Investigating the Climate Change Skeptics/Deniers?

[AlbqOwl]

Perhaps our Canadian friends could shed more light on this Toronto Sun story re government investigations of organizations that challenge the IPPC or other AGW advocates on their conclusions re climate change.

It’s like something out of George Orwell’s 1984.

Canada’s Competition Bureau, an arm’s length agency funded by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to the tune of almost $50 million annually, investigated three organizations accused of denying mainstream climate science for over a year, following a complaint from an environmental group. . .

. . .As someone who has written extensively on climate change for a decade, my view is that all of this is madness. We are entering into dangerous territory, a fundamental attack on free speech.
If we’re going to use agencies of the federal government to investigate and even prosecute “climate deniers”, for making “false and misleading claims” then let’s damn well do the same for “climate alarmists”, who do the same thing all the time. . .​

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/09/13/canada-now-investigates-climate-denial

This thread is not intended to be just another pro and con debate on climate change itself.

Could we focus on the justification or propriety of investigating and/or censoring and/or censuring and/or punishing those who have a different opinion on the subject on this or pretty much any other topic? Most especially when it is the government doing it?

 

[Hawkeye10]

Jamming people up because they believe what they are not "supposed" to believe is abuse,,,,,pure and simple.

We should have demanded better when the Germans started doing it after the war.

Acts of tyranny should not find tolerance.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

In reality it's not quite like the picture you (and the author) have tried to paint. This isn't a criminal case against a person for saying the wrong thing, it's a civil/regulatory case against companies advertising in the public space with intentionally misleading and objectively false statements. As the article states, the investigation was run by the Deputy Commissioner of Competition, Deceptive Marketing Practices Directorate, not some rogue agency.

One company, for instance, put out ads saying that the sun is the cause of climate change and not CO2. This is an objectively false statement, not an opinion. This is no different than tobacco companies in the US not being allowed to advertise that their products are safe, or paint companies advertising that lead is safe. They are objectively false statements with the express intent of defrauding the public for financial gain. Any individual can say anything he wants, but companies can not make any claim they want under free speech laws.

 

[Jack Hays]

California has explored this ground. So far the defense of freedom has been successful.


[h=1]The first amendment is now dead in California: New California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics[/h]From The Washington Times and the “your friendly local California thought police” comes this travesty. A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.” The…

June 2, 2016 in censorship, Politics.

 

[Jack Hays]

The companies put out ads saying that the sun is the cause of climate change and not CO2. This is an objectively false statement, not an opinion.

Recent research suggests there is more uncertainty than you realize.

Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming ...

https://www.hindawi.com/archive/2017/9251034/


by H Harde - ‎2017 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles
We present detailed line-by-line radiation transfer calculations, which were performed under different atmospheric conditions for the most important greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone.
[h=4]Abstract[/h]
We present detailed line-by-line radiation transfer calculations, which were performed under different atmospheric conditions for the most important greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. Particularly cloud effects, surface temperature variations, and humidity changes as well as molecular lineshape effects are investigated to examine their specific influence on some basic climatologic parameters like the radiative forcing, the long wave absorptivity, and back-radiation as a function of an increasing CO2concentration in the atmosphere. These calculations are used to assess the CO2 global warming by means of an advanced two-layer climate model and to disclose some larger discrepancies in calculating the climate sensitivity. Including solar and cloud effects as well as all relevant feedback processes our simulations give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of

= 0.7°C (temperature increase at doubled CO2) and a solar sensitivity of

= 0.17°C (at 0.1% increase of the total solar irradiance). Then CO2 contributes 40% and the Sun 60% to global warming over the last century.

 

[AlbqOwl]

In reality it's not quite like the picture you (and the author) have tried to paint. This isn't a criminal case against a person for saying the wrong thing, it's a civil/regulatory case against companies advertising in the public space with intentionally misleading and objectively false statements. As the article states, the investigation was run by the Deputy Commissioner of Competition, Deceptive Marketing Practices Directorate, not some rogue agency.

The companies put out ads saying that the sun is the cause of climate change and not CO2. This is an objectively false statement, not an opinion. This is no different than tobacco companies in the US not being allowed to advertise that their products are safe, or paint companies advertising that lead is safe. They are objectively false statements with the express intent of defrauding the public for financial gain. Any individual can say anything he wants, but companies can not make any claim they want under free speech laws.

I will gently disagree with this. Stating an opinion that it is the sun instead of CO2 that drives most climate change is not an entirely unscientific opinion. It is simply an expressed opinion, not a misleading statement for personal gain and/or to benefit somebody. You can advertise that your product is the best when it isn't. But you can't say it cures cancer if it won't.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Recent research suggests there is more uncertainty than you realize.

Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming ...

https://www.hindawi.com/archive/2017/9251034/


by H Harde - ‎2017 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles
We present detailed line-by-line radiation transfer calculations, which were performed under different atmospheric conditions for the most important greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone.
[h=4]Abstract[/h]
We present detailed line-by-line radiation transfer calculations, which were performed under different atmospheric conditions for the most important greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. Particularly cloud effects, surface temperature variations, and humidity changes as well as molecular lineshape effects are investigated to examine their specific influence on some basic climatologic parameters like the radiative forcing, the long wave absorptivity, and back-radiation as a function of an increasing CO2concentration in the atmosphere. These calculations are used to assess the CO2 global warming by means of an advanced two-layer climate model and to disclose some larger discrepancies in calculating the climate sensitivity. Including solar and cloud effects as well as all relevant feedback processes our simulations give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of

= 0.7°C (temperature increase at doubled CO2) and a solar sensitivity of

= 0.17°C (at 0.1% increase of the total solar irradiance). Then CO2 contributes 40% and the Sun 60% to global warming over the last century.

And even without the science to support it, it is simply an expressed opinion. No different than vegetarians and/or vegans advertising a healthier lifestyle or PETA expressing contempt for feed lots or whatever. Should every organization that expresses a less-than-popular opinion be investigated by the government and/or censured, censored, or punished?

 

[AlbqOwl]

California has explored this ground. So far the defense of freedom has been successful.


[h=1]The first amendment is now dead in California: New California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics[/h]From The Washington Times and the “your friendly local California thought police” comes this travesty. A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.” The…

June 2, 2016 in censorship, Politics.

Yes, the example in the OP was Canada but it is by no means the only example that can be used.

 

[Jack Hays]

And even without the science to support it, it is simply an expressed opinion. No different than vegetarians and/or vegans advertising a healthier lifestyle or PETA expressing contempt for feed lots or whatever. Should every organization that expresses a less-than-popular opinion be investigated by the government and/or censured, censored, or punished?

Whenever orthodoxy resorts to coercion it is a signal that freedom is under attack.

 

[MaggieD]

Perhaps our Canadian friends could shed more light on this Toronto Sun story re government investigations of organizations that challenge the IPPC or other AGW advocates on their conclusions re climate change.

It’s like something out of George Orwell’s 1984.

Canada’s Competition Bureau, an arm’s length agency funded by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to the tune of almost $50 million annually, investigated three organizations accused of denying mainstream climate science for over a year, following a complaint from an environmental group. . .

. . .As someone who has written extensively on climate change for a decade, my view is that all of this is madness. We are entering into dangerous territory, a fundamental attack on free speech.
If we’re going to use agencies of the federal government to investigate and even prosecute “climate deniers”, for making “false and misleading claims” then let’s damn well do the same for “climate alarmists”, who do the same thing all the time. . .​

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/09/13/canada-now-investigates-climate-denial

This thread is not intended to be just another pro and con debate on climate change itself.

Could we focus on the justification or propriety of investigating and/or censoring and/or censuring and/or punishing those who have a different opinion on the subject on this or pretty much any other topic? Most especially when it is the government doing it?

I think all these studies on climate change are a waste of money. That money would be better spent on educating the public.

The studies that agree with climate change aren't going to be believed by deniers. And the studies that show that either man isn't causing it or it's a normal shift we can do nothing about? Well, the ones who support climate change won't believe those.

 

[celticwar17]

Recent research suggests there is more uncertainty than you realize.

Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming ...

https://www.hindawi.com/archive/2017/9251034/


by H Harde - ‎2017 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles
We present detailed line-by-line radiation transfer calculations, which were performed under different atmospheric conditions for the most important greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone.
[h=4]Abstract[/h]
We present detailed line-by-line radiation transfer calculations, which were performed under different atmospheric conditions for the most important greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. Particularly cloud effects, surface temperature variations, and humidity changes as well as molecular lineshape effects are investigated to examine their specific influence on some basic climatologic parameters like the radiative forcing, the long wave absorptivity, and back-radiation as a function of an increasing CO2concentration in the atmosphere. These calculations are used to assess the CO2 global warming by means of an advanced two-layer climate model and to disclose some larger discrepancies in calculating the climate sensitivity. Including solar and cloud effects as well as all relevant feedback processes our simulations give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of

= 0.7°C (temperature increase at doubled CO2) and a solar sensitivity of

= 0.17°C (at 0.1% increase of the total solar irradiance). Then CO2 contributes 40% and the Sun 60% to global warming over the last century.

Wow... you pretty much owned him... It's really bad way to be wrong too... the kind of wrong where you supported coercion by the state against people for their opinions...

 

[AlbqOwl]

Whenever orthodoxy resorts to coercion it is a signal that freedom is under attack.

When thought, impressions, insight, personal feelings or beliefs become governable, we have no liberties left.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I think all these studies on climate change are a waste of money. That money would be better spent on educating the public.

The studies that agree with climate change aren't going to be believed by deniers. And the studies that show that either man isn't causing it or it's a normal shift we can do nothing about? Well, the ones who support climate change won't believe those.

And. . .because the IPCC and others keep moving the goal posts on down the line as their projections fail to hit the mark again and again and again, it should be crystal clear to all thinking people that we humans lack the ability to stop whatever climate change is happening whether or not we are causing it. So I agree that the resources and energy should be focusing on helping humankind adapt to inevitable climate change rather than pretending that we can do anything about it and stripping us of our liberties, options, opportunities, and choices in the process. And this current effort to regulate or discipline scientific opinion or thought is just a huge exclamation point on that.

 

[ttwtt78640]

In reality it's not quite like the picture you (and the author) have tried to paint. This isn't a criminal case against a person for saying the wrong thing, it's a civil/regulatory case against companies advertising in the public space with intentionally misleading and objectively false statements. As the article states, the investigation was run by the Deputy Commissioner of Competition, Deceptive Marketing Practices Directorate, not some rogue agency.

One company, for instance, put out ads saying that the sun is the cause of climate change and not CO2. This is an objectively false statement, not an opinion. This is no different than tobacco companies in the US not being allowed to advertise that their products are safe, or paint companies advertising that lead is safe. They are objectively false statements with the express intent of defrauding the public for financial gain. Any individual can say anything he wants, but companies can not make any claim they want under free speech laws.

While the intent may be noble it is hard to imagine that a such a no BS law would be enforced equally, which was the point of the OP link opinion piece. I realize that this is in an environment and climate thread but there are many conflicts between accepted science and religious claims. Would this law and its enforcement apply to a religious organization claiming the factual existence of a 6K year old planet, talking bushes or weather events being caused primarily (or exclusively) by god? I see no real attempt for financial gain other than the group possibly soliciting voluntary donations which many religious groups do on a regular basis. It is not as if they were selling some tonic purported to cure a disease or claiming that you would be granted eternal salvation if you donated $10 and had Rev. Smilesalot pray for you.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

California has explored this ground. So far the defense of freedom has been successful.


[h=1]The first amendment is now dead in California: New California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics[/h]From The Washington Times and the “your friendly local California thought police” comes this travesty. A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.” The…

June 2, 2016 in censorship, Politics.

This works both ways. If you work for the Florida government, you are forbidden to use the terms "climate change" or "global warming". It's government censorship either way.

I have no problem with people promoting whatever position they hold, but I also applaud when the sources of funding for those groups is brought out into the open.

It wasn't too long ago that there was an organized campaign trying to counter the government "propaganda" that claimed tobacco use caused health problems. We all know how that turned out.

 

[MaggieD]

And. . .because the IPCC and others keep moving the goal posts on down the line as their projections fail to hit the mark again and again and again, it should be crystal clear to all thinking people that we humans lack the ability to stop whatever climate change is happening whether or not we are causing it. So I agree that the resources and energy should be focusing on helping humankind adapt to inevitable climate change rather than pretending that we can do anything about it and stripping us of our liberties, options, opportunities, and choices in the process. And this current effort to regulate or discipline scientific opinion or thought is just a huge exclamation point on that.

100% agree.

 

[AlbqOwl]

This works both ways. If you work for the Florida government, you are forbidden to use the terms "climate change" or "global warming". It's government censorship either way.

I have no problem with people promoting whatever position they hold, but I also applaud when the sources of funding for those groups is brought out into the open.

It wasn't too long ago that there was an organized campaign trying to counter the government "propaganda" that claimed tobacco use caused health problems. We all know how that turned out.

There is a huge difference between the two things though. Any employer, even a government employer, is within bounds to dictate behavior, demeanor, hygiene and dress code, and policy to those working for them. There is no 'free speech' or right to self expression or freedom of choice when you are taking a paycheck from somebody else. The State of Florida is within its prerogatives to dictate policy to the employees. It should NOT be the prerogative of the State of Florida or any other state or the central government to dictate to anybody else what will be their behavior, dress, speech, or policy so long as they are not violating the rights of others.

An advertisement promoting a particular point of view is dictating to nobody. It is an expression of opinion and in a free society, nobody should be required to agree or disagree with it in their private life.

 

[AlbqOwl]

While the intent may be noble it is hard to imagine that a such a no BS law would be enforced equally, which was the point of the OP link opinion piece. I realize that this is in an environment and climate thread but there are many conflicts between accepted science and religious claims. Would this law and its enforcement apply to a religious organization claiming the factual existence of a 6K year old planet, talking bushes or weather events being caused primarily (or exclusively) by god? I see no real attempt for financial gain other than the group possibly soliciting voluntary donations which many religious groups do on a regular basis. It is not as if they were selling some tonic purported to cure a disease or claiming that you would be granted eternal salvation if you donated $10 and had Rev. Smilesalot pray for you.

And you hereby have introduced a slippery slope argument that happens to be valid. If it is deemed okay to investigate somebody for their scientific opinion, then why not for their religious opinion, or their opinion on nutrition or anything else that is part of our lives?

 

[ttwtt78640]

And you hereby have introduced a slippery slope argument that happens to be valid. If it is deemed okay to investigate somebody for their scientific opinion, then why not for their religious opinion, or their opinion on nutrition or anything else that is part of our lives?

I did (or at least tried to) point to a conflict between "accepted science" and "established religious claims". This is not about opinion, per se, it is about what is claimed as fact or the truth (the word of God?) conflicting with "accepted science". Obviously, a bunch of stuff in religious texts is far off of what "accepted science" says about a matter - the age of the Earth (actually all of "the heavens") is one such prime example. Can a book, like the bible, full of such obvious conflicts with (outright denials of?) "accepted science" be legally sold in Canada?

https://www.esv.org/Genesis+1/

 

[Nickyjo]

I will gently disagree with this. Stating an opinion that it is the sun instead of CO2 that drives most climate change is not an entirely unscientific opinion. It is simply an expressed opinion, not a misleading statement for personal gain and/or to benefit somebody. You can advertise that your product is the best when it isn't. But you can't say it cures cancer if it won't.

For those in the know, might it be that free speech rights are not as absolute in Canada as they are in the US? Have to assume that the regulation wouldn't fly here, as we have decided that even money is speech.

 

[Jack Hays]

This works both ways. If you work for the Florida government, you are forbidden to use the terms "climate change" or "global warming". It's government censorship either way.

I have no problem with people promoting whatever position they hold, but I also applaud when the sources of funding for those groups is brought out into the open.

It wasn't too long ago that there was an organized campaign trying to counter the government "propaganda" that claimed tobacco use caused health problems. We all know how that turned out.

I need not repeat what was so well said in #17. I would add that the attempt to equate climate change skepticism to the tobacco lobby is just a smear tactic of the AGW "consensus enforcement squad." There is not a shred of evidence that any entity has financed "an organized campaign" of climate skepticism.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I did (or at least tried to) point to a conflict between "accepted science" and "established religious claims". This is not about opinion, per se, it is about what is claimed as fact or the truth (the word of God?) conflicting with "accepted science". Obviously, a bunch of stuff in religious texts is far off of what "accepted science" says about a matter - the age of the Earth (actually all of "the heavens") is one such prime example. Can a book, like the bible, full of such obvious conflicts with (outright denials of?) "accepted science" be legally sold in Canada?

https://www.esv.org/Genesis+1/

Well, apparently if that Bible disagrees with the IPCC version of climate science, the group mentioned in the OP can investigate whoever is preaching from that Bible or whoever is selling it. The Bible is used by some fundamentalists to disagree with many concepts of accepted science. So if this investigation nonsense was increased to encompass more than climate science, then maybe that Bible would also fall under government censure or censor?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well, apparently if that Bible disagrees with the IPCC version of climate science, the group mentioned in the OP can investigate whoever is preaching from that Bible or whoever is selling it. The Bible is used by some fundamentalists to disagree with many concepts of accepted science. So if this investigation nonsense was increased to encompass more than climate science, then maybe that Bible would also fall under government censure or censor?

Which is exactly the point of the OP and its link. This is really about keeping those that disagree with the governments agenda from messing up their urgent need to act immediately (by increasing government control?) based on "accepted science". It is clearly not about stopping all lying or even all that disagree with "accepted science".

 

[AlbqOwl]

For those in the know, might it be that free speech rights are not as absolute in Canada as they are in the US? Have to assume that the regulation wouldn't fly here, as we have decided that even money is speech.

But free speech rights are probably violated somewhere in the USA every day of the week, and we have a history of government authorities taking cues from examples in other nations. But even hate speech remains free speech and a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution.

While free speech is also a fundamental right in Canada, you are correct that it is not absolute. Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows the government to pass laws that limit free expression so long as the limits are reasonable and can be justified. But given the ability to determine what are reasonable and justifiable limits does provide a great deal of latitude.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I need not repeat what was so well said in #17. I would add that the attempt to equate climate change skepticism to the tobacco lobby is just a smear tactic of the AGW "consensus enforcement squad." There is not a shred of evidence that any entity has financed "an organized campaign" of climate skepticism.

Since the late 1970s, oil companies have published research broadly in line with the standard views on global warming. Despite this, oil companies organized a climate change denial campaign to disseminate public disinformation for several decades, a strategy that has been compared to the organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking by tobacco companies.[33][34][35]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

I don't enter into this debate much because the 2 sides are frequently religious in their zealotry. Someone would need to pay me to get more interested. Maybe you can hook me up?:mrgreen: