What can be done about these professional Global Warming skeptics?

[Harper_is_Bush]

Can something legal be done about them?

The most expedient and deserving thing would be illegal, obviously. So what else can be done?

They're spreading misinformation about something that is of dire consequence to all people. If a person emerged from a basement on fire and told a crouded theater that there was no fire, he would be negligent.

There are a handful of these snake-oil peddlers who are incredibly successful in their focussed campaign of deceit. They are published repeatedly and give speeches to high-level government bodies.

For example, Check out Dr. Tim Ball here: http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=c2d320cd-feda-49cb-9605-712ec9084c9a
The liar gave his anti-global warming pitch to the Alberta government's standing policy committee on energy and sustainable resources. This man deserves to be in jail. He should be facing the harshist of penalties for his wilfull deceit that has delayed action on global warming and will result in much death.

What can we do against the likes of him?

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Tie him to a dock piling and have him watch the tide rise

until it's over his head.............

[snappyturtle]

2. OR: How about propping him on the side of an

artic glacial ice chunk that's ready to bite the bullet? Or, he could come to NW MN and to ND and see what warming is doing to the cattle herds and crops. NO. I think we should just shoot him. (Just kidding!!---sort of!)

[mucho macho]

3. Devils Advocate

although I believe in global warming, since when did we start JAILING someone for expressing their opinion??? What happened to free speech??? If our arguements are sound WE WILL PREVAIL. (If not we dont deserve to) I dont want to become like the gestapo bushies who jail opponents. Its extreme statements like this that make some people not take us seriously. Remember the First Amendment? Lets win em over with FACTS, not THREATS. <IMHO>

[Harper_is_Bush]

5. Free speech has limits.

People are not allowed to knowingly misrepresent the truth and endanger others.

And these are not "opinions" they are peddling, they are deliberate distortions of the truth.

You say "let's win them over with FACTS, not THREATS."
You must be very ignorant of the realities of this issue. These skeptics are not interested in FACTS. They are only interested in anti-global warming PR.

[mucho macho]

8. reply

If our FACTS convince the masses, we can VOTE in candidates to enact GW legislation. So far our FACTS have not persuaded enough. To do anything else would be UNAMERICAN.

[Harper_is_Bush]

15. BULLSHIT

You obviously don't believe in the FACTS surrounding global warming.

In your "DEVILS ADVOCATE" post above you give it away when you say "If our arguements are sound WE WILL PREVAIL."
IF our arguments are sound?
You doubt that the "arguments" that support the FACT that global warming is happening and that we're causing it are sound?

[cgrindley]

56. So if you capitalize FACT it's more true?

I consider global warming to be fairly likely. It's a good hypothesis, but I certainly wouldn't be shrieking FACT in capital letters. For one, the various facets of global warming have not been studied nor theorized for a scientifically significant span of time, for two, we hardly understand climate history, and for three, you just shouldn't do that sort of thing when you're discussing scientific theories. There is still some room for skepticism. If you want some history on how you should be reacting to global warming, look into the reception of Einstein's universal gravitation theory. It's not particularly scientific to shout FACT. Science is all about not shouting FACT.

I understand that we all want to shout FACT from time to time. In the evolution debate for example (a cripple fight at best between the forces of reason and brain hungry conservative zombies), it's pretty well established that an evolutionary process happened, but we have to maintain the correct approach. Just because our oponents are incapable of understanding sophisticated concepts does not mean that we have to sink to their level. It's irrational.

[mucho macho]

59. reply

Just because our oponents are incapable of understanding sophisticated concepts does not mean that we have to sink to their level. It's irrational.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. If I were the previous poster (#56)

I would sue you for plagiarism.

[stillcool]

7. it is an 'opinion' that is bought and paid for...

by the very same people who in the process of making their zillions supply our environment with the toxins that will cause it's death. These companies are larger than most nations...they are global...not national...and you want to talk about their right to spew their advertising bullshit in an effort to sway public opinion and my right to an opinion?

[mucho macho]

9. reply

Businesses cant get filthy rich if the public doesnt buy and demand their output. WE need to convince others thru FACTS not THREATS, and do it at the BALLOT BOX not the JAIL HOUSE. <IMHO> Those who espouse otherwise simply hurt our cause by appearing EXTREMIST

[stillcool]

10. huh? ...

did I espouse otherwise and hurt your cause?

[Harper_is_Bush]

22. Exactly. n/t

[joeunderdog]

21. Aren't we talking about people expressing opinions and calling them facts?

That's not free speech. Willful distortion of facts for the purpose of deceit is not freedom of expression, dude.

[pitohui]

45. unfortunately, the lie is part and parcel of free speech

if i do not have the choice to lie, i am not free, ask anyone in the 50s or 60s who had the misfortune to be interviewed by an FBI agent

i cannot advocate jailing someone for being a good bullshitter and getting paid good money for it

criminalizing speech is a tactic that always always backfires on the left

[Warren DeMontague]

51. What you don't get is, the corporate-owned media presents "both sides"

...right? To be "fair", right?

Except- There is no BOTH SIDES to this issue. Just like evolution, there is SCIENCE, backed up by the FACTS, and then there is a small group of agenda-driven individuals who base their "arguments" on absolutely nothing at all. In the case of evolution, they are driven by religious belief. In the case of global warming, they are- to the one- paid Petroleum industry shills.

No one is more of a first amendment absolutist than me, but when two or three corporations own ALL the media outlets in the country, and present a grossly distorted view of "reality" (look at what has happened to television "news" in this country in the past few decades and tell me that's not the case) then that situation is anything but "free speech".

People deserve the facts. The facts are clear and unmistakeable on global warming just like the facts are clear that the Earth isn't 6,000 years old. Someone's ridiculous fantasy doesn't deserve equal time in the interest of being (kaff!) "fair and balanced".

[Brian Stevens]

53. Unlike Bushies and repugs

The first ammendment only applys to the goverment restrictions (Congress shall make no law...), not us. We aren't the goverment, the Bushies are. So we have the advantage!

[Jim__]

4. "They are published repeatedly ..."

Yes, they are published repeatedly. But the test for science is to be published in a refereed journal. These so-called skeptics can't get their papers published in refereed journals. That is pretty substantial proof that they're selling garbage. And anyone who is seriously interested should know that.

According to Al Gore, when a study was done of refereed papers published on Global Warming, of 928 published papers, all agreed that Global Warming was real. Yet 53% of papers published in "popular" media were by skeptics. The public is being deliberately misinformed; and the media play a very large role in this.

[Harper_is_Bush]

6. I am referring to newspapers.

They are not published in peer-reviewed journals on the issue they have gone on cross-country tours about (i.e. again Tim Ball).
They are, however, published over and over again in newspapers which form public opinion and result in a confused public.
Read the link in the OP. I get it at work in conversations also. Many people are convinced that there's legitimate debate happening about the reality of global warming.

It is criminal what they've done.

[mucho macho]

11. reply

In some socities, what you just wrote would be considered "criminal". Is that REALLY what you want? Jail for exercising Free Speech??
The majority here would oppose that and consider it EXTREME. We must win with FACTS, or we dont deserve to win at all. By the way, Im on YOUR side, I just dont agree with your methods <jail>

[Harper_is_Bush]

17. You're not debating in good faith.

What societies? What did I say that would be criminal in them?

And what does that have to do with anything?

Welcome to DU, btw. Enjoy your stay.

[cgrindley]

57. That sounds like an attempt to chill debate, doesn't it?

"enjoy your stay"?

And what, precisely, do you mean by that? Sounds like an attempt to chill debate to me.

[mucho macho]

58. enjoy your stay

its a veiled attempt to report me at his earliest opportunity. how typical

[MazeRat7]

12. Humm putting scientists in jail for their beliefs - oh how so 14th century

I think maybe you need to let his peers pass judgment on his "research" and rate it accordingly. This is how the process works... anything else reminds me of the trial and tribulations men of science experienced during the dark ages.

MZr7

[mucho macho]

14. I agree

What the hell happened to my country? Why do these morons who spew hatred and advocate violence get accepted ? Is this a loud but small minority or has a vast swatch of America lost their minds? There has always been racism, fear and hatred but it seems like it has become as acceptable as "colored fountains" prior to the civil rights era. I want my country back. Not an extremist regime.

VOTE DEAN for CHANGE

[Harper_is_Bush]

20. HATRED???

It's against the rules for me to point out the obvious here, but I will say this.....most liberals and educated democrats know what's happening in the world and it's hardly "hatred" to be angry over the Exxon funded lies on global warming spewing forth from evil men like Tim Ball.

Is it "hatred" to oppose terrorists? Because Tim Ball is no better than a terrorist.

I know you disagree. Hell, you probably disagree that Tim Ball is BS'ing us.

[Harper_is_Bush]

18. Tim Ball is not a scientist, he's a PR man.

Once you're retired (as he is) you're not practicing.

He's not a "man of science" any longer.

You presume to give legitimacy to these people.

Let me ask you this question: do you agree or disagree that there is a dishonest disinformation campaign being conducted by men like Tim Ball on the issue of global warming?

[MazeRat7]

23. Sounds to me like he has already been "outed"....

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/dear_tim_ball_sue_me.php

While I don't know all the details, what I do know is that hacks lose credibility at a rate that is proportional to the amount of verbiage they spew from their mouth. Sure it sounds like this guy has been bought and paid for by some lobby, but he still has a legitimate right as a scientist (albeit in historical climatological geography) to speak his mind. The premise that because a credentialed scientist no longer practices via active research somehow disqualifies them from an opinion (based on their world or paid for view) is just wrong. Conversely, would you disqualify someone from speaking as a pro-global-warming advocate just because they too were no longer engaged in active research ? Or is this another case of only agreeing with those that agree with us ?

MZr7

[Harper_is_Bush]

25. You underestimate the effect this has on the public at large.

A pubic that is not as informed as you and I on who is "outed" or not. They read information from "Dr." Tim Ball. They are the ones being fooled by the lies.

He has no right to lie about this critical issue, anymore than I would have a right to lie about the state of a bridge that people cross if I was assuming responsibility for reporting on it.

[MazeRat7]

29. This would be the same "public" that believed there were WMDs in Iraq ?

Or the same public that believes in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and Alien Abductions ? (just to mention a few)

We've all been lied to by our leaders, our parents, and our friends. This is a morality issue, not a rights issue.

The truth is out there and will continue to gain traction despite the best efforts of the Tim Ball's of the world.

Just look at our favorite chimp... drip drip drip... the truth is becoming known... despite their best efforts to conceal it.

Sure its a slow and frustrating process... but we are dealing with a basic, minimal human intellect here. It will take some time.

Peace.

MZr7

[Harper_is_Bush]

31. Many believe that the lies about Iraq warrent criminal charges.

Your other examples - Sanata, Easter Bunny, and alien abductions are meaningless. How do those things endanger people?

You continue to ignore my central point about the endangerment of life.
And you keep pretending that mere "opinions" (although the truth is these people are spouting lies, factual innaccuracies) are being imparted on the issue.

[MazeRat7]

38. Endangerment of life has a much broader reach than just this topic.

I believe the quote is something like (paraphrased) "you can determine the level of (humanity/compassion/sophistication) of a society by the way they treat their animals". I don't remember it exactly, but the point is there are some things that will/may kill life in the future and there are some things that are killing life now. If you want to generate a cultural change in perception then focus on something tangible that the average person can see and not dispute. Once they understand and grasp the basic concept of compassion toward all living beings, then perhaps they will be more open to believe (and less likely to spout off lies) about those things they can not tangibly see but which are also a danger to all living things. Think of it as using a scalpel vs a broad sword.

Here is just one example

So if you want to "stop" people from spouting "lies" that endanger life, then work to achieve protection of all the lives that will die this week alone. Show them something tangible they can see. Once that culture of compassion begins to take hold, the more esoteric topics like GW will find fertile ground in spite of the paid hacks that will claim it doesn't exist until they too are in their grave.

So I think we are done here I hope my words are not ignored simply because I didn't fall in line and "agree". :)

Peace.
MZr7

[mikelewis]

49. America isn't easy.

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech?" Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.
The American President

If you're point was lost on some, it wasn't on me. Well stated. And it was Mahatma Gandhi who said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." I think he would have approved of your manner of surgery.

[Brian Stevens]

54. Neither is Al Gore

But he knows more about GW than Tim Ball.

[AZCat]

42. In order to "pass judgement" on his research...

I would have to drink beer in quantities not seen since my undergraduate days, for I don't normally produce enough urine to express myself fully when "passing judgement".

[skids]

13. Anyone know any good Astroturfing blogs?

So far I've added Corporate Engagement and Canukflak to my bookmarks. Any other blogs specialize in tracking astroturfing -- both environmental and otherwise?

[lonestarnot]

16. How about putting them on a piece of ice with hungry polar bears?

[Harper_is_Bush]

19. Too good for them. n/t

[jerry611]

24. People are allowed to have their opinion

That's the first amendment...

So no...nothing can be done about them.

[Harper_is_Bush]

26. Can I give my "opinion" that a building is safe when I know it isn't?

Faced with evidence that the building needs attention to prevent a fall, am I safe in my "first amendment" rights to tell tenents that the building is safe?

[jerry611]

30. You arn't looking at it right...

Practically everyone in the scientific world agrees that the globe is warming. There is evidence of that. That's not the debate...

The debate starts when you talk about the cause and the future...
Skeptics of global warming claim the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling and that these cycles last for 20-50 years. They believe that humans have had little if any influence on the globe's increase in temperature.

My belief is we may be speeding up the process, but we are going to warm up anyway no matter what we do. They just recently found fossils of tropical plants in Alaska. Which means about 55 million years ago, the average temperature of the article circle was at least 80 degrees F. Imagine the temperature at the equator!
There have also been several ice ages throughout the planet's history.

The human race is living in a period of global stability. If you look at the history of this planet, it wasn't always this calm. And I assure you that it will not remain this calm either.

[Harper_is_Bush]

32. "The debate starts when you talk about the cause"

No, that's where the lies start.

There is no real debate about the cause. You have fallen victim to the lies, and as a result perpetuate them...further endangering us.

[jerry611]

34. Answer me this question...

Do you seriously believe that the world is going to stay the same forever? What makes you think this? The world is going to change no matter what we do. We are going to have another ice age in the future. There is no debate about that. The question is not if, but when?

And global warming is one of the least of our worries threatening our civilization. We have new diseases sprouting up all over the place. We have massive overpopulation, in fact the UN says the world will have 13 billion people by 2050. We got maniac dictators looking for nuclear weapons. We got religious fanatics willing to blow themselves up and create mass casualties. We got a world whose leaders only care about money and power. We got wars all over the place.

And you think global warming is the biggest threat to humanity? Give me a break!

[OldSiouxWarrior]

27. You want a dictatorship.

You want a system where all published opinions must be approved by the government first.

That has been tried before, and the results are always bad. I would fight against your government, with guns if need be.

Progressives believe in free speech, not in governmental censorship.

[Harper_is_Bush]

28. What absolute nonsense you've posted.

In no way did I say I expect all "published opinions" to be approved.

We are talking about willful misrepresentation of facts that are relavent to our safety and well being.

The precendent for this kind of response is well established. It's called negligence.

Again, if a man emerges from a basement on fire and tells the theater that there is no fire, his has comitted a crime. Do you presume to defend his free speech?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

33. Any government with the power you desire, ALWAYS ends up

suppressing the speech of those who disagree with it.

Would you also jail those who argue against evolution?

There are still a few flat-earth believers around. Do they go to your camps too?

What about those with different economic theories than yours?

Your system would have the government deciding what was and wasn't scientific truth. That has been done before, in the Soviet Union under Stalin. Hitler also tried that same idea.

Have faith in the Progressive Value of Freedom of Speech. BTW, you may notice that I am not the only one defending free speech.

[LordLovesAWorkingMan]

35. So the scientific method is now something like this:

"Agree with scientists I agree with, or FACE THE CONSEQUENCES!"

Um, hasn't the Enlightenment already happened?

Like it or not, practically nothing that requires literal epochs of data observation quickly yields
the facts you seem so sure of. Global Warming is an attractive theory, and we would certainly be
better off by polluting less, but it hasn't been scientifically proven. Scientific skepticism is healthy: it causes
refinement of methods, tightening of assumptions, and increased care in data analysis.

Call me a scientist, but that's my opinion.

[AZCat]

37. Global warming isn't a theory.

It is a fact. We can measure global temperatures and can compare them over time. These temperatures are rising. The globe is warming. There is no debate over this.

[LordLovesAWorkingMan]

39. Rising relative to what?

That's the global warming problem. Are we approaching a relative maximum, or a global maximum, and why is it happening in either case?

This is very much in debate. A theory need not be proven immediately to be consistent, but the jury is still very much out on the
causes and effects of global warming. We would do well to heed the warnings anyway, because they make sense in any case, but we have no proven facts yet.

[AZCat]

40. Rising relative to itself.

We are talking about two different things here. "Global Warming" is both a phenomenon and the name of the theory about the cause and effect of said phenomenon. There is no debate about the occurrence of the phenomenon, and not as much debate about the theory as the talking heads would have us think.

It is not difficult to measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere nor is it difficult to identify the short term effect of the increased levels of CO2.

[lgn19087]

36. I say round 'em up with the rest of the fascists n/m

[Strelnikov_]

41. They Would Make Good Fertilizer

Considering how full of shit they are.

[lgn19087]

44. Indeed nm

nm

[pitohui]

43. legally? i don't see where we can do anything

it is not illegal to lie when you are not under oath and if you make it illegal to lie even when you are not under oath, you will create a society that makes stalinism look pleasant

the alberta gov't wants to believe what it wants to believe, this is why they seek out such opinions in the first place, if they want to believe it's a good idea to destroy the landscape for tar sands then they'll find someone to tell them so

same as w. bushco, the liars will always be with us but bushco seeks out the liars because that's the only way to get told what they want to hear

the truth this time of century is too inconvenient, as gore correctly points out

[Jed Dilligan]

46. It's just a labeling issue

They can publish what they want, but the government has the right to slap a big "non-peer-reviewed" sticker on the so-called academic journals that publish it.

[ComerPerro]

47. Try to get a gig as one. Seriously. I bet its good money

and you don't even have to do any real work.


For a long time now, I have wanted to be a professional "Creation Scientist".

That's my dream job.

[Odin2005]

48. Unfortunatly, nothing.

The paid sophists are within thier right to spew thier lies. The only thing we can do is to educate the public.

[Skittles]

50. my guess is they know it is true

they simply do not care

[mikelewis]

52. Some people honestly believe that...

buildings and planes can just disintigrate when you apply burning kerosene. People will believe anything. It doesn't mean that the one's who aren't clued in don't care, it just means that someone has their facts wrong. However, I think issues like 9/11, Global Warming, Population Growth and AIDS are issues that blind people, not because they don't care but because they are afraid to see the truth.

[cgrindley]

55. Attempting to silence academic free speech is EVIL

That's a shitty thing to suggest doing, and to suggest doing it to someone in another country (my own, to boot), is doubly offensive. Anyone who suggests curtailing academic discourse is part of a huge problem that leads directly to the sort of bullshit that we see the Repukes doing to Ward Churchill and others. It's got to stop. A call to silence an academic is just plain evil.

[AngryAmish]

60. They must be destroyed

and their families, too.

[KFC]

62. Have you ever written code simulating natural systems?

I'm guessing not.

Science is all about debate. But if you want to jail dissenters, fine Stalin.