Heretics must burn.
Posted on 03/18/2014 5:50:07 AM PDT by Magnatron
The importance of clearly communicating science to the public should not be underestimated. Accurately understanding our natural environment and sharing that information can be a matter of life or death. When it comes to global warming, much of the public remains in denial about a set of facts that the majority of scientists clearly agree on. With such high stakes, an organised campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent.
The earthquake that rocked L'Aquila Italy in 2009 provides an interesting case study of botched communication. This natural disaster left more than 300 people dead and nearly 66,000 people homeless. In a strange turn of events six Italian scientists and a local defence minister were subsequently sentenced to six years in prison.
The ruling is popularly thought to have convicted scientists for failing to predict an earthquake. On the contrary, as risk assessment expert David Ropeik pointed out, the trial was actually about the failure of scientists to clearly communicate risks to the public. The convicted parties were accused of providing “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information”. As one citizen stated:
We all know that the earthquake could not be predicted, and that evacuation was not an option. All we wanted was clearer information on risks in order to make our choices.
Crucially, the scientists, when consulted about ongoing tremors in the region, did not conclude that a devastating earthquake was impossible in L’Aquila. But, when the Defence Minister held a press conference saying there was no danger, they made no attempt to correct him. I don’t believe poor scientific communication should be criminalised because doing so will likely discourage scientists from engaging with the public at all.
But the tragedy in L’Aquila reminds us how important clear scientific communication is and how much is at stake regarding the public’s understanding of science. I have argued elsewhere that scientists have an ethical obligation to communicate their findings as clearly as possible to the public when such findings are relevant to public policy. Likewise, I believe that scientists have the corollary obligation to correct public misinformation as visibly and unequivocally as possible.
Many scientists recognize these civic and moral obligations. Climatologist Michael Mann is a good example; Mann has recently made the case for public engagement in a powerful New York Times opinion piece: If You See Something Say Something. Misinformation and criminal negligence
Still, critics of the case in L’Aquila are mistaken if they conclude that criminal negligence should never be linked to science misinformation. Consider cases in which science communication is intentionally undermined for political and financial gain. Imagine if in L’Aquila, scientists themselves had made every effort to communicate the risks of living in an earthquake zone. Imagine that they even advocated for a scientifically informed but costly earthquake readiness plan.
If those with a financial or political interest in inaction had funded an organised campaign to discredit the consensus findings of seismology, and for that reason no preparations were made, then many of us would agree that the financiers of the denialist campaign were criminally responsible for the consequences of that campaign. I submit that this is just what is happening with the current, well documented funding of global warming denialism.
More deaths can already be attributed to climate change than the L’Aquila earthquake and we can be certain that deaths from climate change will continue to rise with global warming. Nonetheless, climate denial remains a serious deterrent against meaningful political action in the very countries most responsible for the crisis. Climate denial funding
We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.
Criminal negligence is normally understood to result from failures to avoid reasonably foreseeable harms, or the threat of harms to public safety, consequent of certain activities. Those funding climate denial campaigns can reasonably predict the public’s diminished ability to respond to climate change as a result of their behaviour. Indeed, public uncertainty regarding climate science, and the resulting failure to respond to climate change, is the intentional aim of politically and financially motivated denialists.
My argument probably raises an understandable, if misguided, concern regarding free speech. We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions. Protecting the latter as a form of free speech stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that undermines the very concept.
What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial? Those who purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.
What's really telling is when you look at the comments section -- and hundreds of comments are "Comment removed by moderator." I wonder which ones? Hmmm???
Wow... this looks like a major shift in their planned tactics
Climate Change ‘deniers’ are now criminals...
Michael Mann is a criminal who committed major fraud, that is now being used to ‘prove’ global warming (oops climate change)
Chicken Little, chicken little. Anybody that brings up global warming I belittle as chicken little.
Besides, Darwin takes care of all. If we’re changing the climate we’ll change right along with it right? So the theory goes.
Wow... this looks like a major shift in their planned tactics
Climate Change ‘deniers’ are now criminals...
Michael Mann is a criminal who committed major fraud, that is now being used to ‘prove’ global warming (oops climate change)
Actually, (the people being slandered) should turn that around. The courts should force the leftist to show there (false) evidence. We all know it’s fake and a high percent of what they say would happen, the opposite happened. Great Lakes freezing over?..record breaking cold temps. Those scientist who have been slandered and excluded from jobs because they followed the evidence have standing. Pray this delusional lie is put to rest.
Gore could also claim the false science he was shown, drove him to utter madness.
Be thankful it isn't Professor Larry, otherwise you and your lot would be doing a long stretch in the slammer, you ignorant, lying libtard.
That would be a majority of scientists who:
We are misguided because we question this idiot's OPINION, NOT FACTS.
It is a fact that there is constant climate change, there are no "climate change deniers" about that fact.
Is the globe getting warmer because of an increase in human generated CO2 and if it is what happened for the past 17 years?
What happened in the shift from global freezing in the 1970s to global warming in the 1990s to climate change in the 2000s?
No one can doubt that the climate changes, constantly and from the beginning of time prior to humans on the planet.
What caused the ice age and the following global warming? There were no SUVs, gas powered lawn mowers, coal fired electrical plants, dirty, filthy oil products, and filthy rich, racist, homophobic, bigoted Republican white guys smoking their cigars.
Like all opinions, only this clod is entitled to one, all the rest of us, go directly to jail, do not pass go and do not collect $200.
I agree completely - Al Gore, Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, and various other alarmists should be prosecuted for fraud.
Which of the following alternatives would be more beneficial to mankind as the population continues to expand?
The Cold Climate Zones (northern USA, Canada, Russia and Siberia) become more temperate.
The Temperate Climate Zones remain static or gradually become colder.
It is telling that the site is called the conversation but a huge chunk of the comments have been, “removed by moderator”
Absolutely agree!
I (a non lawyer, or a scientist) could disprove man made global warming in a 15 minute power point presentation. While using government provided facts.
1. Not too long ago north america was buried under a mile of ice.
2. That ice is gone. How, the earth got warmer. Global warming.
3. There were few if any humans around at this time and none had SUVs so they had no effect on why the earth got warmer.
As a side note, the world became a better place once it got warmer as the growing season became longer and it is easier to thrive in a warm climate than it is in a cold one.
The whole “Global Warming” scam is so the socialist can remake our society into their utopia. If anyone should be charged with a crime it is those that are pushing this lie for their own benefit.
I guess it’s safe to assume that the concept of “Freedom of Speech” did not come from liberals.
They plan to outlaw anyone who disagrees with them. They are sick tyrannical sob’s and that’s what needs to be said about them.
I think I am going to have a sticker made up with Professor Torcello’s name on it and attach it to an as yet to be designated lamppost.
Just reserving it for him, so to speak.
“Tarzan here, nazi.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.