|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 03/16/2014 : 17:08:46
|
I had to think about where to place this one. Ultimately, I think this is a political issue, as in the climate change deniers seem to be mostly ideologically motivated. There is one skeptic who I have the utmost respect for on most issues. But I think he loses it on climate change because he's also a libertarian. And when I brought that up to him as the reason for his "skepticism," his response that we shouldn't be running off willy nilly spending lots of money (government) until all the facts are in. He maintains that the cause of climate change is still debatable. And this guy is a long time writer and investigator for Skeptical Inquirer. Sigh...
Anyhow:
Are the climate science deniers criminals?
I once said, and a lot of people (well, bad people, not any good people) got mad at me, that taking away the future of our children and grandchildren was a criminal act. Of course, you know it is. But in saying that, unfortunately, I can only be referring to “criminal act” as a metaphor, or perhaps as wishful thinking. There actually isn’t a law against ruining the planet and ending civilization as we know it, against taking part in the death and misery of countless humans, against carrying out acts of such utterly despicable selfishness and general terror that you will be placed among the ranks of the genocidal once all is said and done, if you get your way. Nope. That’s totally legal.
Or is it? Or, at least, should it be? |
- Greg Laden
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2014 : 21:37:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
...his response that we shouldn't be running off willy nilly spending lots of money (government) until all the facts are in. |
The demand for "all the facts" turns this into a philosophical argument, really. Ask him if he feels the same way about every other public safety or public health issue. Because he should know that all the facts will never be "in" for any particular theory.
So, since we don't know 100% of the facts related to government treatment of sewage, ask him if we should shut down all plants until we can say with 100% certainty whether it does more good than harm.
As for the question at hand, Laden admits the deniers aren't criminals, but argues they should be. And evidencialism suggests that they're morally reprehensible.
However, if people who make it more difficult to mitigate climate change are criminally negligent (at best) and morally to blame (at the very least), then everyone who still drives a car with an internal combustion engine must share part of the responsibility. So can we distinguish felony climate-change denial from misdemeanor carbon negligence? I'd prefer to not imprison the millions (billions?) of people who can't afford to not drive their old beaters in order to feed their families... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2014 : 23:02:40 [Permalink]
|
Just to be fair, though I don't think I was far off, I was paraphrasing from a debate I had with the climate "skeptic." I've had few debates with him on the subject because I post links to papers and news of evidence of AGW, as it comes in, on my facebook page. Basically his position is not to deny that his libertarianism is his reason for arguing against climate change but that the libertarians are taking the responsible position on climate change.
As for Laden, I think he's talking about the leaders of the climate deniers. The people who fund them like the Koch brothers, and not the rest of us who have to get to work and to play using an outdated technology through no fault of our own. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2014 : 01:09:49 [Permalink]
|
| We all contribute to climate change. Are we all criminals? |
 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2014 : 05:19:56 [Permalink]
|
That's what I'm saying: there are various degrees of harm, and various degrees of responsibility. Should we impound the vehicles of schmucks who tackle downtown LA's brutal 3% grades with Hummers, or merely mandate a means-tested offsetting for the average Joe, and then charge those who advocate violating the mandate with "incitement to deforest?"
Of course, the bottom line is that advocacy and lobbying are protected by the First Amendment. We only get to punish speech when it poses an immediate risk to health and safety, or when campaign contributions cross some arbitrary threshold. If it were otherwise, we would have jailed all the outspoken creationists a long time ago (for example). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Are the climate science deniers criminals?
