Don't support GW? Go to jail.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Are you and Sayonarra basically saying that if someone were to call for the arrest of scientists who were subverting the federal ban on embryonic stem cell research (using federal funds to conduct this kind of research in direct violation of the ban), that you would support their arrest and incarceration in compliance with the law? Is that your position, in a nutshell?

I could disagree with the law, but not their arrest in compliance with it.

The problem with that reasoning is that we all know full well that no laws have been violated here. That part of his message is so fully and completely understood to be inapplicable that bringing it up is simply an exercise in dancing around the real issue, which is doing something to stop any and all dissent on global warming, no matter what it takes.

That's because be believes that denying global warming is delaying our response to it and ultimately causing great damage to society.

 

I do not agree that denying global warming is or should be illegal, the same that I disagree with making denying the Holocaust illegal, but I have no problem with Suzuki trying to tell us that politicians should stop denying GW and start trying to fix it. If GW will cause as many problems as some foresee, action now would be good; if it won't, action now will at least help make us more efficient in the long run.

[swansont]

The purpose of this thread was to point out that this SCIENTIST wants to render illegal any dissention on the issue of global warming. And that opinion is holding sway here not because it's a good idea to criminalize dissent (an issue you're simply chosing to ignore), but because the dissent being demonized is on the issue of global warming (so it's seen as ok).

 

You don't like it when conservatives do it. But you're just fine with it when liberals do it.

 

And I have absolutely nailed this case.

 

 

If you consider poisoning the well and strawman arguments "nailing it" I suppose. It's somehow not OK to use rhetoric in public speeches anymore?

 

This isn't about criminalizing dissent. Ignoring the evidence is not the same thing as presenting contrary evidence. But there is a decided dearth of contrary studies being published in the scientific literature.

 

Many politicians from Kentucky did just that (denied the Surgeon General's reports) and they did not go to jail. The Surgeons General simply issued their reports. Politicians that disagree remain free to do so.

 

Many politicians advocated (and some still do advocate) teaching creationism, and they did not go to jail. The Supreme Court simply issued their rulings. Politicians that disagree are free to do so.

 

What is so special about global warming that warrants deeming any questioning of it as a terrible thought crime? The outward appearance is that the evidence is so weak that critics must be vilified and now criminalized.

 

But that's not the point. Would you be unjustified in calling their actions (or inaction) criminal? Should US politicians be free to introduce legislation that is blatantly unconstitutional or physically harmful? Can I not suggest there be a price to pay for such action?

[gcol]

 

Then what is this thread for?

 

I suggest two possibilities:

 

1. A politician's question, which the sensible politician only asks when he is sure he already knows the answer. In this case he has guessed wrongly.

 

2. Kite flying, in which case his kite is a dud, or the wind is not blowing. He should build a better kite, wait for a windy day, or find a different hilltop.

[ParanoiA]

It would be similar to the case if the government had done nothing to try and warn people that smoking is bad for them, despite all of the evidence. If that had been the case, wouldn't it be justified to think the politicians might be criminally liable?

 

Nope. I have no idea how you draw that conclusion. The government has never, not even ONCE, told me that fire will burn me. Never got a call from a senator, a representative, or even a lazy government employee. I've never seen a public service announcement on it either. Is it in the constitution? Do you have a particular medium you require for this "warning"?

 

Ah, crap. I just stubbed by toe. The government didn't tell me that stubbing my toe will hurt. I've never received that warning from my government. Freaking criminals...

 

What is the mechanism at his disposal by which he can use to silence anyone on any issue?

Unless I'm missing something' date=' he's just throwing cotton balls at a rock wall.[/quote']

 

I was wondering the same thing. Actually, it seems more like he's being "dramatic" about it, to drive the urgency of GW solutions.

 

The purpose of this thread was to point out that this SCIENTIST wants to render illegal any dissention on the issue of global warming. And that opinion is holding sway here not because it's a good idea to criminalize dissent (an issue you're simply chosing to ignore), but because the dissent being demonized is on the issue of global warming (so it's seen as ok).

 

I agree, you have nailed this one.

[swansont]

Nope. I have no idea how you draw that conclusion. The government has never, not even ONCE, told me that fire will burn me. Never got a call from a senator, a representative, or even a lazy government employee. I've never seen a public service announcement on it either. Is it in the constitution? Do you have a particular medium you require for this "warning"?

 

Ah, crap. I just stubbed by toe. The government didn't tell me that stubbing my toe will hurt. I've never received that warning from my government. Freaking criminals...

 

I have no idea how you connect this with the ongoing discussion.

[iNow]

There is a huge difference between the government failing to tell me what might or might not cause me harm or pain, and the government failing to change the parts of it's policy which does proven harm to the environment, ecosystem, and everything contained therein.

[ParanoiA]

I have no idea how you connect this with the ongoing discussion.

 

You have no idea how to connect my rejection of your ascertion that politicians are criminally libel for their views and legislative practice towards GW on a thread about whether or not politicians are criminally libel for their views and legislative practice towards GW?

 

It has absolutely everything to do with the ongoing discussion.

 

There is a huge difference between the government failing to tell me what might or might not cause me harm or pain, and the government failing to change the parts of it's policy which does proven harm to the environment, ecosystem, and everything contained therein.

 

There is also a huge problem with assigning blame to a politician that was elected BY THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN GW. Or, are we going to prosecute those people too?

 

Since we are a republic, WE are to blame. Not the employees we hire to administer it.

 

You're arguing from the perspective of a government ON the people, rather than BY the people. That may be good for Canada or Europe, but it isn't going to fly in the states.

[iNow]

The underlying motivation is neither the need for assignment of blame nor prosecution.

 

It's "What the hell else do we have to do for action to be taken on this. Every day we wait makes it worse! Do SOMETHING!!!"

[ParanoiA]

The underlying motivation is neither the need for assignment of blame nor prosecution.

 

It's "What the hell else do we have to do for action to be taken on this. Every day we wait makes it worse! Do SOMETHING!!!"

 

Hence, my take on the "drama" angle. And it might work, incidentally.

 

Unfortunately, this also could polarize the debate even further. Kind of like the Japanese whalers that seem to keep at it as a matter of pride; an in-your-face response to the dramatic pressure by western interference, as Lucaspa has been pointing out.

 

I could see the same thing here. Pressuring the conservatives with this drivel is not going to change their hearts and minds, never. Try a carrot...

[gcol]

Unfortunately, this also could polarize the debate even further. Kind of like the Japanese whalers that seem to keep at it as a matter of pride; an in-your-face response to the dramatic pressure by western interference, as Lucaspa has been pointing out.

 

I could see the same thing here. Pressuring the conservatives with this drivel is not going to change their hearts and minds, never. Try a carrot...

 

Japanese whaling is a very potent analogy. I had already thought of it, but thought it too inflamatory.

 

As for the carrot, can you make sushi from carrots?

 

If we don't keep up the pressure, they will assume they have won. Just keep on slugging away.

[ParanoiA]

Japanese whaling is a very potent analogy. I had already thought of it, but thought it too inflamatory.

 

As for the carrot, can you make sushi from carrots?

 

If we don't keep up the pressure, they will assume they have won. Just keep on slugging away.

 

Yes, but you can apply the pressure more thoughtfully when you understand and RESPECT other's dispositions, views, cultures...whatever.

 

To advocate prosecution of politicians who flat out don't believe in GW is militant, insulting, woefully dismissive and astonishingly intolerant. (Not to mention, somewhat suspicious).

 

It's interesting to see the liberal side prioritize their belief system. Tolerance, unless it conflicts with GW, I guess. So when exactly does GW get sacrificed? Is there some other belief thingy that will override that one?

[swansont]

You have no idea how to connect my rejection of your ascertion that politicians are criminally libel for their views and legislative practice towards GW on a thread about whether or not politicians are criminally libel for their views and legislative practice towards GW?

 

It has absolutely everything to do with the ongoing discussion.

 

Not with an analogy as flawed as yours. Perhaps you should start with getting my assertion right. Stubbing your toe and blaming the government as an example misses the point.

[D H]

Unfortunately, this also could polarize the debate even further. Kind of like the Japanese whalers that seem to keep at it as a matter of pride; an in-your-face response to the dramatic pressure by western interference, as Lucaspa has been pointing out.

That is one a big fat BINGO. While I am largely (but not completely) convinced that humanity is the leading cause behind global warming, I remain very skeptical regarding how far humanity need to go in addressing global warming. It is stupid stuff like Suzuki's rant that feeds my skepticism.

 

For you AGW fanatics, put yourself in a skeptic's shoes. The continued cries of AGW denier (with that terms overtones of Holocaust denier) and now calls to criminalize dissent gives the appearance that the science is so weak that even skepticism must be crushed. There are other ways ...

 

Hint: conservatives don't care a lot more about what AGW will do to billions of people who live near sealevel than to a few cute little seals.

[ydoaPs]

Nope. I have no idea how you draw that conclusion. The government has never, not even ONCE, told me that fire will burn me. Never got a call from a senator, a representative, or even a lazy government employee. I've never seen a public service announcement on it either. Is it in the constitution? Do you have a particular medium you require for this "warning"?

 

Has a government official ever told you fire WILL NOT burn you? I'm going to have to call strawman.

[ParanoiA]

Has a government official ever told you fire WILL NOT burn you? I'm going to have to call strawman.

 

I never heard a government official tell me cigarettes will NOT harm me. No strawman. You can disagree with the analogy, like swansont, but there's no strawman here.

 

The government is not to blame for my lack of knowledge on ANYTHING. I am. Particularly with american government since it comes from me in the first place.

 

We are not ruled by a King. We rule the government. We are the boss. To legislate against the people's wishes, in favor of GW, arguably, would be dishonest and disloyal to the constituency (perfectly free to do that, just making the point that they are "damned if they do, damned if they don't").

 

If the people believe in GW and want legislation that compliments the threat then they should elect folks to do that. But punishing those that are doing what we, the employer, has requested, is wrong.

[swansont]

AFAIK the oath of office doesn't contain any language about representing only the people that elected the official. The US Constitution isn't simply majority rule.

 

A bad analogy is a strawman, though, or at least it is in this case. The government does take action (at a local level) to try and mitigate the damage of fire, and another reason the analogy isn't apt is that it isn't in the context of other peoples' actions affecting you. If a forest fire threatened many homes and the government did nothing to try and save them, mightn't you refer to their inaction as criminal? (even if no crime were technically committed?) Can people refer to e.g. Mike Brown and FEMA's inaction concerning Katrina as being criminal? (they have, so are folks going to jump on them for doing so?)

[ParanoiA]

AFAIK the oath of office doesn't contain any language about representing only the people that elected the official. The US Constitution isn't simply majority rule.

 

A bad analogy is a strawman, though, or at least it is in this case. The government does take action (at a local level) to try and mitigate the damage of fire, and another reason the analogy isn't apt is that it isn't in the context of other peoples' actions affecting you. If a forest fire threatened many homes and the government did nothing to try and save them, mightn't you refer to their inaction as criminal? (even if no crime were technically committed?) Can people refer to e.g. Mike Brown and FEMA's inaction concerning Katrina as being criminal? (they have, so are folks going to jump on them for doing so?)

 

I would say yes in those cases because that responsibility, those particular job functions, are spelled out and delegated to specific government entities who's sole purpose is to execute those functions for specified events - forest fires, hurricanes and etc. We have not delegated responsibility and authority for GW defense to any government entity. There's no GW emergency unit. I believe my analogy stands. No strawman.

 

And my analogy was based off of yours. You made the ascertion that government was criminal if it didn't warn its citizens of the dangers of cigarette smoke. I don't see why the government should be held criminally responsible for warning its citizens of every conceivable danger known to man. Why is it their responsibility to warn you of anything?

[Pangloss]

Hey guys, the point's been made, let's not rub anyone's nose in it. I'm quite proud of this thread, exposing one of my favorite pet peeves around here. This thread is a job well done, and it's nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks so.

 

This is once again displaying the usual arrogance of the atheistic/secular viewpoint that there is some 'logical self-evident derivation' behind their set of values and that anyone who disagrees is wrong.

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The trouble with your point is that it misses the point. As swansont said, "It's somehow not OK to use rhetoric in public speeches anymore?"

 

Suzuki is not proposing that anti-global-warming dissent should be "silenced." He is proposing that people who ignore the issue should be punished. This is a major distinction: "global warming isn't happening" vs. "I don't care, I'm not going to anything about it anyway."

 

As for your point:

And that opinion is holding sway here not because it's a good idea to criminalize dissent (an issue you're simply chosing to ignore), but because the dissent being demonized is on the issue of global warming (so it's seen as ok).

We're ignoring the issue because it's a non-issue in this case and there is no dissent being demonized. Apathy in the face of overwhelming evidence is being demonized.

 

I would say yes in those cases because that responsibility, those particular job functions, are spelled out and delegated to specific government entities who's sole purpose is to execute those functions for specified events - forest fires, hurricanes and etc. We have not delegated responsibility and authority for GW defense to any government entity. There's no GW emergency unit. I believe my analogy stands. No strawman.

The Environmental Protection Agency?

 

And my analogy was based off of yours. You made the ascertion that government was criminal if it didn't warn its citizens of the dangers of cigarette smoke. I don't see why the government should be held criminally responsible for warning its citizens of every conceivable danger known to man. Why is it their responsibility to warn you of anything?

It isn't. It's their responsibility to take action when something endangers the lives and/or well-being of thousands of citizens (and the real-estate market of coastal cities).

[swansont]

And my analogy was based off of yours. You made the ascertion that government was criminal if it didn't warn its citizens of the dangers of cigarette smoke. I don't see why the government should be held criminally responsible for warning its citizens of every conceivable danger known to man. Why is it their responsibility to warn you of anything?

 

"every conceivable danger known to man" is where you jump the tracks, and why this is a strawman. We have government agencies in place to protect us from significant dangers, and ones that we can't deal with individually. I can't assess the safety of chemical additives in food or of drugs. I can't stop other individuals or corporations from dumping pollution and poison into the ecosystem.

 

And someone has spiced up their call to action with a rhetorical device. Stop the presses! (No, not really, it's just an expression.)

[Pangloss]

Suzuki is not proposing that anti-global-warming dissent should be "silenced." He is proposing that people who ignore the issue should be punished. This is a major distinction: "global warming isn't happening" vs. "I don't care, I'm not going to anything about it anyway."

 

We're ignoring the issue because it's a non-issue in this case and there is no dissent being demonized. Apathy in the face of overwhelming evidence is being demonized.

 

I disagree, and this kind of hair-splitting strikes me as embarassment-by-proxy. This man is universally hailed and respected, and he's suggested an action that's so awful and detrimental to his own cause that it cannot be believed by his adherents. He simply must have meant something else. Yeah, that's it.

 

But hey, that's just human nature. I don't fault people for having opinions different from mine. I wouldn't, like, throw them in jail or anything. Live and let live, I say. So be it. (shrug)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I disagree, and this kind of hair-splitting strikes me as embarassment-by-proxy. This man is universally hailed and respected, and he's suggested an action that's so awful and detrimental to his own cause that it cannot be believed by his adherents. He simply must have meant something else. Yeah, that's it.

 

You are begging the question. You assume he meant what you believe he meant, and that I am suggesting an alternate meaning, when the point is that he didn't mean what you believe he did.

 

Re-read my post, carefully this time.

I don't fault people for having opinions different from mine. I wouldn't, like, throw them in jail or anything.

If you still believe that is what Suzuki suggested, you are ignoring my point.

[ParanoiA]

Suzuki is not proposing that anti-global-warming dissent should be "silenced." He is proposing that people who ignore the issue should be punished. This is a major distinction: "global warming isn't happening" vs. "I don't care, I'm not going to anything about it anyway."

 

So all the politicians that say "I don't care" can just say "It isn't happening" and they're off the hook? This is an argument I would expect from a lawyer, not an objective academic.

 

The Environmental Protection Agency?

 

Have they been given the specific duty and authority to defend the public from specifically "Global Warming" disaster? I mean, I see the connection, but it's not like global warming is universally accepted - rightly or wrongly.

 

That's the distinction I keep getting back to. Fire and hurricane protection and recovery are specifically delegated responsibilities. Global Warming specifically has not been accepted wholesale, much less assigned authorative responsibility to any government entity.

 

"every conceivable danger known to man" is where you jump the tracks, and why this is a strawman. We have government agencies in place to protect us from significant dangers, and ones that we can't deal with individually. I can't assess the safety of chemical additives in food or of drugs. I can't stop other individuals or corporations from dumping pollution and poison into the ecosystem.

 

Well, you're certainly right it is their responsibility to warn and protect me from some things since we've deliberately assigned those specified details to a government agency.

 

And we have an agency set up and designed specifically for the purpose of assessing food and drugs. They have the power to enforce as well. The same cannot be said of GW. Granted, the EPA is an arguable agency for this responsibility, but I'm not sure they have the same authority and potency as a fleet of fire trucks screaming down my street. Nobody says "we don't believe in fire, get out of here!". All that...

 

But hey, we can agree to disagree. And I'm curious what Swans on Tea is all about. Is there a story behind that phrase?

[Pangloss]

I'm not ignoring you, Cap'n, I'm disagreeing with you. If that's what you believe he meant, good for you.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So all the politicians that say "I don't care" can just say "It isn't happening" and they're off the hook? This is an argument I would expect from a lawyer, not an objective academic.

Depends on if their dissent has evidence. There is, as swansont said, a dearth of evidence in peer-reviewed journals against global warming, so the answer to your question is "no."

 

Have they been given the specific duty and authority to defend the public from specifically "Global Warming" disaster? I mean, I see the connection, but it's not like global warming is universally accepted - rightly or wrongly.

Do they need to have the specific duty and authority? They already have the authority to regulate emissions, which is a significant portion of what needs to be done. As for the duty, their mission is "to protect human health and the environment." Clear enough?

 

That's the distinction I keep getting back to. Fire and hurricane protection and recovery are specifically delegated responsibilities. Global Warming specifically has not been accepted wholesale, much less assigned authorative responsibility to any government entity.

So does that mean the government should continue ignoring it or that they should figure out who should be the agency to fix the problem?

 

I'm not ignoring you, Cap'n, I'm disagreeing with you. If that's what you believe he meant, good for you.

 

Any particular reason to disagree, or are you just doing it on principle?