Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech

[Thedrin]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
To be fair, if you read Collapse and are a cynic and pessimist like me, you begin to wonder if a democratic society can tackle global warming issues.

Yeah, that book had the same effect on me.

[Cort Haus]

:sigh: George Monbiot is British.

As for 'one guy', we've already had at least one poster express his doubts about democracy.

I can see that to defend this article I'm gonna have to post it paragraph-by-paragraph as the knee-jerk reactions here strongly suggest that it hasn't been read.

the British think-tank the Institute for Public Policy Research argued that ‘the task of climate change agencies is not to persuade by rational argument ...'

But then, rational argument is just a hysterical thing to ask for, isn't it?

[Eli]

I agree with the article.

My attitude to Global Warming is like Ramo's. I dont know a thing about it so I choose to cautiously believe the consensus.

But I do think that the proponents of the theory are going too far away from rational debate. There's too much ridicule of the opposition and too much self-righteousness(see Brachy-Pride's post). They're taking a scientific theory and turning it into an ideology.

How on earth can you compare Holocaust denial to Global Warming denial? One is an historical event witnessed by tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, while the other is a scientific theory in a very young field that predicts events decades into the future.

Honestly comparing the two shows a huge error of perspective that in my eyes damages the arguments of Global Warming proponents more than any argument of the opponents can ever do.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
If there's no fear of debate, why demonise opponents by making them out to be 'holocaust deniers'?

It's not demonizing them when you call them what they are.

[molly bloom]

Re: Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Brendan O’Neill on the increasingly authoritarian impulses of sections of the Global Warming lobby. Every democrat and defender of scientific method should be concerned about the Orwellian strategies being proposed by Green ideologues.

This is the same Brendan O'Neill who is/was a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, is it ?

I'd imagine he knows from first hand experience a fair bit about ideologues, then, and Orwellian strategies ....

Against Nature - the war zone

In the late 1990's LM's 'most spectacular coup', according to The Weekly Worker, 'was the three hours of prime-time television, in the form of Channel Four's anti-green Against Nature. Frank Furedi was the star of the show.'

Against Nature targeted environmentalists, presenting them as 'the new enemy of science' and comparable to the Nazis. They were responsible, the programmes argued, for the deprivation and death of millions in the Third World. (Crimes against Nature, The Revolution Has Been Televised)

Channel Four had to broadcast a prime-time apology after Against Nature drew the wrath of the Independent Television Commission which ruled, 'Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them... as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.'

http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=78

Oh no- it's the Green Nazis!

What chic uniforms they will have, from hand looms operated by Aryan maidens and tricked out by Aryan tailors and seamstresses on the Isle of Harris.

Orwellian strategies:

Friends of the Earth has welcomed today's devastating ruling by the Independent Television Commission (ITC) over Channel 4's anti-green series “Against Nature”. Following the ruling, Channel 4 are to be forced to issue on-screen apologies to the Campaigns Director of Friends of the Earth,Tony Juniper, and three other environmentalists. “Against Nature“ was made by independent production company RDF television.

ITC ruled that the programme makers “ distorted by selective editing” the views of Tony Juniper and other interviewees; and ” misled” participants over the “content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.”

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/19980402000124.html

Orwell, you would be proud:

Martin Cohen, the Editor of the journal of the Philosophical Society, The Philosopher, reports how at a talk he gave at Leeds University in the early months of the Bosnian war, the RCP sought to stifle debate and bury criticism of the Serbs 'in a cynically calculated bombardment of misinformation and propaganda.' For the RCP, he writes, ' "truth" was a bourgeois notion, political power was the higher cause.'

Now we've heard that sort of stuff before, haven't we George ? :

The Ministry of Truth -- Minitrue, in Newspeak -- was startlingly different from any other object in sight.

From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

'1984' Chapter 1, George Orwell

[chequita guevara]

Typical BS right-wing junk-science argument. When they are totally and completely PWNed on the substance of their argument, they start to claim they are being SILENCED! by their critics. I've seen this over and over again. The reason that global warming "deniers" are treated with derision is because it is in the same bed as creationists. It is not a scientific position, but a political one. The purpose is not to enlighten but to confuse and obfuscate. And in the meantime, those funding them get richer and richer, and the world gets warmer and warmer. If they are treated with contempt, it is because they are contemptable.

[Ramo]

:sigh: George Monbiot is British.

And the article doesn't quote him saying that he wants to criminalize speech of global warming skeptics. This is nothing but hysteria.

How on earth can you compare Holocaust denial to Global Warming denial? One is an historical event witnessed by tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, while the other is a scientific theory in a very young field that predicts events decades into the future.

Honestly comparing the two shows a huge error of perspective that in my eyes damages the arguments of Global Warming proponents more than any argument of the opponents can ever do.

The particular brand of Holocaust denial I would compare this to would be minimizing the numbers. Without access to detailed records, without the testimony of tens of thousands of Holocaust survivors, who's to say if the number is 1.2 million or 12 million? Particularly if you have a non-Israeli perspective and don't personally know very many Holocaust survivors. It's not really an obvious number. The only reasonable thing to do IMO would be to rely on the academic consensus. As I was saying, there's a difference in degree, but this is essentially the same principle we're dealing with.

[Ramo]

But then, rational argument is just a hysterical thing to ask for, isn't it?

Which, again, has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. At all.

As for "rational argument," climate modeling is a highly technical field, and proving the results to laymen seems pretty damn pointless to me.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Typical BS right-wing junk-science argument. When they are totally and completely PWNed on the substance of their argument, they start to claim they are being SILENCED! by their critics. I've seen this over and over again. The reason that global warming "deniers" are treated with derision is because it is in the same bed as creationists. It is not a scientific position, but a political one. The purpose is not to enlighten but to confuse and obfuscate. And in the meantime, those funding them get richer and richer, and the world gets warmer and warmer. If they are treated with contempt, it is because they are contemptable.

Che you are a cute little commie that has the right vocabulary and likes to use it.

* BC pats Che on the head and offers him a cookie and a glass of milk

Talk about demonization of opponents, you are a master

There are some few climate-change deniers that time after time gets pwned for their claims that climate isn't changing, and then there are a vast amount of scientists and common people that are quite aware of the fact that climate is changing but are sceptical about the claim that humans are the only reason for it.

This last group is quite annoying for the firm belivers of the church of "humans are to blame for all climate change", so why not scoop those two groups together and call them all climate-change deniers ? Doing that it's possible to stick the fingers in the ears and ignore those nasty questions theses sceptics ask and that even when they present scientific research that supports their questions.

[Jon Miller]

I don't think that Global Warming (Which I think the reasons for are relatively poorly understood) is a major threat to humans. I think that much bigger environmental threats are our water uses and the like.

JM

[CrONoS]

You never seen "The day after tomorrow"? This must be the reasonn why you're not afraid....

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I don't think that Global Warming (Which I think the reasons for are relatively poorly understood) is a major threat to humans. I think that much bigger environmental threats are our water uses and the like.

JM

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by cronos_qc
You never seen "The day after tomorrow"? This must be the reasonn why you're not afraid....

Neither has he seen that "documentary" made by a ex wannabe american president candidate.

The two prime sources of "documentation" for many "man is to blame for global warming" belivers.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by BlackCat
then there are a vast amount of scientists and common people that are quite aware of the fact that climate is changing but are sceptical about the claim that humans are the only reason for it.

It's good to be skeptical, but when that skepiticsm is funded by those who benefit from us not doing anything about our actions which are likely contributing, then we must be skeptical of their skepticism. Industrial scientists have a long history of saying what their corporate pay-masters want them to say (or of their findings being hushed up).

At this point, it's not a topic of scholarly discussion on the level, say, of disagreements on a translation of Beowulf. If climate scientists are correct (and I think they are), then people will die and people will lose jobs. If the deniers are correct, people will lose jobs. Thus, the rational option is to err on the side of caution.

While JM would be correct in saying that global warming isn't a threat to our species, he is wrong in saying it isn't a major threat to humans. Most of humanity lives on or near the shore. Increasing sea levels definately threaten us. Throwing weather patterns into disarray threatens us. Millions more people are threatened with death by starvation or disease and resource wars.

We're also quickly reaching the point of no turning back. So given the seriousness of the results, its a little understandable if one side is sounding exceedingly shrill, just as you might expect a passanger in your car to sound as you proceed to drive towards a cliff they've been warning you about over and over.

[Victor Galis]

The problem is I see what the denial industry can do. They've done it with tobacco, the conservatives do it with intelligent design, or whatever anti-evolution argument they come up with, how many more issues can we allow monied interests to cloud up?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Are you then tempted by the abolition of democracy and the establishment a totalitarian Green regime?

I am tempted by the abolition of "democracy" and the establishment of an anarchist green society.