Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Big_Bird]

Is climate science disinformation a crime against humanity?

[rollo]

Of course it is a crime. any one who thinks differently than the scientific establishment should be tried convicted and executed on the spot. No appeals no protests

How dare they attack humanity!! It's inhuman!

Perhaps execution is a bit harsh but a nice long period in a place that can "educate" them properly would be appropriate.

[TheUrbanMyth]

It should be a crime. Only problem with that is that people like Gore and Jones could easily be prosecuted as well. Because if disinformation is a crime they certainly presented plenty of it.

[recessiontime]

if this happened you know who'd be next?

Church pastors and priests.

[rollo]

My first post was snarky and for that I apologize. But I am a big believer in keeping politics out of science. the truth will win out. If we go this route then the execs at B.P. well they would deserve the maximum I suppose. They basically through the grossest negligence wiped out an entire ecosystem and have put the lives of hundreds of thousands of people at risk by dumping millions of gallons of dangerous chemicals in the Gulf of Mexico.

One of my professors got caught up in a crapstorm once when he seemed to have went against the popular view on human origins. he was accused of everything under the sun including racism! His crime, He had the gall to question a certain method of testing DNA, and also said perhaps there are other places that we could look for clues about human origins other than Africa. Now that is good science to always be questioning and challenging accepted theories. Now he did not say that humans did not originate in Africa, what he meant is that we need to keep looking. It almost destroyed his career.

the point being that even if the anti-climate change folks are paid to slant research it makes scientist work harder. Nothing worse than a contented scientist.

[Kuros]

Hyperbole.

But climate disinformation is a great shame.

Remember, BB's article distinguishes climate skepticism and climate denialism off the bat. Nobody (except the deniers themselves) should support denialism.

[TheUrbanMyth]

[ED209]

[visitorq]

The OP articles are absurd. The fossil fuel industry would benefit from carbon taxation more than anyone else. Artificial scarcity created by government regulation makes oil prices shoot up so the oil companies can make more profits while producing less. All the while our carbon taxes go to the government, which pays money on the debt (owned by the same banking establishment that owns the big oil companies). It's a dream come true, if you're an elite.

[visitorq]

[rollo]

I believe part of what the climate change people are saying. I dont believe all their perdictions. But the issue is not Al Gore and the lies and half truths told about him, it is the idea that if scientist lie, at the urging of a corporations are they liable for penalties. There are vested interest on both sides of this debate. A lot of money is at stake. i suspect that both sides have fudged data.

[Junior]

[Space Bar]

[Sergio Stefanuto]

I notice from some of the responses to the article by readers that the writer is a climate scientist. Sometimes, science in which one has a vested interest & moral/political philosophy don't mix. This is one of those occasions I feel. I'm not suggesting his assertions are false in view of who he is and what he does - ad hominem fallacy - but I am suggesting that they border on indecent. If your scientific assertions are true, science and science alone will suffice. If they are dubious, moral philosophy won't save them.

Anyway, let's try to answer the question: is making false statements about climate change, leading to negative natural consequences, a crime against humanity? Well, what is a crime against humanity in the first place? Slavery, genocide, Apartheid are examples - the wholesale, systematic and intentional preying upon and/or killing people.

So, no, making false statements - regardless of what about and their consequences - being a crime against humanity does not seem morally proportional. Even the coal and petrochemical industries - which give many people lung cancer - cannot be considered as perpetrators of crimes against humanity, because they aren't deliberately killing people. Far from it - we actually consider a certain amount of death tolerable, compared to how life would be if we sacrificed coal and transport.

One of the reasons people make skeptical statements about climate change is not only because they have a vested interest in climate change theory being false, but also because they genuinely believe it to be false. They aren't secret, closet believers. Asking us to consider if making false statements about climate change is a crime against humanity is therefore akin to asking if believing something to be false - when it is in fact true - is a crime against humanity. Again, clearly no.

Also, does action resulting from a false statement producing negative (natural) consequences render the maker of the statement culpable? Yes, it can in law, but it depends on the status of the person. A lawyer or other professional who makes a false statement, which his client acts upon, which produces negative consequences, will find themselves involved in a lawsuit. But if a lay person (A) makes a false statement (which he genuinely believes to be true), which inspires B to act, which produces negative consequences, A may have some responsibility, but he was, after all, merely mistaken and he didn't deliberately set out to cause harm.

In law, the distinction between a false statement made by an expert and a false statement made by a layman is crucial. So, if skeptical climate scientists are wrong, we can look upon them unfavorably, but not as perpetrators of crimes against humanity, for the above reasons.

[Junior]