to mislead consumers about the dangers of what they are selling.
It is no different than other commercial fraud.
Like I said, its a sticky wicket, because it would be hard to legally demonstrate knowing lies about the science from a difference in scientific opinion, even though the two do differ.

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

The courts would decide, just like they already do in every legal matter, and prosecute liars in every case of fraud and perjury.
Lying doesn't mean saying you personally think that AGW is not happening or that you've seen evidence that you think shows it is not happening. Those are subjective opinions and not assertions about facts, thus they cannot be lies (unless it is shown that you don't really believe what you said your opinion was).
The only lies the could be prosecuted are those were assertions about specific facts or specific data are misrepresented from the clear truth about those facts. IOW, it could NOT be cases were the general inferences and interpretative conclusions are merely deemed wrong by consensus scientific thinking. It would have to be cases more like were statements are falsely attributed to scientists or false claims are made about other people's data itself or its methods, which is a form of slander.

The reason that the DOJ has merely "discussed" it and done nothing about it yet, is likely that they realize that most of the misrepresentations are just irrational interpretations and inferences and not clear false statements of observable facts, and if they try to prosecute the lies, then deniers can easily just start rephrasing the lies so that they are interpretive opinions that merely strongly imply untruths rather than directly assert them.

 

[Malintent]

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.

the attorney general, of course. That's, like his job, and shit.

 

[blastula]

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.

Do the protesters know they are lying and are they lying for the purpose of selling a product?

 

[JonA]

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.

Sounds like you're blaming the user and not the dealer.

*********

When an overwhelming number of experts bring data to your attention that your product is harmful, you have a duty to investigate and mitigate to the extent possible it's harmful effects.
Would a child car seat manufacturer be allowed to stick it's head in the sand like we are seeing with energy producers?

If you wanted to get rid of plastic grocery bag pollution, you could pass a law to forbid their use or tax them out of existence.

If anyone cared that much about GHG pollution, there are plenty of ways to get rid of it. But no one is really going to take those steps because they value the benefits of FF far more than they dislike the associated costs.

So like I said, this is a pointless exercise for political gain with no real intention of effecting any real change.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

LOL.

Tell that to the environmentalists.

Yeah. Apparently real climate change is not as bad as imaginary radiation leaks and fictional cancer.

And tens of thousands of deaths from coal power every year is a statistic, while a few dozen deaths at a crappy soviet designed reactor once in six decades is a tragedy. (For extra 'think of the children' points, add the zero deaths at Fukushima, and the zero at Three Mile Island, with maximum wailing and arm waving to conceal the fact that zero is quite a small number).

1) Several hundred deaths from Fukushima are to be expected but they will never be identified.

2) Just because there are a lot of kooks who use environmental issues to try to push their small-is-good approach doesn't mean that environmental issues aren't real.

 

[bilby]

Yeah. Apparently real climate change is not as bad as imaginary radiation leaks and fictional cancer.

And tens of thousands of deaths from coal power every year is a statistic, while a few dozen deaths at a crappy soviet designed reactor once in six decades is a tragedy. (For extra 'think of the children' points, add the zero deaths at Fukushima, and the zero at Three Mile Island, with maximum wailing and arm waving to conceal the fact that zero is quite a small number).

1) Several hundred deaths from Fukushima are to be expected but they will never be identified.

No. The LNT calculation is fucking stupid, and not supported at all by real evidence from real people exposed to radiation - such as at Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If a fall of 100 feet will kill you, that does not imply that 100 falls of one foot will also kill you.

2) Just because there are a lot of kooks who use environmental issues to try to push their small-is-good approach doesn't mean that environmental issues aren't real.

I am not suggesting for an instant that any environmental issue is not real; I am pointing out that they are not significant. There are are no environmental issues from nuclear power that come anywhere close to rising to the threshold where we need to worry about them. In the same way, commercial jetliners occasionally crash; But that fact has zero importance when deciding whether to fly from NY to LA or to drive instead, because cars crash so much more often that plane crashes cease to be worthy of consideration - unless you are Boeing or Airbus, in which case you already build planes as safe as you can, so the general public shouldn't waste a single second of their time worrying about the issue. An informed traveler simply goes by plane; being scared of flying is irrational, and driving instead because of that irrational fear is crazy. Being worried about nuclear power plants is equally irrational; opposing the construction of such plants to replace coal is equally crazy.

There are no perfect solutions; but there are times when the choice between two options really is a no-brainer - and this is one of those times.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Several hundred deaths from Fukushima are to be expected but they will never be identified.

No. The LNT calculation is fucking stupid, and not supported at all by real evidence from real people exposed to radiation - such as at Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Things like Chernobyl do not support or rebut LNT.

I have been reluctant about LNT myself but there recently was a large study that upheld it.

I am not suggesting for an instant that any environmental issue is not real; I am pointing out that they are not significant. There are are no environmental issues from nuclear power that come anywhere close to rising to the threshold where we need to worry about them. In the same way, commercial jetliners occasionally crash; But that fact has zero importance when deciding whether to fly from NY to LA or to drive instead, because cars crash so much more often that plane crashes cease to be worthy of consideration - unless you are Boeing or Airbus, in which case you already build planes as safe as you can, so the general public shouldn't waste a single second of their time worrying about the issue. An informed traveler simply goes by plane; being scared of flying is irrational, and driving instead because of that irrational fear is crazy. Being worried about nuclear power plants is equally irrational; opposing the construction of such plants to replace coal is equally crazy.

There are no perfect solutions; but there are times when the choice between two options really is a no-brainer - and this is one of those times.

I'm solidly pro-nuke. While I think Fukushima will kill a fair number of people the coal plants they should replace will kill a lot more.

 

[Will Wiley]

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.

What is a better solution?

 

[Tigers!]

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,”



​

Is there much difference between the authorities of the day prosecuting Galileo for disagreeing with what the scientists of the day agreed to be true and the authorities of today prosecuting alleged climate change deniers for disagreeing with what the scientists of these day agree to be true?

Seems like we are just swapping one form of dogma for another.

And before someone pipes up it makes no real difference whether the authorities are a church or a government.

 

[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,”



​

Is there much difference between the authorities of the day prosecuting Galileo for disagreeing with what the scientists of the day agreed to be true and the authorities of today prosecuting alleged climate change deniers for disagreeing with what the scientists of these day agree to be true?

Seems like we are just swapping one form of dogma for another.

And before someone pipes up it makes no real difference whether the authorities are a church or a government.

There is a huge difference between an authority preventing someone from saying something that contradicts a known lie told by the authority temself (what Galileo did), and an authority preventing someone from knowingly lying about facts in order to profit off of harming people (what the tobacco companies did and climate change deniers are doing).

The question is whether there is clear cut evidence in a particular instance that would stand up in court that the action being prevented is clearly the latter and not the former.

Imagine I sell you a can of what I claim is edible chicken soup, but I know it has bleach in it that will send you to the emergency room where I make even more profit because I own the hospital. Should the authorities do anything to prevent that? It is legal to sell bleach, and I didn't make you buy it and I didn't make you eat it. All I did was engage in a speech act that I knew gave a false impression of reality.
What the tobacco companies did and climate deniers are doing is far more analogous to this and nothing like what Galileo did.

 

[TSwizzle]

Is there much difference between the authorities of the day prosecuting Galileo for disagreeing with what the scientists of the day agreed to be true and the authorities of today prosecuting alleged climate change deniers for disagreeing with what the scientists of these day agree to be true?

It's worse than that, far worse.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

What is a better solution?

A carbon tax?

There was a Scientific American article a few years ago that described recent advances in carbon-scrubbing technology, and implied a worldwide 25-cent/gallon fossil fuel tax would be enough to pay for enough atmospheric carbon removal to stabilize CO₂ at its current level.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Do the protesters know they are lying and are they lying for the purpose of selling a product?

Does selling scare-mongering books count? As for whether they know they're lying, I guess that's between them and their psychiatrists; but then how do you know if the climate change deniers you want the Attorney General to prosecute know they're lying? People have an astounding ability to convince themselves they sincerely believe nonsense when doing so makes them feel better about themselves -- witness every religion ever.

In any event, I find the proposals to limit the prosecution of science misrepresenters to those making a profit puzzling. You guys come off like the prudes who find themselves no longer able to have fornicators flogged and adulterers stoned, but take comfort in still being able to put prostitutes in jail. Unethical is unethical whether you make a buck off it or not. If selling gasoline that the buyer knows not to inhale the exhaust fumes from is really the same thing as knowingly selling him a can of bleach-containing chicken soup with the intent that he eat it and be injured, then what the heck difference does it make whether you sell him the soup or give it to him for free? We prosecute poisoners even when they poison people for no charge.

 

[Malintent]

If you wanted to get rid of plastic grocery bag pollution, you could pass a law to forbid their use or tax them out of existence.

well, you could forbid them, under public safety. you cannot tax them out of existence, legally... as taxation is strictly for revenue generation only, as per our constitution. you cannot use tax law to alter behavior, legally.

 

[blastula]

We know they lied because there's documentation that shows it, just like with the tobacco companies.

Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago - Scientific American