See, this is what really drives people nuts and makes them want to ensure than no global warming hysteric gets anywhere near the levers of power. A Penn professor of something called “Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law,” named Donald A. Brown, wants global warming denying by major corporations and scientists in their pay to be considered a crime against humanity. From his rant:
As long as there is any chance that climate change could create this type of destruction, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that these harms are not yet fully proven, disinformation about the state of climate change science is extraordinarily morally reprehensible if it leads to non-action in reducing climate change’s threat when action is indispensable to preventing harm. In fact how to deal with uncertainty in climate change science is an ethical issue, not only a scientific matter, because in the case of climate change:
• If you wait until all the uncertainties are resolved it is likely to be too late to prevent catastrophic climate change.
• The longer one waits to take action, the more difficult it is to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of climate change at safe levels.
• Those most vulnerable to climate change include some of the poorest people in the world and they have not consented to be put at risk in the face of uncertainty.
Throwing tantrums because you are losing a political debate isn’t going to make more people come to your side. Besides, regardless of the extent of global warming that may be caused by human activity, many people believe that the proposed cure is worse than the supposed disease. And the people most hurt by being not allowed to develop their resources and gain wealth would be the world’s poorest people.
But here is Brown’s way over-the-top, kicker:
Clearly this is a new type of crime against humanity. Skepticism in science is not bad, but skeptics must play by the rules of science including publishing their conclusions in peer-reviewed scientific journals and not make claims that are not substantiated by the peer-reviewed literature. The need for responsible skepticism is particularly urgent if misinformation from skeptics could lead to great harm. For this reason, this disinformation campaign being funded by some American corporations is some kind of new crime against humanity.
The international community does not have a word for this type of crime yet, but the international community should find a way of classifying extraordinarily irresponsible scientific claims that could lead to mass suffering as some type of crime against humanity.
The Holocaust was a crime against humanity. American slavery was a crime against humanity. The gulags were a crime against humanity. The killing fields of Cambodia was a crime against humanity. The Rape of Nan-king was a crime against humanity. Anyone who can’t distinguish between true evil such as these and many other examples we could name, and global warming skepticism–even if founded in venal self interest–has no business being a professor in a world class university.
And for those who urgently believe in global warming, essays like this do far more harm than good to your cause.
October 31st, 2010 | 12:57 am
[...] Global Warming Hysteria: Opposing Global Warming Should be a Crime Against …First Things (blog)See, this is what really drives people nuts and makes them want to ensure than no global warming hysteric gets anywhere near the levers of power. …Global warming 'unquestionably' linked to humans: FranceAFPGlobal warming linked to humans: FranceSydney Morning Heraldall 36 news articles » [...]
October 31st, 2010 | 1:33 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Meilin Song, GreenEnergyApproach, Steven Suchar, John Wilkenson and others. John Wilkenson said: RT @CO2HOG SHS: Global Warming Hysteria: Opposing Global Warming Should be a Crime Against Humanity? http://bit.ly/9fWmmB #tcot [...]
October 31st, 2010 | 1:56 am
[...] First Things (blog) [...]
October 31st, 2010 | 2:05 am
The overwhelming paleoclimate evidence from around the globe is that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warming were synchronous, world wide and much warmer than today.
However, the MWP deniers, such as the IPCC, US EPA, Australia’s CSIRO and the UK’s MET Office, will never admit the existence of the MWP because it means that their religious-like belief in AGW is exposed for the steaming pile of junk science that it truly is.
In total, climate change is complex and not well understood.
But this part is simple.
Since the world was warmer when CO2 levels were lower, CO2 cannot be the earth’s temperature regulator. There must be other factors.
In the past, the Earth was warmer than it is today; before the social and industrial advances that have made modern people the healthiest and most prosperous in history. MWP deniers want us to believe that plant friendly and life giving CO2 is a bad thing to better advance their meglomanical desire to both boss around the developed world and further impoverish the poor while pocketing a lot of taxpayer money along the way.
Useless, misguided attempts to control carbon are not the answer to the ever changing climate.There is only one answer to changes in climate that has ever worked for humanity.
That is adaptation.
One of the many links to the overwhelming Paleoclimate evidence of the global nature of the MWP is below.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
More information
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
October 31st, 2010 | 9:37 am
Let’s see… you are calling for the state to investigate climate scientists.
“Republican Senator James Inhofe has called for a full investigation
into the Climategate affair, calling the actions of the scientists
involved “criminal” and part of “the greatest scientific scandal of our
generation”.
Inhofe has asked the Department of Justice to determine if
climatologists, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State
University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and NASA, engaged
in illegal activity to deliberately falsify data and mislead the public
on the facts of global warming.
The Republican Senator also called for former Vice President Al Gore
to be called back before the Senate to testify on the matter.”
“We knew they were cooking the science to support the flawed UN IPCC
agenda,” Inhofe said this morning. “I suspect Climategate is only the
beginning.”
The report (Republican Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works) also points out possible criminal offences relating to
Climategate, including a potential violation of the Shelby Amendment,
which requires open access to the results of government-funded research,
in addition to a violation of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) policies on scientific misconduct.
It also states that scientists involved could be in breach of the
Federal False Statements and False Claims Acts, charges that could carry
civil and criminal penalties. Furthermore, an obstruction of Congress in
Congressional Proceeds may constitute an obstruction of justice according
to the report.
Inhofe’s call for a criminal investigation will include a request for
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to re-examine the
classification of Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant.
“The EPA accepted the IPCC’s erroneous claims wholesale, without
doing its own independent review,” Inhofe said about the EPA’s decision
to rely on information from the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate
Change. “So EPA’s endangerment finding rests on bad science,” he added.”
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t687877/
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cucinelli is conducting a witch-hunt directed against Dr. Michael Mann of the University of Virginia but has been rebuffed (so far) by a federal court.
So the American right is using the absolute power of the state to suppress scientific evidence and you’re upset that an Associate Professor somewhere suggested that corporations who make demonstrably false statements be charged with a crime? I disagree with the professor but you consider him hysterical but not yourself, Inhofe or Cucinelli?
In January, you will get your wish. Let the inquisitions begin!
October 31st, 2010 | 9:49 am
Well fair is fair if skeptics have to publish only in peer reviewed publications, then alarmists should have to too. This means that most of what James Hansen claims would be illegal. BTW many skeptics do publish peer review articles.
October 31st, 2010 | 11:08 am
Orkneygal,
I’m trying to stay on topic, global warming and skepticism as crimes, but almost all climate scientists disagree with you. The current warming event is almost certainly being caused by humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere over a relatively short period of time. This is not to say that almost all climate scientists can’t be wrong; they can. But the evidence for warming (which the skeptics used to question, but no more) is overwhelming.
Tom T.,
Of course skeptics publish (contrary to the claims of some conspiracy theorists), but have not been able to persuade most climate scientists that man-made global warming is not happening. Any skeptic can publish a complete scientific refutation of the theory of man-made global warming and become famous. It just
October 31st, 2010 | 11:22 am
con’t (premature submission!)
It just hasn’t happened yet. This new data would turn the AGW crowd on its head! An incredibly effective vocal minority, including the American conservative movement, has had a monumental impact on the discussion of global warming. The experts have evaluated the evidence and made their decision – man-made global warming is real and serious.
I disagree with the professor that corporations opposing the theory of man-made global warming should be charged with crimes for spreading falsehoods. I also disagree with you, Mr. Smith, Senator Inhofe and Ken Cucinelli that climate scientists are criminals, even when they advocate for a cause with which you fellows disagree.
How do you defend that purported conservatives advocate using the power of the federal government to interrogate private citizens about their public comments? They want to criminalize discourse because they don’t like what they hear, in my opinion.
October 31st, 2010 | 11:52 am
And Wes, your headline “…Opposing Global Warming Should be a Crime Against Humanity?” is not exactly reflective of the associate professor’s essay.
His title “The Fossil Fuel Industry’s Disinformation Campaign On Climate Change” as well as the essay itself make clear that the target of his ire are corporations making false claims to further their corporate mission (to increase shareholder value, which is what corporations should do).
I found at least 16 references in his essay linking his criticism to corporations, not bloggers, politicians, not skeptical scientists, not skeptical laypersons, but only to corporations making false and misleading claims. In fact, the professor opened his essay thus: “This post examines the question of whether some US companies are guilty of a new kind of vicious crime against humanity that the world has yet to classify”.
You underplayed his point. I disagree with his conclusion that the corporations are committing some kind of new crime, or any crime, but I still think that spreading misinformation is wrong.
October 31st, 2010 | 1:10 pm
Orkneygal,
Do you work with CO2science.org (run by former Peabody Coal exec)? “Your” exact post has been posted all over the internet (at least 54 times from a Bing search), and is a perfect example of the sort of well-organized and well-funded denialist strategy.
Your “facts” are wrong. The MWP was not warmer than now. I’m not even sure the Minoan and Roman WPs exist.
You are right that our descendants will be forced to adapt to a climate unprecedented in human history.
The rest of what you cut-and-pasted is untrue.
October 31st, 2010 | 1:53 pm
Here’s a nice summary of the debate to date.
http://www.sc-article.co.tv/2010/10/global-warming-skeptics-vs-scientific.html
I say “debate” charitably, since one side relies on scientific procedure and evidence, and the other relies strictly on denial techniques, primarily “shoot the messenger.”
For all your exaggerated claims of “hysteria” on the part of the scientists, Wes, anybody who is hysterical about climate change is frankly approaching this more realistically than you are. We have a real problem to face, and your distortions and distractions are not helping.
November 1st, 2010 | 7:36 am
This article and some of the comments are a wonderful example of the kind of hysteria which causes people to deny the truth. That, in this instance, the evidence requires us to radically intervene in the world economy to correct a perceived problem.
I do agree with the professor in one thing–the question of remedy is an ethical issue, which takes it outside of the realm of a purely scientific discussion. Too often in the current culture it is popular to assert that we must leave it to the scientists to decide what science should do. On the contrary, we must never do that!
Which is why I assert, with the author of the post, that it would be unethical in the extreme to deny economic development to the poor people of the world based on the extremely incomplete evidence currently at hand. All of the porposed “solutions” to this “problem” involve subjecting the world’s poor to extreme privation.
We must continue to oppose the hysteria hammer and tongs.
November 1st, 2010 | 10:35 am
Joe deVet: “I do agree with the professor in one thing–the question of remedy is an ethical issue, which takes it outside of the realm of a purely scientific discussion.”
Although there are ethical aspects to this, I see this more as a practical issue, a problem to solve. The scientists have defined the problem. From this point on we need to identify options, evaluate their long- and short-term effectiveness, and plan implementations. Not easy to keep politics out of it, or even power plays (suppose China tells us to go piddle up a rope, as they did at the last global meeting?), and certainly not economics, but mostly it’s a technical problem: How do we continue to produce the energy necessary to support the world population without making the CO2 worse than it is?
This is a question for engineers, not activists. Fortunately there are some very bright ones coming up.
There’s always hysteria and power grabbing associated with any real problem. We need to shove that aside and work on the core issues.
November 1st, 2010 | 12:28 pm
Don Brown has a bachelor of science from Drexel University in Commerce and Engineering Sciences, a JD from Seton Hall University School of Law, and a Master of Arts in Liberal Studies with a major in philosophy and art.
And that just about sums it up.
November 1st, 2010 | 10:48 pm
It’s a tough question because calling something a “crime against humanity” should require some pretty extraordinarily terrible acts. It’s clearly over the top. But as the death toll and human suffering mounts, you have to admit that it becomes at least a legitimate question even if such a charge would never stick. Does greed leading to willful ignorance really count as a defense? For the most part, yes, but as the evidence mounts, that defense becomes weaker and weaker.
Of course we can’t blame skeptics from 20 years ago, but at some point we have to ask whether powerful media agencies like the WSJ and Fox News aren’t at least a little culpable for the preventable deaths and suffering that they help to cause by intentionally misinforming their readers/viewers.
November 3rd, 2010 | 1:05 pm
Oran: “But as the death toll and human suffering mounts, you have to admit that it becomes at least a legitimate question even if such a charge would never stick.”
I’d like to see where you’re getting the data to support your claim of the mounting death toll and human suffering that has been caused by AGW. I know it is pretty mainstream (though ignorant) to indict such natural disasters as Katrina on AGW (e.g. Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth”), but there is no evidence to support such an association. Pielke Jr. has published extensively in the area of natural disaster trends, especially as they relate to economic losses, and has yet to find an association with climate change (losses generally track with rising prosperity and an increase in the development of areas known to be associated with higher natural disaster risk). This underscores the last phrase of your statement: “even if such a charge would never stick.”
I should stress that this comment is not a denial that human activity plays no role in the ever changing climate. Humans have been affecting local climates for centuries. But if there is no reliable evidence to support your assumption that AGW is responsible for death and suffering, how is the question legitimate to begin with?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact