Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics

[DrTodd13]

Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics.

 

The above link says that some people are proposing "Nuremberg-style" trials for people who are skeptical about humans being the cause of global warming. The link goes so far as to claim that human-caused GW skepticism is a "crime against humanity." As opinion is soon to be a crime, I just lobotomized myself. I am a sheep now.

[bid_em_up]

This is a baaaaaaaaaaaaad idea. :P

[david_c]

The world contains plenty of people who say silly things. It doesn't matter which side of the debate they are on, they're still loonies. More fool you if you take them seriously.

[DrTodd13]

This is a baaaaaaaaaaaaad idea. :P

This caused my first chuckle of the day. Good one. ;)

[mike777]

Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics.

 

The above link says that some people are proposing "Nuremberg-style" trials for people who are skeptical about humans being the cause of global warming.  The link goes so far as to claim that human-caused GW skepticism is a "crime against humanity."  As opinion is soon to be a crime, I just lobotomized myself.  I am a sheep now.

Opinions are crimes in many countries and people are put on trial all the time for them. See Italy and what they list as hate speech and who they arrest. :P

 

I am not sure are you saying they should be or that it should be a crime and they should be put on trial for putting opinions on trial? Or we do nothing and just put our heads in the sand? ;)

[DrTodd13]

Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics.

 

The above link says that some people are proposing "Nuremberg-style" trials for people who are skeptical about humans being the cause of global warming.  The link goes so far as to claim that human-caused GW skepticism is a "crime against humanity."  As opinion is soon to be a crime, I just lobotomized myself.  I am a sheep now.

Opinions are crimes in many countries and people are put on trial all the time for them. See Italy and what they list as hate speech and who they arrest. :P

 

I am not sure are you saying they should be or that it should be a crime and they should be put on trial for putting opinions on trial? Or we do nothing and just put our heads in the sand? ;)

My understanding is that holocaust denial is a crime in Germany. In the article, they talk about how the people advocating this GW thing are using terminology reminiscent of holocaust deniers and thus in some way linking the two beliefs. As you might expect, this is ticking people off to in any way equate these two things.

 

What would I advocate? Certainly I wouldn't advocate that any opinion should be a crime. People who prosecute others for their opinions are evil and they themselves should be penalized.

[mike777]

"People who prosecute others for their opinions are evil and they themselves should be penalized. "

 

Maybe but the world has never done anything about this. Here is just a short list of countries where a "dangerous opinion" can get you put on trial.

 

North Korea

Vietnam

China

Iran

Syria

Egypt

Saudi Arabia

Singapore

Congo

Sudan

Algeria

Russia

Italy

Cuba

 

It does seem if Bush is going to commit crimes against humanity by not stopping GW and just trying to make his oil buddies and his family rich he should be tried? Is there a reward for this btw?

[bid_em_up]

On a side note, I found this in an article on Yahoo news"

 

"North Korea also has golf clubs in cities including Pyongyang -- where, according to the communist state's official media, leader Kim Jong-Il scored 11 holes-in-one in his first attempt at golf"

 

And they want us to take them seriously?? I dont think he could score 11 holes in one at Putt-Putt golf, much less a real course. LOL!!

[DrTodd13]

First off, individuals share culpability for burning fossil fuels. Companies provide them knowing they will be burned but individuals are the ones who buy them with the intent to burn so you can't lay all the blame on companies. So what you are saying is that anyone who happens to have coercive power is responsible for failing to prevent the tragedy of the commons?

[pigpenz]

Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics.

 

The above link says that some people are proposing "Nuremberg-style" trials for people who are skeptical about humans being the cause of global warming. The link goes so far as to claim that human-caused GW skepticism is a "crime against humanity." As opinion is soon to be a crime, I just lobotomized myself. I am a sheep now.

how about Nuremberg trials for what american politicians have done in Iraq

[Gerben42]

Did you see the episode where Mr. Burns plays golf and Smithers controls the golf balls? THAT is how you make a hole in one. It would be unfitting for the great leader to miss a shot, right?

[hrothgar]

Personally, i think that there hearts are in the right place. I disagree with the proposed implementation scheme, however, I approve of the basic idea that is being discussed.

 

There are a lot of organizations out there with a strong vested interest in destroying unbiased debate on topics like Global Warming or the health effects of smoking. I'd argue that its fairly important to reach the right decision.

 

1. If Global Warming is true, and society decides to ignore it we're going to create enormous costs for people arround the world. In particular, climate change is going to have a devasating effect on any subsistence level households in the third world.

 

2. If Global warming is false, and society over-reacts to the perceived threat, we're going to artificially constrain ecomic growth. The effects of this aren't going to be as graphic as case one, but they are just as real.

 

I think that the Nuremburg analogy is a valid one. Assume for the moment that case 1 turns out to be true.

 

Global warming is real

Western societies ignore it

Global warming has a profound negative on million of households arround the world.

 

Furthermore, lets assume that someone finds a paper trail, where it becomes apparant that the leaders of major oil companies and coal concerns knew that global warming was probably real but deliberately funding think tanks and research institutes to cloud the debate. I'd be all in favour of stringing the bastard up. (For the record, I think that the CEOs of the major tobacco companies back in the 70s and 80s should be facing criminal charges) For what its worth, I'd also argue that the converse is true. If it turns out that the Sierra club is wrong of Global Warming, the leaders are knowingly propagating false information and this impact policy in a negative manner, they should face the same type of trial.

 

As I noted at the start of this thread, I think that there are beter ways to accomplish the same end. I think that the best way to address this issue is to create financial instruments whose value is tied to specific elements of the global warming hypothesis. Alternatively, you could create some that track the mitigation costs associated with re-settlement financial aid, and the like.

 

Creating these types of instruments would force people to put their money where their mouth is. Opinions expressed by individuals or companies who are unwilling invest salient quantities of cash into the market can be discounted. Companies like Exxon sould be welcome to try to play games on the market and artifically depress prices, however, they'd be exposing themselves to significant liability.

[mike777]

Wow a market based approach, :lol:

 

I guess I am putting my faith in technology and the market. We do seem to be getting better at replacing body parts with manmade replacements.

 

This is very cold hearted but my guess is at worst many die from climate change so that becomes news but we ignore they may very well have died in the genocide, plagues and common illness that we all ignore now.

 

Heck 2 die in a plane crash and they want to stop flights but a million have died in car crashs and a million more will and we do not throw them in jail? How much death and illness is caused worldwide from booze?

[Winstonm]

Donald Rumsfeld has recently asked the Pentagon for a precise measurement of how many hydrogen bombs it would take set off simultaneously in Iraq, Iran, and Syria in order to push the earth far enough away from the sun to eliminate global warming.

[mike777]

Donald Rumsfeld has recently asked the Pentagon for a precise measurement of how many hydrogen bombs it would take set off simultaneously in Iraq, Iran, and Syria in order to push the earth far enough away from the sun to eliminate global warming.

"http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html"

 

Global warming and earth's wobble. :lol:

[DrTodd13]

I don't know why GW is going to predominantly hurt the poor. The rich tend to live on the coasts and they are the ones who will be inundated if sea levels rise. It would seem that more CO2 and slightly higher temperatures would be good for food production. Productive regions may shift slightly but markets will adapt and cheaper food is good for the poor.

 

I find this whole discussion very disconcerting. People don't seem to understand the difference between intentional misinformation and simply being mistaken. I don't know whether Bush really thought there were WMDs in Iraq but if he did and there weren't then that is a mistake and not a sin/crime/etc. If he knew there weren't and he lied to get us to go to war then that is the evil we need to destroy. If someone legitimately believes humans are not causing global warming then they may be mistaken but they shouldn't be labelled a criminal. Another article I saw today was by a pro-GW scientists who still lamented that human-caused global warming appears to be the only scientific theory for which it has become anathema to even question it. As such it has passed out of the region of science and has become a faith. If you won't even review a paper suggesting humans aren't causing GW then how can you ever falsify GW and if it couldn't conceivably be falsified then it isn't science. Anyway, basically all climatologists are paid to express their opinion. If they accept GW they get paid by people who want to believe in GW. If they don't accept GW then they get paid by oil companies or whoever. Everybody has some motivation here and there are ample funds to be had whatever your inclination so I don't believe that many people are lying about their opinion to get money.

[keylime]

I'm still not sold on global warming.

 

This is as bad as idea as I've heard in ages.

[hrothgar]

>I don't know why GW is going to predominantly hurt the poor. The rich tend to live on

>the coasts and they are the ones who will be inundated if sea levels rise.

 

The world is not made up of priviledged white boys...

 

If your lucky enough to live in an affluent community there's a definite connection between waterfront properties and level of income. People like ocean views and rich folks are willing to play a premium for them.

 

However, for most of the world living close to the water means that you get to use fish as your source of protein. You have large numbers of very poor people crowding along the edge of the ocean. Bangladesh is one of the most graphic examples, but this holds true for large parts of the world. Hell, I can head down the road to Gloucester and see the same thing at work.

[pigpenz]

good old mother earth needs some new cataclysmic event to wipe the slate clean like what has happened in the past. Question is will humans cause it first or will something else happen not cause by humans

[helene_t]

David Roberts seems to regret what he said.

 

Anyway, Todd's prediction of thought crime becoming a criminal offense is about to come true. In France, it's a crime not to consider the killings of Armenians in Turkey during WW I a genocide.

[Winstonm]

David Roberts seems to regret what he said.

 

Anyway, Todd's prediction of thought crime becoming a chriminal offense is about to come true. In France, it's a crime not to consider the killings of Armenians in Turkey during WW I a "genocide".

In the U.S. it was stated this way: "You are with us or against us."

[DrTodd13]

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...s/V9/N45/C2.jsp

 

Short summary. Global warming may _lower_ sea levels. Here's the science. Chicken little seen to be walking upright.

[sceptic]

The world contains plenty of people who say silly things. It doesn't matter which side of the debate they are on, they're still loonies. More fool you if you take them seriously

Ever tried listening to the Labour Party, The Libereal Democrats or the Tories?

 

it would appear that GB has more than it's fair share of loonies and sceptics

[hrothgar]

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...s/V9/N45/C2.jsp

 

Short summary. Global warming may _lower_ sea levels. Here's the science. Chicken little seen to be walking upright.

From what I can tell, no one is quite sure what is going to happen to the various ice sheets. There's an enormous number of separate feedback loops involved.

 

Almost all of the climate models predict that warmer temperatures will increase the amount of snowfall in the artic and the antartic. In theory, its possible that the increase in mass at the center of the of the ice-sheets from snowfall could outweight the loss of mass at the edges from calvation and ice melt. Coupled with this, dramatic pictures of edge sheets fracturing makes for much more exciting press than slow/sustained snowfall.

 

Balanced against this, you have a number of other issues. Meltwater can act as a lubricant, which, in turn would increase the speed at which the ice moves down to the sea. There's much more surface area at the edges of the sheets than at the centers, so if the edges fail in a dramatic fashion you have much less energy being reflected from the earth's surface.

 

Finally, its unclear whether the amount of mass thats locked up in ice sheets will have a major impact on sea levels. Many of the seal level models focus on thermal expansion of a given quantity of water rather than changes in the quantity of water. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...other-glaciers/ has a decent primer on some of these topics. They don't directly address the paper that Todd referenced, however, there are references to early work by the same authors.

[Al_U_Card]

I wonder where GREENLAND got its name?....Oh yeah, Vikings in the 1300's named it so, based on the amount of vegetation around their settlements. That was when we were in the tail end of the temperature rise that was to stop the Atlantic conveyor and cool off Europe (which it did during the "mini ice-age" that followed shortly thereafter). Why didn't the glaciers start to form in Europe? It appears that the continuing production of greenhouse gases made the temperature continue to rise and thwart the natural cooling process. Now we have a bit more time to deal with CO2 before it gets to 1000 ppm (in 150 years or so) and changes the ocean chemiclines enough to let the blue-green algae kill us off with H2S....