Considering the Criminal Dimension of Climate Science Denial.

I believe vandals should be stood up to and that We The People have a right to learn about the expert understanding of critically important down to Earth matters, such as climate change understanding - without the constant cross screaming from the GOP's manufactured denial machine and it's PR bullies.  Thus, this little collection of relevant reading.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We The People of the United States have a moral, ethical right - along with a pragmatic need - to learn what scientists have learned about this planet's biosphere and climate engine without constant dishonest crossfire. 

   

We should not tolerate serious scientists always being drown out by amoral, ruthless and frankly ignorant arguments - that an astoundingly ruthless GOP PR factory repeats over and over again, without ever learning a damned thing from the evidence in front of us. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Criminal Dimension of Climate Change

by Andrew Glikson  Mar 01, 2019

https://monthlyreview.org/2019/03/01/the-criminal-dimension-of-climate-change/

Peter D. Carter and Elizabeth Woodworth, Unprecedented Crime: Climate Science Denial and Game Changers for Survival (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2017), 270 pages, $27.95, paperback.

Unprecedented Crime: Climate Science Denial and Game Changers for Survival, a book by Peter Carter and Elizabeth Woodworth, with a foreword by leading climate scientist James Hansen, outlines the criminality of those who actively promote the continuing emission of carbon gases into the atmosphere despite having full knowledge of the consequences. These consequences include the breakdown of large ice sheets, rising sea levels, and the intensification of extreme weather events around the world, such as hurricanes, floods, and fires.

The book highlights the collusion of large parts of the mainstream media with climate change denial and its cover up, stating that,

There is no benign explanation for a full media blackout of a significant global development that was heralded by the United Nations Secretary-General. This blackout goes far beyond ignorance or negligence. 

It is a willful obstruction of public knowledge of the extraordinary extent of global efforts to combat the greatest existential threat of all time by changing business-as-usual. We define this willful, methodical blocking of vital survival information as an unprecedented crime against life on the planet. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is there criminal liability for climate change denial?

December 11, 2018 By Bill Adams

https://urbdezine.com/2018/12/11/criminal-liability-climate-change/

… In the scientific community, there is no debate about the existence of man made climate change, whether it is dangerous for the planet, and most importantly, whether humans must take immediate and large scale corrective action.

Nevertheless, there are important actors in government, in the media, and in fossil fuel funded “think tanks” who continue to pump out misinformation about climate change in order to to convince the public it doesn’t exist and poses no threat.  A must read for anyone seeking a full understanding of the history of climate change politics is Nathaniel Rich’s excellent NY Times narrative, Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change.  In it, he details the decade between 1979 and 1989 when scientists raised the alarms about climate change spurring an honest bipartisan effort, ultimately to be buried in a campaign of deceit and cover-up.

However, many of these purveyors of  misinformation are not merely exhibiting a genuine disbelief in the science of climate change.  Rather, they intentionally deceive the public.  The evidence of intent? There is no reasonable basis for the assertions they make.  

Is CO2Science.org 'criminally negligent'? Why not consider it?

Is misinformation about climate science criminally negligent?  I'm reminded of Professor Lawrence Torcello's question by the dialogue I'm having with some characters at an interesting YouTube video of Professor Stephen Schneider directly communicating with climate science contrarian types.  

In any event, this comments thread keeps getting dragged back to CO2Science.org as though it were some gold standard, rather than the personal gold mine of the Idso clan, selling a deceptive and harmful fiction to a gullible public.  

All the while these commenters ignore the many huge differences between the internal variability driven "Medieval Warm Period" and today's atmosphere with it's vastly enriched (thanks to us) insulation medium which is holding more heat within our planet's global climate system, yes that would include the oceans.  They also insist that there's been no warming in the past 18 years, go figure.  

While researching my response to a comment I came upon "More for the annals of climate misinformation" where Alicia Newton does a good job of describing the dishonest manipulation of data that website is guilty of.  It makes me wonder why this sort of deliberate deception with far reaching political and societal consequences is so casually accepted.  

I've taken the liberty of reposting the text as a public service and hopefully an invitation to consider saying enough of the crafty lies, time to come to terms with the real world.  

I follow Newton's article with long tracts of another educational write up by Höskuldur Búi Jónsson who continues this exploration into the ways in which CO2Science.org artfully reweaves and repackages serious scientific information in a way that totally distorts the actual truth within that information.  This I follow with various bits of biographical information regarding CO2Science.org.

___________________________

More for the annals of climate misinformation

19 Aug 2008 | written by Alicia Newton

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/08/more_for_the_annals_of_climate_1.html

I’m all for a website that distills climate science papers into something easily understood by the general public, especially if it avoids the hype and hysteria all too often employed by headline news.

Such is the claim of CO2 Science, a weekly newsletter published by the not for profit Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, with issues that include editorials, book and media reviews, and mini-reviews of the recent peer-reviewed literature.

But rather than its promise of “separating reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and global change”, on the contrary CO2 Science twists the most recent science, ever so subtly, to suggest that there is no link between carbon dioxide levels and climate change.

For a case in point, check out the feature entitled “Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week”. This showcases records of temperature or environmental changes during the Medieval Warm Period (aka the Medieval Climate Anomaly). The conclusion is that if the MWP was warmer than present – still debated – obviously CO2 isn’t driving current warming. There is even a list of 576 scientists who have found evidence for the MWP – the thinly veiled conclusion being that they agree that an increase in CO2 isn’t behind the recent climate change.

Considering Criminal Mischief and Vandalism of Intellectual Property

It seems to me that scientific studies based on millions of dollars worth of state of the art observational instruments and thousands of man/woman hours - is very much a form of real property.  Intellectual property to use the specific legal term.  This intellectual property exists within a well defined legal code and system.

This legal code is the foundation of our civilization.  One of the reasons our legal codes were established, and are obeyed, is because people needed protection of their personal property from unlawful misappropriation or destruction - a necessity for a society to peacefully function and flourish.  

It really is fundamental, without such communal guidelines and their acceptance by all members of society as the way to conduct our affairs, we'd degenerate into a Lord of the Flies dystopia. 

I bring this up, because one of the fundamental cornerstones of the Republican/libertarian orchestrated PR attacks on serious science is their conviction that lying about what scientific papers are saying is their fundamental free speech right.  When in fact, it is nothing less than wanton vandalism of the intellectual property of legitimate experts.

I've been told "Rights" aren't given, they are demanded and struggled for.  When will we struggle for We The People's right to learn what scientists are saying without vandalism and the interference of the malicious poison of tactical lies and fabricated personal attacks?

Towards that end I'd like to share some food for thought.  A few typical legal codes that deal with Criminal Mischief and wanton vandalism.  Followed by a few sage words of warning from President Eisenhower.  Then a few links to further considerations including Lawrence Torcello's provocative essay at 'The Conversation' - "Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?"

________________________________________________________

Considering Criminal Mischief

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-mischief/

Criminal mischief is a crime governed by state laws, which vary by state. It generally involves any damage, defacing, alteration, or destruction of tangible property with criminal intent.

The following is an example of a state law governing criminal mischief:

Exhibit One: Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent? re CC/Steele Debate

As I'm slowly working on my next step, summarizing the 14 chapters of my recent Landscapes and cycles debate with Mr. Steele, (in order to enable me to present a concise complaint to the powers that be at San Francisco State University), I'm thinking maybe I should explain what this is all about, but first about me.

I'm no scientist, I'm no scholar, I'm a skilled worker with a respectable mastery of two trades under my belt and a good reputation within my community.  More importantly, I have been paying attention to Anthropogenic Global Warming dialogue since 1970 high school science classes.  My bias is a visceral appreciation for our Earth's infinite folds within folds of constructive harmonic complexity - yes, I love my planet and I hug a tree now and then with genuine spiritual emotions of thanksgiving.  But, I'm also an active member of our modern society with it's many marvels and growing up in Chicago I learned to appreciation it and how to navigate within the city before I did the mountains and natural places.

Though I may not be able to keep up with scientists on the nitty gritty of the details, I most certainly have achieved a deep understanding of climate basics through being an attentive witness to a half century of Earth Science discoveries and observations. 

I have also been paying close attention to the public "debate" which actually should be a public learning process - if not for the deliberate cynical interference of a small clique of egomaniacal "masters of the universe" with more money than brains or foresight or empathy or compassion - folks who for personal gain have purchased an alternate universe based on faith and personal desires coupled to a religious rejection of rational evaluation of the evidence all around us and making everyone who knows differently an enemy. 

Enough about my background, now, why am I doing this?  Filling a vacuum I suppose… because too few people who know better are taking responsibility and confronting deliberate misinformers such as our Mr. Landscapesandcycles. 

What am I trying to achieve?  A rejection of deliberately lying about known science and respectable scientists.

For my Exhibit One in this summation compilation of my CC/Steele Debate I'm reposting the work of Professor Torcello who asks the key question:

How should society contend with those who knowingly disseminate misinformation about climate science?

1. ____________________________________________________________________
2. 
   

The Conversation

https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111

Lawrence Torcello  |  March 13, 2014

Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?

Is misinformation about climate science criminally negligent? Lawrence Torcello

In researching my previous debate blogpost I came onto the story of Professor Lawrence Torcello in an article at the Union of Concerned Scientist blog (Yeah, they are on the Republican enemies list too, it's tough not to be).  Torcello finally enunciated something I've been struggling with and that's at the heart of all these posts I keep putting up.

How should society contend with those who knowingly disseminate misinformation about climate science.

It started with an article he wrote for 'The Conversation' where he discussed the Italian trial of geologists in the wake of the 2009 earthquake.  There's no point in retelling it since his Conversation article does a better job and thanks to their Creative Commons License I have permission to reprint all of it.  Following that I've included the full text of the Union of Concerned Scientists article.  I've added some highlights.

Food for thought.

1. ____________________________________________________________________
2. 
   

The Conversation

https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111

Lawrence Torcello  |  March 13, 2014

Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?

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.

#5 Prof Trenberth stifling "sceptics"?? - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

A virtual debate with Jim Steele based on his interview at Heartland Institute:  

Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | January 27, 2015

Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett (for the National Center for Policy Analysis) interviews Jim Steele, ecologist, director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada field campus of San Francisco State University

______________________________________________ 

Mr. Jim Steele:  "And we trust the scientific theory because it been fairly tested by others - the theory must out perform all alternate explanations, eliminate confounding factors plus lively debate.  But, what I was finding was the scientific process was being defiled when scientists refused to debate in public. ... and any attempt to prevent that debate, in our schools, in the media, in peer reviewed science, it's only denigrating the scientific process.  ... And I think those public debates would help create real climate literacy …"

Well then Mr. Steele, let's have our Great Global Warming Science Debate.  I will accept these responses from your Heartland Institute podcast as your opening round.  I'll offer my rebuttals, evidence and questions.  I agree to post your thoughtful responses unaltered. (Though it is looking like you're going to do your best to hide and ignore these critiques of your self-certain claims. Your silence will serve to expose your hypocrisy and inability to defend your statements on an even playing field.)

In this fifth installment I'll be debating your take on Dr. Trenberth and confront you with the ethical question raised by Lawrence Torcello: "How should society contend with those who knowingly disseminate misinformation about climate science?" 

____________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Steele:  So you know, I've always advocated the need to be good environmental stewards and to be a good steward we need good science that we can trust.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Yeah?  So what happened?

It's one thing to preach about stewardship and needing science we can trust.
It's quite another to practice what you preach.

Mr. Steele, may I ask you, do people have a right to expect our educators to be honest about the science they are presenting to students and public?
___________________________________________________

Steele:  And we trust the scientific theory because it's been fairly tested by others - the theory must out perform all alternate explanations, eliminate confounding factors plus lively debate. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mr. Steele, what kind of "lively debate" are you talking about?  
Have you given any thought to the two basic types of debate?

You know, the political style debate where winning your argument is all that matters.  This sort of debate invites rhetorical and emotional 'devices' and since the goal doesn't reach beyond winning the argument at hand, they tend to be won by the slickest speakers who are best at mesmerizing their audience.  More the stuff of theater than substance.

On the other hand, consider the academic debate, where the goal of the debate is getting to the right answer and achieving a better understanding.  This debate also requires ego and rhetorical skills and striving to win one's argument.  But, the goal of debating is better understanding of the issues at hand.  I'm fearing you, Mr. Steele and your Republican/libertarian pals, simply can not fathom such a concept.  Am I correct?

Winning the debate is fun, great, but it's the getting it right that's the most important.  Being caught in a mistake and "losing" or sustaining bruised feelings is chump change.  Learning from the added knowledge and lessons and then striving towards greater achievements in light of the newly gained knowledge, now that's pure gold.   

Consider the constructive debate.

Is it OK to ignore key evidence?
Is it OK to repeat known lies?
Is it OK to ignore the statements and evidence presented by a debate 'opponent' ?
Is it OK to employ emotional and rhetorical distractions that have nothing to do with the substance of the questions?

Is a debate an argument to win?
Or is a debate an opportunity for mutual learning?
___________________________________________________

Steele:  But, what I was finding was the scientific process was being defiled when scientists refused to debate in public.