Don't support GW? Go to jail.

[ParanoiA]

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."

 

But wait a minute, you made the distinction between people who don't believe in global warming and people who do, but don't care - as to whether or not Suzuki was proposing their punishment. That must mean they can claim they simply don't believe in GW, and escape punishment. Nice.

 

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?

 

No, because global warming is not a specified threat. Fire is. Hurricane is. GW is not.

 

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?

 

Figure out who should be the agency to fix the problem, and then give them the authority that goes with it. Let's put our money where our mouth is. If global warming is truly a threat, universally agreed, then let's act like it. Half of my suspicions come from the fact that we don't act like it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

But wait a minute, you made the distinction between people who don't believe in global warming and people who do, but don't care - as to whether or not Suzuki was proposing their punishment. That must mean they can claim they simply don't believe in GW, and escape punishment. Nice.

Then perhaps I didn't fully qualify what I said before. What I stated in my last post still stands.

 

And this still has no relevance to Suzuki's statements.

 

 

No, because global warming is not a specified threat. Fire is. Hurricane is. GW is not.

So every threat must be specified before the government can act upon it?

 

The relevance of the answer to that question is about nil anyway, because Suzuki would probably agree that if no government agency has the responsibility to do something, the legislators should be faulted for not doing anything about it.

 

Figure out who should be the agency to fix the problem, and then give them the authority that goes with it. Let's put our money where our mouth is. If global warming is truly a threat, universally agreed, then let's act like it. Half of my suspicions come from the fact that we don't act like it.

That's because of the great disconnect between politicians and scientists.

[swansont]

And I'm curious what Swans on Tea is all about. Is there a story behind that phrase?

 

A short one: it's phonetic for my username. My blog.

[DrDNA]

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

Unless I'm missing something, he's just throwing cotton balls at a rock wall.

 

No one has any idea?

 

Unless someone has come up with a better idea that they are not sharing, it looks like the only leverage at his disposal is gaseous in nature.

[swansont]

Figure out who should be the agency to fix the problem, and then give them the authority that goes with it. Let's put our money where our mouth is. If global warming is truly a threat, universally agreed, then let's act like it. Half of my suspicions come from the fact that we don't act like it.

 

Figuring out the agency, etc. is a government responsibility.

 

If people aren't acting like it's a problem it's not for a lack of science. That's been around for decades. It's because theose opposed to the idea have adopted the tactic of arguing the issue in the mainstream media, and fabricating a scientific controversy.

 

A history of the science and denialism by Naomi Oreskes can be seen here, but it's an hour-long talk

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/oreskes_on_the_american_denial.php

[Pangloss]

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

 

Yes, I think regardless of whether he meant what you think or what I think, this was a mistake on his part. Giving people the perception that they're going to be thrown in jail if they don't agree with GW is every bit as damaging over overzealous criticism of GW, wouldn't you agree? We need to be coming together on that issue, not tearing each other apart.

 

Demanding that politicians be thrown in jail for 20 years of non-support for GW is akin to yelling "get a rope" at a rally against hate crime legislation. At best it's well-intended sarcasm giving the wrong impression. At worst it's just proving their point for them.

 

Although, again, from where I sit, he meant every word of it, and he meant it to be a chilling effect on free speech and open, honest investigation that disagrees with his point of view. But as I said, your mileage may vary, and if you disagree, fine.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, I think regardless of whether he meant what you think or what I think, this was a mistake on his part. Giving people the perception that they're going to be thrown in jail if they don't agree with GW is every bit as damaging over overzealous criticism of GW, wouldn't you agree? We need to be coming together on that issue, not tearing each other apart.

If he meant what I think he meant, he's not giving people that perception at all.

 

Although, again, from where I sit, he meant every word of it, and he meant it to be a chilling effect on free speech and open, honest investigation that disagrees with his point of view. But as I said, your mileage may vary, and if you disagree, fine.

I'm not saying "he didn't mean it." I'm saying that he meant a different "it" than you think. He's not trying to suppress open investigation. He's trying to suppress apathy.

[swansont]

Although, again, from where I sit, he meant every word of it, and he meant it to be a chilling effect on free speech and open, honest investigation that disagrees with his point of view. But as I said, your mileage may vary, and if you disagree, fine.

 

The investigation that disagrees with his point of view is not honest, though. It's contrived. The people that disagree aren't publishing findings in scientific journals, and most of them aren't even trained in a relevant field. Politicians don't do research, so how can this be a chilling effect on that?

[Pangloss]

If he meant what I think he meant, he's not giving people that perception at all.

 

You're giving the benefit of reasonable doubts to him. Like I said, more power to you.

 

But he felt a need to issue a press release saying he was just being sarcastic. And I'm clearly not the only one even here at SFN who got that impression from his words. So I've established a reasonable case for concern, at the very least.

 

 

He's trying to suppress apathy.

 

That's your opinion. Mine is that he's trying to incite the use of force over freedom of speech and impartial investigation of the truth.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's your opinion. Mine is that he's trying to incite the use of force over freedom of speech and impartial investigation of the truth.

Since when do politicians do that?

[Pangloss]

The investigation that disagrees with his point of view is not honest, though. It's contrived. The people that disagree aren't publishing findings in scientific journals, and most of them aren't even trained in a relevant field. Politicians don't do research, so how can this be a chilling effect on that?

 

Swansont, what will your position be when it is "discovered" that no laws have been violated by any politicians? Because surely if such violations could be found they would already have BEEN found and brought up! It's not as if there's a shortage of zealotry on both sides of this issue.

 

So when that happens, does he just shrug and say "Sorry, i thought maybe, you never know.................." Riiiiiight.

 

Yeah, that was just an honest inquiry into the legal possibilities of prosecution. That's why he made his suggestion at a pep-rally for the cause! Sure he was. "Yay team! Now go out there and grab your baseball bats and hangin' ropes and... and... <cof cof> Find, uh, a LEGAL reason to take care of those awful politicians! Yeah, that's it!"

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And how is that related in any way to swansont's point?

[Pangloss]

Since when do politicians do that?

 

What scientist is going to ever publish findings that go against the notion of global warming if politicians are being THROWN IN JAIL FOR ACTING ON THEM?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What scientist is going to ever publish findings that go against the notion of global warming if politicians are being THROWN IN JAIL FOR ACTING ON THEM?

That's Canada, last Thursday. The rest of the world has not come up with anti-global-warming evidence for the past 20 years. (I realize you're talking about the chilling effect. But Suzuki does have a point: the world has not found evidence against GW and they're still sitting on their hineys.)

 

You're still begging the question. I stated that Suzuki means that apathy is to be punished -- hence the "intergenerational crime" (allowing global warming to continue) bit. That has no relevance to what a scientist may publish, only what a politician fails to do. That is the real issue at hand here.

[Pangloss]

That's Canada, last Thursday. The rest of the world has not come up with anti-global-warming evidence for the past 20 years. (I realize you're talking about the chilling effect. But Suzuki does have a point: the world has not found evidence against GW and they're still sitting on their hineys.)

 

You're still begging the question. I stated that Suzuki means that apathy is to be punished -- hence the "intergenerational crime" (allowing global warming to continue) bit. That has no relevance to what a scientist may publish, only what a politician fails to do. That is the real issue at hand here.

 

There may be no contrary evidence of global warming, but there's plenty of contrary evidence on human contribution to it, which is what we're actually talking about here. And all KINDS of evidence countering the immediacy agenda being pushed by extremists like Suzuki.

 

I have to say it's a pretty neat trick. First, get a few experts to agree that you're right. Second, chill the opposition by playing the politics game long and well enough to get more than half of the experts on board, so you can say you have a majority. Third, begin declaring any evidence to the contrary to be either non-existent or counter-productive, and if somebody says otherwise, follow-up with funding cutoffs and "crackpot" demonization, or just accuse them of being wrong because they work for a corporation (never mind our own corporate funding). And finally, when you've achieved all of this and have the authority, throw any politician who doesn't do as they're told in jail.

 

Wow, that sure beats discussion and slow forward progress! After all, the planet's dead if we don't act within ten years -- Al Gore says so! So all of this is justified. It would be great if we had the luxury of time, but we don't, so off to jail and the sooner the better.

 

No, Cap'n, that's not the issue at hand here. The issue at hand here is, what's the rush? The issue at hand here is, if the science is right, why do you need to throw people in jail? The issue at hand here is, why are we abandoning truth as irrelevent, and now resorting to force?

 

We've gone from trying to convince everyone to saying we're in the majority, might makes right, and global warming must be solved by any means necessary.

 

And later if it turns out we really weren't the main cause, well, no biggie -- at least those dirty, non-compliant politicians (spit) got what they deserved!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There may be no contrary evidence of global warming, but there's plenty of contrary evidence on human contribution to it, which is what we're actually talking about here. And all KINDS of evidence countering the immediacy agenda being pushed by extremists like Suzuki.

 

Evidence or just doubt? There's a significant difference between establishing that it's not humans and pondering the magnitude of human forcings.

 

I have to say it's a pretty neat trick. First, get a few experts to agree that you're right. Second, chill the opposition by playing the politics game long and well enough to get more than half of the experts on board, so you can say you have a majority. Third, begin declaring any evidence to the contrary to be either non-existent or counter-productive, and if somebody says otherwise, follow-up with funding cutoffs and "crackpot" demonization, or just accuse them of being wrong because they work for a corporation (never mind our own corporate funding).

Any evidence that any of this has actually occurred, or is this just another manifestation of your desire to politicize everything?

 

Because I frankly don't listen to the majority -- I listen to the evidence, which doesn't care how many people agree with it.

 

You also have no evidence to suggest that Suzuki participated in or condones the purported "demonization" and "funding cutoffs".

 

No, Cap'n, that's not the issue at hand here. The issue at hand here is, what's the rush? The issue at hand here is, if the science is right, why do you need to throw people in jail?

Because their inaction may result in our deaths?

 

The issue at hand here is, why are we abandoning truth as irrelevent, and now resorting to force?

Non sequitur. Nobody's abandoning the truth as irrelevant. Suzuki believes his opinion is the truth, and that there is no peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary. I'm sure if the politicians wanted to engage him in a war of evidence he'd be glad to dig up peer-reviewed studies to support his claims. But they don't want to do that. They're too busy saying "dude" for the Rick Mercer Report. (Yes, really.)

 

And later if it turns out we really weren't the main cause, well, no biggie -- at least those dirty, non-compliant politicians (spit) got what they deserved!

Nice touch. I hope Suzuki doesn't mind you shoving all these words into his mouth.

[Pangloss]

Any evidence that any of this has actually occurred, or is this just another manifestation of your desire to politicize everything?

 

You also have no evidence to suggest that Suzuki participated in or condones the purported "demonization" and "funding cutoffs".

 

Evidence? Politicization? Um, dude, we're talking about politics. This is the Politics subforum. Christ, two weeks ago you and Swansont insisted that contrary opinions be removed from a "science" global warming thread because only facts should be allowed (which I called odd because in fact that discussion is ruled by opinion -- one single opinion -- but whatever). I was told that if we wanted to discuss opinions on this subject, we should do so on the politics forum. Well here we are, expressing our opinions, and talking about politics. So give me a break, huh?

 

 

Because their inaction may result in our deaths?

 

Well that is your opinion, and more power to you. But you propose that we decide that one opinion is to be used as the basis for the application of criminal penalties against any politician who does not carry out an aggressive promotion of that opinion.

 

I ask again, what's the rush? Staunch adherents of human contribution to global warming have, right here in this forum, spoken AGAINST the radically short time frames proposed by the likes of Al Gore. Why this desperate need to toss out the power of persuasion and reasoned discourse and just start throwing people in jail?

 

 

Non sequitur. Nobody's abandoning the truth as irrelevant.

 

In fact that's exactly what he's proposing. You've commented that this is about politicians, not scientists. In the arena of politics, the issue is not the truth, but rather what people believe. We dance around this all the time at SFN, and elitistly dismiss it as idiocy amongst the common people, but the fact remains that most people lack the facility to understand most of what scientists and engineers (or even politicians, or any kind of specialist) do. It always comes back to trust and faith.

 

An important truth about our society is that evolution isn't taught over creationism because evolution is right and creationism is wrong. Evolution is taught over creationism because people's faith in scientists and engineers is greater than their faith in religious leaders or politicians. (Thank... god!)

 

Dr. Suzuki suggests that we leverage the faith he and his people have constructed in the presumption of humans being the primary cause of global warming by incarcerating politicians who do not conform to that faith. And if he gets his way, do not think for one moment that his success will be based on anything other than faith. Faith held by one group of people, over a different faith held by another.

[swansont]

Swansont, what will your position be when it is "discovered" that no laws have been violated by any politicians? Because surely if such violations could be found they would already have BEEN found and brought up! It's not as if there's a shortage of zealotry on both sides of this issue.

 

So when that happens, does he just shrug and say "Sorry, i thought maybe, you never know.................." Riiiiiight.

 

Yeah, that was just an honest inquiry into the legal possibilities of prosecution. That's why he made his suggestion at a pep-rally for the cause! Sure he was. "Yay team! Now go out there and grab your baseball bats and hangin' ropes and... and... <cof cof> Find, uh, a LEGAL reason to take care of those awful politicians! Yeah, that's it!"

 

 

OK, yeah, you're right. You convinced me. There is no rhetoric used in the political arena. When Mitt Romney bowed out of the election, he meant that a democrat candidate would literally sign surrender papers to terrorists if elected president.

 

There may be no contrary evidence of global warming, but there's plenty of contrary evidence on human contribution to it, which is what we're actually talking about here. And all KINDS of evidence countering the immediacy agenda being pushed by extremists like Suzuki.

 

It would really nice if you could present actual evidence to back this up.

 

I have to say it's a pretty neat trick. First, get a few experts to agree that you're right. Second, chill the opposition by playing the politics game long and well enough to get more than half of the experts on board, so you can say you have a majority. Third, begin declaring any evidence to the contrary to be either non-existent or counter-productive, and if somebody says otherwise, follow-up with funding cutoffs and "crackpot" demonization, or just accuse them of being wrong because they work for a corporation (never mind our own corporate funding). And finally, when you've achieved all of this and have the authority, throw any politician who doesn't do as they're told in jail.

 

It's difficult to have a reasonable conversation on the matter when you feel free to just make stuff up.

[D H]

Let's go back to square one. Except in fuzzy logic, which disavows the concept of the excluded middle, it is valid to say that either Suzuki truly meant what he said or he did not truly mean it.

• If he truly meant what he said, then that represents an affront to basic liberties. Whether he can make this come to pass is irrelevant. He wants to stifle free speech.
  
• If he did not mean what he said (i.e., it was rhetoric), then it wasn't particularly good rhetoric. It might sound good to fellow travelers on the global warming road, but his words made it to a broader audience. To those who are not fellow travelers, these words are just as confrontational as "global warming denier". As others have said in this thread, perhaps you AGW fellow travelers should think more about carrots than sticks.

[jeskill]

On the Suzuki Foundation Website, He says this:

 

When those in business and government continue to deliberately ignore the best scientific advice warning us of the need to act, they are committing us to a path that will have catastrophic consequences for our children and grandchildren.

 

I believe this is an intergenerational crime.

 

So, according to his own writing, Suzuki is saying that he believes the failure to act is an "intergenerational crime", he isn't stating that dissenting opinions re:global warming are a crime.

 

I'm a little suspect of The National Post's article. They never actually give a full quote to show exactly what Suzuki said; instead, they paraphrase half of it. Given the newspaper's conservative leanings, I wonder if they took Suzuki out of context to create a more sensational story.

 

One more thing: yes, Suzuki was a scientist, but he's long since retired and is pretty obviously an environmental advocate now. I don't see a problem with an environmental advocate using rhetoric to plead his case.

[Pangloss]

So, according to his own writing, Suzuki is saying that he believes the failure to act is an "intergenerational crime", he isn't stating that dissenting opinions re:global warming are a crime.

 

How is that any better? Again, this "failure to act" notion is still premised on an assumption. I agree that it's an opinion that's backed by evidence, but so is the contrary opinion. So you're still talking about throwing people in jail over an opinion.

 

If we're going to decide to do something about human contribution to global warming, then let's do that through a democratic process, not by FORCE. Don't get me wrong, if we make a societal decision and then pass laws requiring certain actions, then those actions should be enforced, I agree. But that's not what he's saying at all, even YOU agree on this. There is no "intergenerational crime" or general "failure to act" statute to enforce, and he damn well knows it.

 

David Suzuki is proposing an action that is fascist in nature. And the ONLY reason you're letting him get away with it is that he's in favor of Global Warming.

 

 

Suzuki was a scientist, but he's long since retired and is pretty obviously an environmental advocate now.

 

That's right, he's pretty obviously an environmental advocate now. No longer a scientist. Your past tense, not mine, but I wholly agree.

 

He has certainly thrown on the garbage pile any moral authority he may have once conveyed as a scientist making a case using logic and reason. You are absolutely right, and hey, thanks for pointing it out.

[iNow]

Wow. The above is a good example of how a person should not debate an issue. Talk about missing the point, failing to support, begging the question, strawman...

 

 

Guys... Is this some act or parady to get the membership to realize how stupid arguments don't convince anyone?

[DrDNA]

But some people are in fact turning a blind eye to global warming because of the messengers and the tactics of the GW messengers.

[jeskill]

Dude, I shall clarify.

 

In the above statement, he doesn't say, "It is an intergenerational crime". He says that "He BELIEVES it's an intergenerational crime." IOW, that's his opinion. As someone before stated, there's a very low probability that Suzuki's opinion is going to be enforced through law. So why are you getting all worked up about this? It's rhetoric, designed to urge people to back environmentally sustainable policy. That's his job.

 

Are you basing your opinion that he's a fascist on the sole sentence that's been debated for four pages, or do you have other, more compelling evidence?

[Pangloss]

Dude, I shall clarify.

 

In the above statement, he doesn't say, "It is an intergenerational crime". He says that "He BELIEVES it's an intergenerational crime." IOW, that's his opinion. As someone before stated, there's a very low probability that Suzuki's opinion is going to be enforced through law. So why are you getting all worked up about this? It's rhetoric, designed to urge people to back environmentally sustainable policy. That's his job.

 

Are you basing your opinion that he's a fascist on the sole sentence that's been debated for four pages, or do you have other, more compelling evidence?

 

So it's a better opinion because there's only a very low probability that it will happen? Huh? This isn't about fear, jeskill, it's about ideas. His are fasist, and they're getting support here. That's what I'm talking about -- the art and science of moral suasion. You know -- politics.

 

So again, how is that any better? Again, this "failure to act" notion is still premised on an assumption. I agree that it's an opinion that's backed by evidence, but so is the contrary opinion. So you're still talking about throwing people in jail over an opinion.

 

If we're going to decide to do something about human contribution to global warming, then let's do that through a democratic process, not by FORCE. Don't get me wrong, if we make a societal decision and then pass laws requiring certain actions, then those actions should be enforced, I agree. But that's not what he's saying at all, even YOU agree on this. There is no "intergenerational crime" or general "failure to act" statute to enforce, and he damn well knows it.

 

David Suzuki is proposing an action that is fascist in nature. And the ONLY reason you're letting him get away with it is that he's in favor of Global Warming.