Prosecute Warming Deniers Under RICO

[seer]

So desired by a group of "scientists."

http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf

[whag]

So desired by a group of "scientists."



http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf

Why should anyone be shocked that one group of scientist proposes extreme action against denialists? Would you be surprised if I linked to Christian groups that advocate Old Testament justice?

Moreover, if anthropogenic climate change is true, and we actually can curtail sea level rise, that'd make denialists culpable for resulting human misery. For the sake of argument, what would you propose we do to denialist congressmen then?

[seer]

For the sake of argument, what would you propose we do to denialist congressmen then?

Nothing - it is called freedom of speech.

[Sam]

That letter suggested going after corporations who knew that climate change was real and problematic decades ago but chose to misinform others for profit. The authors mention the tobacco industry as a comparison.

This doesn't have anything to do with denialists.

[seer]

That letter suggested going after corporations who knew that climate change was real and problematic decades ago but chose to misinform others for profit. The authors mention the tobacco industry as a comparison.

This doesn't have anything to do with denialists.

What? Who knew that climate change was problematic and real decades ago? And it was not just about corporations, but also "other organizations..." And who did they misinform?

[Sam]

What? Who knew that climate change was problematic and real decades ago? And it was not just about corporations, but also "other organizations..." And who did they misinform?

Exxon, for one:



Regardless, the OP is wrong.

[whag]

Nothing - it is called freedom of speech.

If congressmen and the companies they support lie about climate change, that's not a free speech issue. Like Sam said, the tobacco lobby is a better analogy. How is lying about the effects of tobacco smoking a free speech issue?

Remember, the assumption here is that anthropogenic-caused climate change is real and floods coasts.

[Truthseeker]

Free speech, except one may not deliberately lie to benefit anyone?

[seer]

Exxon, for one:



Regardless, the OP is wrong.

So climate change was settled science in 1981? And what came after is called freedom of speech. I know you Maoists don't care for freedom of thought...

[seer]

If congressmen and the companies they support lie about climate change, that's not a free speech issue. Like Sam said, the tobacco lobby is a better analogy. How is lying about the effects of tobacco smoking a free speech issue?

Remember, the assumption here is that anthropogenic-caused climate change is real and floods coasts.

No, actually lying is protected speech. You don't get arrested for lying. Look at Hillary Clinton.

[whag]

No, actually lying is protected speech. You don't get arrested for lying. Look at Hillary Clinton.

Context. Hillary should be punished for lying to law enforcement officials. People get incarcerated for perjury.

[Sam]

So climate change was settled science in 1981? And what came after is called freedom of speech. I know you Maoists don't care for freedom of thought...

Settled enough to dissuade Exxon from drilling a well into a huge oil field.

Freedom of speech obviously has its limits. I don't recall RICO being used against the tobacco companies but the same principle would apply: knowing that your product is causing long-term damage and funding "research" to obfuscate that fact is not good civic behavior and might end up running afoul of some regulations.

[Leonhard]

So climate change was settled science in 1981? And what came after is called freedom of speech. I know you Maoists don't care for freedom of thought...

Global warming was definitely more or less settled in the eighties, and was the predominant view even in the seventies. There's a difference between freedom of speech, and of using your capitol to sow fear uncertainty and doubt, and creating controversies (manufactroversies), in the best interest of your own product. While the latter would be very hard to prove, there's very little doubt that Exxon pulled a similar despicable stunt as the tobacco companies who tried for years to sow doubt and manufactroversies regarding the dangers of smoke, and after that, second-hand smoke.

Whag is no more a maoist than you're a randroid.

[seer]

Global warming was definitely more or less settled in the eighties, and was the predominant view even in the seventies. There's a difference between freedom of speech, and of using your capitol to sow fear uncertainty and doubt, and creating controversies (manufactroversies), in the best interest of your own product. While the latter would be very hard to prove, there's very little doubt that Exxon pulled a similar despicable stunt as the tobacco companies who tried for years to sow doubt and manufactroversies regarding the dangers of smoke, and after that, second-hand smoke.

Whag is no more a maoist than you're a randroid.

No Sam is the Maoist. And no, I doubt very much that it was settled science in 1981. And if you don't like the SPEECH of the of the energy companies fight it more speech, not the law - besides I doubt if any court in the US would find that RICO would apply. If you are losing the PR war (which you are) step up your game. Also, no one wants to acknowledge how much better fossil fuels have made life for almost all men.

[seer]

Freedom of speech obviously has its limits. I don't recall RICO being used against the tobacco companies but the same principle would apply: knowing that your product is causing long-term damage and funding "research" to obfuscate that fact is not good civic behavior and might end up running afoul of some regulations.

How about you guys acknowledging how much better fossil fuels flowing at market prices made life better for the vast majority of mankind?