Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Michael E. Kraft: Climate-change deniers deserve punishment

The internet is abuzz with that headline as the Republican/libertarian anti-science echo-chamber is busy creating a new enemy du jour.  Interestingly, "punishment" doesn't appear once in the text of the story, or in anything Dr. Kraft said (I suspect their aggravation is an indication of denialista's guilty conscience more than anything)

The word was embedded in the headline, written by an editor seeking to sell copy.  Yet, yet, just like the Dr. Viner "no snow lie", these politically motivated folks couldn't give a damned about facts, or honestly, or learning, instead they are off and running with yet another maliciously misleading headline intend on slandering a respected productive scientist, while ignoring the substance of the article itself.

Michael E. Kraft: Climate-change deniers deserve punishment
By Michael E. Kraft
Posted Apr. 11, 2016 
 However, denying the best scientific evidence we have is neither smart nor safe. It could lead to greater societal harm than if we had taken sensible action when reliable knowledge was first available. 
Dismissal of well-established climate science has parallels to decades of debate over tobacco use and its effects on health. Tobacco companies long denied any causal relation ...
Similarly, some fossil fuel companies for decades publicly rejected established climate science and the role of burning fossil fuels in anthropogenic climate change while their internal studies confirmed both.

The tobacco companies lost the suit. The federal courts found them in violation of RICO, in particular for fraudulently covering up scientific evidence of health risks linked to smoking. The courts rejected the tobacco companies' argument that their statements were protected under the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. 
Is there a parallel to current controversies over climate change science? Some members of Congress say there is. Members of Congress have asked the Justice Department to pursue charges under RICO against major fossil fuel companies for knowingly deceiving the public — and investors — about the dangers of climate change when their own studies showed the reality of the threat. Under questioning by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Attorney General Loretta Lynch revealed she has referred the matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for study.

The closest Dr. Kraft get's to the word is "they should be held accountable": 
"Our current limited policies reflect a history of science denial by fossil fuel companies and others that have sown confusion and weakened public support for doing more. Those who intentionally misled the public about climate change should be held accountable.

I think the screeching going within the climate science denial echo-chamber is a reflection of their own cognitive disconnect and deep down appreciating that what they are doing is a ruthless destructive fraud against younger generations and our future, and that, in fact, it does deserve to be punished.  

Deliberate campaigns of lies and manipulated scientific misinformation about such an incredibly important issue is not free speech it is malicious fraud against the people and it's about time we start to recognize that fact.

Another indication of the base dishonesty of these echo-chamber inhabitants is that no one raises any objections when someone from within their echo-chamber goes off the deep end and suggests "alarmists" be put in front of a hanging judge. 
Climate Science Denier James Delingpole Calls For "Alarmists" To Face Court With Death Penalty Powers  
By Graham Readfearn • Thursday, April 4, 2013
Further reading:

Monday, February 29, 2016
Considering Criminal Mischief and Vandalism of Intellectual Property

Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Considering Acquiescence to Malicious Vandalism

Thursday, March 3, 2016
(1) Profiles in Malicious Deception - 1000frolly

Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?
Lawrence Torcello  |  March 13, 2014  |  The Conversation

Exxon’s Climate Concealment
By Naomi Oreskes |  OCT. 9, 2015

"Exxon’s Climate Concealment"… So what?

Pssst, pass it: "Petition to call on the Dept of Justice to investigate ExxonMobil"

Considering the two species of debate.

No comments: