• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When Does Denial Become Fraud?

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
https://ricochet.com/when-does-denial-become-fraud/

In testimony before Congress, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said the Department of Justice “has discussed” bringing a civil RICO action against climate change “deniers” for fraud — similar to the Clinton Administration’s suits against the tobacco industry — and confirmed that it has issued a request for action to the FBI for consideration. Assuming that she really means it and isn’t just trying to threaten people into silence, what constitutes prosecutable denial? There are many levels of opposition to the belief that global warming is primarily caused by human activity and that this warming will be catastrophic.
Here’s a list provided by the author of beliefs in descending levels of dissent:

  1. Global warming is a complete hoax;
  2. The planet is warming, but due to natural causes;
  3. Human activity contributes to global warming, but is not the primary driver;
  4. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but the consequences are not catastrophic;
  5. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but there is nothing we can do to stop it;
  6. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but adaptation is more economical than trying to stop it;
  7. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming and there may be something we can do to stop it, but we don’t yet know what that is; and
  8. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming but, we don’t know yet how to stop it and, until we do know, we shouldn’t implement “solutions” that might only make things worse

Which of these statements constitutes the minimum standard for fraud?

For those interested, my level of dissent is approximately level 3 to 4, but it tends to fluctuate depending on the specific argument.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
32,700
Reaction score
10,566
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
https://ricochet.com/when-does-denial-become-fraud/


Here’s a list provided by the author of beliefs in descending levels of dissent:

  1. Global warming is a complete hoax;
  2. The planet is warming, but due to natural causes;
  3. Human activity contributes to global warming, but is not the primary driver;
  4. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but the consequences are not catastrophic;
  5. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but there is nothing we can do to stop it;
  6. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but adaptation is more economical than trying to stop it;
  7. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming and there may be something we can do to stop it, but we don’t yet know what that is; and
  8. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming but, we don’t know yet how to stop it and, until we do know, we shouldn’t implement “solutions” that might only make things worse

Which of these statements constitutes the minimum standard for fraud?

For those interested, my level of dissent is approximately level 3 to 4, but it tends to fluctuate depending on the specific argument.
I am closer to a 4. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but the consequences are not catastrophic;
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
32,700
Reaction score
10,566
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think reaching the top of the legal definition of fraud would be a steep climb.
Fraud legal definition of fraud
Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved
five separate elements:
(1) a false statement of a material fact,
(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,
(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,
(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and
(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.
 

shagg

Wading Through Bull****
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
1,219
Location
Rhode Island
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
https://ricochet.com/when-does-denial-become-fraud/


Here’s a list provided by the author of beliefs in descending levels of dissent:

  1. Global warming is a complete hoax;
  2. The planet is warming, but due to natural causes;
  3. Human activity contributes to global warming, but is not the primary driver;
  4. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but the consequences are not catastrophic;
  5. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but there is nothing we can do to stop it;
  6. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but adaptation is more economical than trying to stop it;
  7. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming and there may be something we can do to stop it, but we don’t yet know what that is; and
  8. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming but, we don’t know yet how to stop it and, until we do know, we shouldn’t implement “solutions” that might only make things worse

Which of these statements constitutes the minimum standard for fraud?

For those interested, my level of dissent is approximately level 3 to 4, but it tends to fluctuate depending on the specific argument.

That's a slippery question. To be fraud, it would depend on what one considered "Undeniably Proven" by climate science. If you consider it undeniably proven that human activity is the primary driver of climate change, then you set the bar between 3 and 4. It's subjective on how individuals interpret climate science. Since it's conservatives mostly denying climate change, its hard to say. They have this natural resistance to science and facts, so they may genuinely believe in the position they take. Fraud would happen if they personally believed it but publicly denied it. But it's all relative to what they believe in the first place.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
32,700
Reaction score
10,566
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yet you seem totally cool with the people in #1 and #2.

Go figure.
And why should I not be?
1:Global warming is a complete hoax;
2:The planet is warming, but due to natural causes;
The people in #1 and #2, are not trying to rush into a solution to a problem,
that I just agreed did not have catastrophic consequences.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2016
Messages
2,395
Reaction score
421
Location
Palatine, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Fraud: illegal aliens are good for economy.

Fraud: exporting jobs is good for consumers.

Fraud: Hillary is an honest person.

Fraud: Social Security Trust Fund has assets.

These four and the next 46 would be at the top of my list before I would go berserk over 1/10 of a degree increase in global warming.

Actually, I like global warming, considering how miserable April and May in the Chicago area can be.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
55,347
Reaction score
20,669
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
https://ricochet.com/when-does-denial-become-fraud/


Here’s a list provided by the author of beliefs in descending levels of dissent:

  1. Global warming is a complete hoax;
  2. The planet is warming, but due to natural causes;
  3. Human activity contributes to global warming, but is not the primary driver;
  4. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but the consequences are not catastrophic;
  5. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but there is nothing we can do to stop it;
  6. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but adaptation is more economical than trying to stop it;
  7. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming and there may be something we can do to stop it, but we don’t yet know what that is; and
  8. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming but, we don’t know yet how to stop it and, until we do know, we shouldn’t implement “solutions” that might only make things worse

Which of these statements constitutes the minimum standard for fraud?

For those interested, my level of dissent is approximately level 3 to 4, but it tends to fluctuate depending on the specific argument.

The best way to think of this is to draw a parallel to the tobacco companies.

Despite mountains of evidence of a scientific fact, they fought tooth and nail for decades to pretend smoking was not harmful, or when it became obvious, not 'too' harmful.

This was a funded campaign of denial, and coincidentally, it was being partially funded through the VERY SAME mouthpiece for anti AGW propaganda- the Heartland Institute.

The tobacco companies were responsible for thousands of deaths because of these actions, and were given punitive fines that persist to this day.

I think the concept is that if someone is deliberately spreading misinformation for profit, that is certainly immoral if not illegal.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
32,700
Reaction score
10,566
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The best way to think of this is to draw a parallel to the tobacco companies.

Despite mountains of evidence of a scientific fact, they fought tooth and nail for decades to pretend smoking was not harmful, or when it became obvious, not 'too' harmful.

This was a funded campaign of denial, and coincidentally, it was being partially funded through the VERY SAME mouthpiece for anti AGW propaganda- the Heartland Institute.

The tobacco companies were responsible for thousands of deaths because of these actions, and were given punitive fines that persist to this day.

I think the concept is that if someone is deliberately spreading misinformation for profit, that is certainly immoral if not illegal.
Actually,the tobacco company comparison is a poor analogy!
The tobacco companies sell a voluntary product, a want, not a need, addictive for sure, but still voluntary.
The oil companies sell energy, packaged in a dense portable form, that has allowed human civilization
to flourish and expand for over a century, without which 80% of our current population would be forced to starve.
Our access to dense portable energy, is the vary definition of a need!
While bad news about tobacco, might convince many to stop using the product,
the same cannot be said of hydrocarbon fuels.
While the measurable harm from tobacco use is well documented,
the potential harm from the burning of fossil fuels is considerably less certain,
while the harm of discontinuing the use of fossil fuels would be immeasurable.
 

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
28,589
Reaction score
14,748
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
https://ricochet.com/when-does-denial-become-fraud/


Here’s a list provided by the author of beliefs in descending levels of dissent:

  1. Global warming is a complete hoax;
  2. The planet is warming, but due to natural causes;
  3. Human activity contributes to global warming, but is not the primary driver;
  4. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but the consequences are not catastrophic;
  5. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but there is nothing we can do to stop it;
  6. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but adaptation is more economical than trying to stop it;
  7. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming and there may be something we can do to stop it, but we don’t yet know what that is; and
  8. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming but, we don’t know yet how to stop it and, until we do know, we shouldn’t implement “solutions” that might only make things worse

Which of these statements constitutes the minimum standard for fraud?

For those interested, my level of dissent is approximately level 3 to 4, but it tends to fluctuate depending on the specific argument.

Nobody on this forum is qualified to give a competent answer on this subject, although many will spout off like a "minor bird" to the contrary.
 

Orly?

Banned
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
3,906
Reaction score
862
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Your list is upside down..
 

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
28,279
Reaction score
14,280
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yet you seem totally cool with the people in #1 and #2.

Go figure.

Because if the truth lies between 3 and 4 then believing in 1 or 2 is harmless.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That's a slippery question. To be fraud, it would depend on what one considered "Undeniably Proven" by climate science. If you consider it undeniably proven that human activity is the primary driver of climate change, then you set the bar between 3 and 4. It's subjective on how individuals interpret climate science. Since it's conservatives mostly denying climate change, its hard to say. They have this natural resistance to science and facts, so they may genuinely believe in the position they take. Fraud would happen if they personally believed it but publicly denied it. But it's all relative to what they believe in the first place.

Your reply is full of falsehoods. Conservatives don't "naturally" resist science and facts anymore than anyone else, like liberal anti-vaxxers and any liberal who believes half of the claims made for products sold at Whole Foods. Conservative genuinely believe the things they assert about climate science for the most part, and not all of them are skeptical of it. Far from it. Some Republicans are beside themselves with alarmist hysteria.

None of the claims made by climate science are undeniably proven. It might be a lot of fun seeing liberal prosecutors trying to prove fraud. I'm guessing they have enough sense not to try it even if they huff and puff about it now.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The best way to think of this is to draw a parallel to the tobacco companies.

Despite mountains of evidence of a scientific fact, they fought tooth and nail for decades to pretend smoking was not harmful, or when it became obvious, not 'too' harmful.

This was a funded campaign of denial, and coincidentally, it was being partially funded through the VERY SAME mouthpiece for anti AGW propaganda- the Heartland Institute.

The tobacco companies were responsible for thousands of deaths because of these actions, and were given punitive fines that persist to this day.

I think the concept is that if someone is deliberately spreading misinformation for profit, that is certainly immoral if not illegal.

Ah, it wouldn't be a thread about climate science without someone going full alarmist hysteria.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
55,347
Reaction score
20,669
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actually,the tobacco company comparison is a poor analogy!
The tobacco companies sell a voluntary product, a want, not a need, addictive for sure, but still voluntary.
The oil companies sell energy, packaged in a dense portable form, that has allowed human civilization
to flourish and expand for over a century, without which 80% of our current population would be forced to starve.
Our access to dense portable energy, is the vary definition of a need!
While bad news about tobacco, might convince many to stop using the product,
the same cannot be said of hydrocarbon fuels.
While the measurable harm from tobacco use is well documented,
the potential harm from the burning of fossil fuels is considerably less certain,
while the harm of discontinuing the use of fossil fuels would be immeasurable.

The use of the product is not the issue.

It's the defense of the dangers with willful neglect of the consequences.

No one is calling for complete discontinuation of use of fossil fuels. No one.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Apparently, 'full alarmist' means 'agrees with the scientific data'.

Ha! I didn't see much room for uncertainty in your comments. Your table pounding rhetoric isn't justified by the science.

Do you really mean "data"? What data justifies what you wrote? I'm talking about real data here, not model outputs or speculations from bureaucrats.
 
Last edited:

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
28,589
Reaction score
14,748
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
https://ricochet.com/when-does-denial-become-fraud/


Here’s a list provided by the author of beliefs in descending levels of dissent:

  1. Global warming is a complete hoax;
  2. The planet is warming, but due to natural causes;
  3. Human activity contributes to global warming, but is not the primary driver;
  4. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but the consequences are not catastrophic;
  5. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but there is nothing we can do to stop it;
  6. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but adaptation is more economical than trying to stop it;
  7. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming and there may be something we can do to stop it, but we don’t yet know what that is; and
  8. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming but, we don’t know yet how to stop it and, until we do know, we shouldn’t implement “solutions” that might only make things worse

Which of these statements constitutes the minimum standard for fraud?

For those interested, my level of dissent is approximately level 3 to 4, but it tends to fluctuate depending on the specific argument.

When does being a global warming alarmist become fraud? How many times have they been caught cheating with the data?
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The use of the product is not the issue.

It's the defense of the dangers with willful neglect of the consequences.

No one is calling for complete discontinuation of use of fossil fuels. No one.

It cannot be up to the oil companies. Their opinion is no more important than yours or mine. If they say CO2 is not dangerous or that reducing its exhaust would do more damage then continuing on our merry way, then it is their call. You can say the opposite and can't prove it either.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
55,347
Reaction score
20,669
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
55,347
Reaction score
20,669
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It cannot be up to the oil companies. Their opinion is no more important than yours or mine. If they say CO2 is not dangerous or that reducing its exhaust would do more damage then continuing on our merry way, then it is their call. You can say the opposite and can't prove it either.

It cannot be up to the tobacco companies. Their opinion is no more important than yours or mine. If they say tobacco is not dangerous or that reducing its use would do more damage then continuing on our merry way, then it is their call. You can say the opposite and can't prove it either.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
32,700
Reaction score
10,566
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The use of the product is not the issue.

It's the defense of the dangers with willful neglect of the consequences.

No one is calling for complete discontinuation of use of fossil fuels. No one.
Any consequences related to using fossil fuels, are still hypothetical, and range from almost nothing,
to perhaps 2.8 C warming mostly in nighttime winter lows.
These consequences contrast sharply with the clinically measurable adverse effect of
voluntary tobacco use.
While no one is calling for the complete discontinuation of use of fossil fuels,
you have repeatedly called for taxation on a necessary product, without viable alternatives
in the market yet.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
55,347
Reaction score
20,669
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Any consequences related to using fossil fuels, are still hypothetical, and range from almost nothing,
to perhaps 2.8 C warming mostly in nighttime winter lows.
These consequences contrast sharply with the clinically measurable adverse effect of
voluntary tobacco use.
While no one is calling for the complete discontinuation of use of fossil fuels,
you have repeatedly called for taxation on a necessary product, without viable alternatives
in the market yet.

This is similar to the tobacco defense, too.

The issus of secondhand smoke, which is not a voluntary use, were the thing that really killed the tobacco industry.

And Heartland, the denial think tank that funds the deniers so pompously trumpeted in this forum, was the last gasp for the tobacco industry to fight it. And they did it with literally the exact same tactics:
Where's the Consensus on Secondhand Smoke? | Heartlander Magazine (Look - you can deny a consensus exists!)
Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger | Heartlander Magazine (the science has no credibility - look, heres one study to prove it! The scientists ignore scientific principles! They just want grant money!)

I dont know how the development of solar, of electric vehicles, of wind power, etc, can happen, yet you say 'there are no viable alternatives on the market yet'. The concept is that we need to push these to the market BEFORE the environmental situation forces us to. Its starting to happen now, but it may be too little too late. And thats the deniers fault.
 

faithful_servant

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
12,533
Reaction score
5,659
Location
Beautiful Central Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
That's a slippery question. To be fraud, it would depend on what one considered "Undeniably Proven" by climate science. If you consider it undeniably proven that human activity is the primary driver of climate change, then you set the bar between 3 and 4. It's subjective on how individuals interpret climate science. Since it's conservatives mostly denying climate change, its hard to say. They have this natural resistance to science and facts, so they may genuinely believe in the position they take. Fraud would happen if they personally believed it but publicly denied it. But it's all relative to what they believe in the first place.

No, we have this natural demand for science and facts. When there is reasonable cause to question something, we should be questioning it. Somewhere along the line, liberals forgot about this and started blindly trusting what they were told without questioning authority. There is FAR more than enough scientific evidence that gives us cause to question the research being done to justify asking if the research is truly valid and not just a tool for political gain and jobs for researchers (yes, LOTS of researchers are willing to compromise in order to keep their jobs).
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
32,700
Reaction score
10,566
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is similar to the tobacco defense, too.

The issus of secondhand smoke, which is not a voluntary use, were the thing that really killed the tobacco industry.

And Heartland, the denial think tank that funds the deniers so pompously trumpeted in this forum, was the last gasp for the tobacco industry to fight it. And they did it with literally the exact same tactics:
Where's the Consensus on Secondhand Smoke? | Heartlander Magazine (Look - you can deny a consensus exists!)
Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger | Heartlander Magazine (the science has no credibility - look, heres one study to prove it! The scientists ignore scientific principles! They just want grant money!)

I dont know how the development of solar, of electric vehicles, of wind power, etc, can happen, yet you say 'there are no viable alternatives on the market yet'. The concept is that we need to push these to the market BEFORE the environmental situation forces us to. Its starting to happen now, but it may be too little too late. And thats the deniers fault.
Very little money defends fossil fuels, there is no need, because they are necessary products.
There is still a need to conduct research on CO2, as the quantum portion of how CO2 is a greenhouse gas
is poorly understood, both the diurnal and seasonal asymmetry should not be as great as they are.
If you are still talking about solar and electric vehicles, you are missing the point.
The high density fuel is not really needed for personal transport, but for Ships, Tractors, and Jets.
You seem to think taxation will speed development, but it is unnecessary, the market will
dictate which alternative is viable.
Any bias induced by government pressure could easily lead to non viable solutions.
Wind turbines, and ethanol come to mind.
 
Top Bottom