Should Global Warming Skeptics Go To Court, Be Tossed In Prison?

[FGB]

Should Global Warming Skeptics Go To Court, Be Tossed In Prison?
It only seems that the world has gone crazy. It just appears that way ... right? Right? Maybe it has indeed. Consider that a group of U.S. academics has asked the White House to prosecute under federal RICO statutes organizations and corporations that don't believe the story that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, while on the other side of the Atlantic a law professor wants the International Court of Justice to decide if human activity is warming the planet.

more... http://news.investors.com/blogs-cap...mate-change-skeptics-to-serve-prison-time.htm

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Seems sort of vague. Names and more details about specifically which "group of U.S. academics has asked the White House to prosecute under federal RICO statutes" and some details about their theory for seeking that prosecution would be interesting.

 

[Aglaopheme]

The first thing that popped up on a Google search was Breitbart followed by American Thinker of course it's vague.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The first thing that popped up on a Google search was Breitbart followed by American Thinker of course it's vague.

Is this better? http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...rico-laws-global-warming-skeptics_963007.html

ETA: Here's another: http://thejacksonpress.org/?p=38905

ETA: Here is a US senator calling on the feds to use RICO against fossil fuels producers.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Two fantastically biased articles are clarity?

Okay lets take this at face value. First there is precedence for such a lawsuit as it pointed out in both of Boxie's articles. United States vs Phillip Morris. A keener legal mind than mine should look at this and the related cases. I admit my legalize is far from perfect and often hinges ultimately on "This guy is smarter than me I'll accept his judgement".

That said if I'm reading this correctly it basically boils down to the idea that the tobacco industries were found in violation of RICO. The second article seems to think this was a bad decision even then. (You know what kind of audience you're talking to when they can actually say that the Tobacco Industry was unduly bullied by Big Government and we should feel bad.)

The question here is ultimately what does the research actually say? It may be time to have some kind of official vote of people qualified to have a say. Because if people in positions to profit from the decision are indeed paying scientists to falsify reports (as opposed to funding people they already agree with) they yes they should be prosecuted. It's really no different than if big Pharma sold Viagra that made people commit suicide and then paid doctors to say "Nuh uh. Those guys did it cus they were cray cray!"

 

[Aglaopheme]

Is this better? http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...rico-laws-global-warming-skeptics_963007.html

ETA: Here's another: http://thejacksonpress.org/?p=38905

ETA: Here is a US senator calling on the feds to use RICO against fossil fuels producers.

To be clear: I don’t know whether the fossil fuel industry and its allies engaged in the same kind of racketeering activity as the tobacco industry. We don’t have enough information to make that conclusion. Perhaps it’s all smoke and no fire. But there’s an awful lot of smoke.

That's quite a "call' he's making.

 

[Aglaopheme]

As Sean said, lock 'em up and throw away the keys.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sean didn't say or mean to imply that. I do think the science is settled but this is about if the people at the top are lying vs being mistaken.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Precisely, lock the liars up.

 

[phrodeau]

They could start here: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

At a meeting in Exxon Corporation's headquarters, a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world's use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity.

It was July 1977 when Exxon's leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis.

A year later, Black, a top technical expert in Exxon's Research & Engineering division, took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience. He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert.

Exxon responded swiftly. Within months the company launched its own extraordinary research into carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and its impact on the earth. Exxon's ambitious program included both empirical CO2 sampling and rigorous climate modeling. It assembled a brain trust that would spend more than a decade deepening the company's understanding of an environmental problem that posed an existential threat to the oil business.

Then, toward the end of the 1980s, Exxon curtailed its carbon dioxide research. In the decades that followed, Exxon worked instead at the forefront of climate denial. It put its muscle behind efforts to manufacture doubt about the reality of global warming its own scientists had once confirmed. It lobbied to block federal and international action to control greenhouse gas emissions. It helped to erect a vast edifice of misinformation that stands to this day.

 

[dan_c00000]

The question here is ultimately what does the research actually say? It may be time to have some kind of official vote of people qualified to have a say. Because if people in positions to profit from the decision are indeed paying scientists to falsify reports (as opposed to funding people they already agree with) they yes they should be prosecuted. It's really no different than if big Pharma sold Viagra that made people commit suicide and then paid doctors to say "Nuh uh. Those guys did it cus they were cray cray!"

Yup that's what the Senator is saying:

"The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking. ... The coordinated tactics of the climate denial network, Brulle’s report states, “span a wide range of activities, including political lobbying, contributions to political candidates, and a large number of communication and media efforts that aim at undermining climate science.”

Use RICO against fossil fuel companies the same way it was used against tobacco.

Brulle's report is here. With a Washington Post write-up of it here.

All of the class action lawsuits filed against tobacco eventually lead to the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. So there's no reason this can't be (and probably should be) done.

 

[BotanyBoy]

At the very least they should be stripped of any authority on anything.

Only a moron would actually believe the wholesale pollution and then clearing/stripping of all things that clean pollution to do some more polluting would have no effects on the planet.

RW America, they WANT to destroy the earth and poison the food/water supply....because they don't believe in those uppity liburhul stories.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Law is more. . . .precise than that. We aren't debating if poution is good but specifically something with global warming and probably something more specific than that.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Sean didn't say or mean to imply that. I do think the science is settled but this is about if the people at the top are lying vs being mistaken.

If you think the science is settled, take a look at these opinions: https://www.google.com/search?sourc...3j0j0i131.0.0.0.10076...........0.Ve5wCSxnjtM

 

[Sean Renaud]

So you send a google? Well it's likely better than the last group of sources you tried to quote.

The reality is it takes a very special kind of stupid to believe that Global Warming isn't real.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Two fantastically biased articles are clarity?

Okay lets take this at face value. First there is precedence for such a lawsuit as it pointed out in both of Boxie's articles. United States vs Phillip Morris. A keener legal mind than mine should look at this and the related cases. I admit my legalize is far from perfect and often hinges ultimately on "This guy is smarter than me I'll accept his judgement".

That said if I'm reading this correctly it basically boils down to the idea that the tobacco industries were found in violation of RICO. The second article seems to think this was a bad decision even then. (You know what kind of audience you're talking to when they can actually say that the Tobacco Industry was unduly bullied by Big Government and we should feel bad.)

The question here is ultimately what does the research actually say? It may be time to have some kind of official vote of people qualified to have a say. Because if people in positions to profit from the decision are indeed paying scientists to falsify reports (as opposed to funding people they already agree with) they yes they should be prosecuted. It's really no different than if big Pharma sold Viagra that made people commit suicide and then paid doctors to say "Nuh uh. Those guys did it cus they were cray cray!"

If you google the subject, all you will find are biased sources.

Tobacco and fossil fuels aren't really very comparable. It the 1950's, I used to see ads in magazines for cigarettes, and they seemed to be extolling the health benefits of tobacco. Camel was probably the worst offender. Not too much later, warnings were included on packs of cigs telling people how bad they are. That was about fifty years, and I haven't seen any ads extolling the benefits of smoking since then. So, in 1999, how could anybody accuse the industry of misleading anybody? Their advertisements and the packages themselves informed potential users how bad they were. Admittedly, before the 1960's, they did lie to people and covered up the harm being done. I am not defending them, just making a comparison.

Fuel producers have never denied anything relating to pollution, and they have been cleaning up their act over the last century or so. They dispute the theories of global warming, because nothing has been positively proven. There are some people, including those twenty alleged scientists, who believe in climate change being caused by human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels. I say "alleged" because they are anonymous, which would cause me to doubt their veracity. However many people are selling climate change, there are probably as many who express doubts. Both groups are expressing opinions which, the last I knew, was not contrary to the law.

 

[Boxlicker101]

So you send a google? Well it's likely better than the last group of sources you tried to quote.

The reality is it takes a very special kind of stupid to believe that Global Warming isn't real.

Don't tell me; tell the multitude of scientists being cited.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The courts deemed that the Tobacco Industry wasn't being honest about their product. It's really as simple as that.

Cleaning up their act over the last century or so? Okay you need citation before you can pull such epic nonsense.

There are NO formal groups left that deny global warming. Just fringe kooks. That said there is a difference as I stated between being mistaken which is not illegal and lying which in this case is illegal. So th question becomes are these people morons, willfully ignorant (both of which are legal) or are they lying in which case they should be punished.

 

[phrodeau]

Don't tell me; tell the multitude of scientists being cited.

A multitude, got it.

http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/2.2.png

 

[Boxlicker101]

A multitude, got it.

http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/2.2.png

That's still just their opinion, and it's paying their bills.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The courts deemed that the Tobacco Industry wasn't being honest about their product. It's really as simple as that.

Cleaning up their act over the last century or so? Okay you need citation before you can pull such epic nonsense.

There are NO formal groups left that deny global warming. Just fringe kooks. That said there is a difference as I stated between being mistaken which is not illegal and lying which in this case is illegal. So th question becomes are these people morons, willfully ignorant (both of which are legal) or are they lying in which case they should be punished.

On Post 14, I included a link to a google page, which includes 15,000,000 links. Did you check every one of the to see whether or not they were "formal groups?"

ETA: Here is a "formal group" being cited." http://www.express.co.uk/news/clari...rming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

Mr. Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an 'independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.'

He added: "There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.

Mr Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an 'independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.'

He added: "There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.

And if you want to know more about the NIPCC: http://climatechangereconsidered.org/about-nipcc/

 

[Sean Renaud]

Of course I didn't go through it, I clicked your link saw you were a moron who thought that linking to Google means a damn thing and went on with my day.

The man responseible for your article is a certified nutter. I'm sorry, when you compare CO2 to Jews you lose your seat at the big boy table.

 

[The Jeffinator]

People who think global warming is not happening must assume the thirty million tons of C02 we pump into the atmosphere every year just magically vanishes. I don't think anyone who rejects reality in favor of fairy tales should be in any position with a significant effect on the well-being of others.

 

[Que]

So you send a google? Well it's likely better than the last group of sources you tried to quote.

The reality is it takes a very special kind of stupid to believe that Global Warming isn't real.

Of course global warming is real. Man's influence is likely to play a major role in that process.

Just as the people that claim the earth is not on a warming trend at all, and that man has no influence are stupid, those that worship in the cathedral of environmental alarm-ism are equally stupid.

Pretending it doesn't take a special kind of stupid to call it "settled science" when the critical thing quantifying the extent of the problem is not even partially known is disingenuous.

You realize the term "settled" is a political one, not a scientific one, yes?

 

[phrodeau]

Don't tell me; tell the multitude of scientists being cited.

That's still just their opinion, and it's paying their bills.

I'm glad that you noticed.