Nice Gish gallop, but not one of those links contradicts my statement that
No one is suggesting that it should be illegal to disbelieve in global warming.
which is what you called “factually incorrect”. Most of them (all but one, I think) are irrelevant for the exact same reason I already described: what they describe is people suggesting that some of the things the fossil fuel industry has done to promote doubt about global warming may be illegal under laws that already exist and have nothing to do with global warming, because those things amount to false advertising or fraud or whatever.
In fact, these prosecutions, should any occur, would I think have to be predicated on the key people involved not truly disbelieving in global warming. The analogy that usually gets drawn is with the tobacco industry’s campaign against the idea that smoking causes cancer; the executives knew pretty well that smoking probably did cause cancer, and part of the case against them was demonstrating that.
Are you able to see the difference between “it should be illegal to disbelieve in global warming” and “some of the people denying global warming are doing it dishonestly to benefit their business interests, in which case they should be subject to the same sanctions as people who lie about the fuel efficiency of the cars they make or the health effects of the cigarettes they make”?
I’m not sure that responding individually to the steps in a Gish gallop is a good idea, but I’ll do it anyway—but briefly. In each case I’ll quote from the relevant source to indicate how it’s proposing the second of those rather than the first. Italics are mine.
Letter from 20 scientists: “corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change [...] The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation [...] played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking.”
Coalition of attorneys general: “investigations into whether fossil fuel companies have misled investors about how climate change impacts their investments and business decisions [...] making sure that companies are honest about what they know about climate change”. (But actually this one seems to be mostly about legislation on actual emissions, rather than about what companies say. Not at all, of course, about what individuals believe.)
Bill Nye (actually the story isn’t really about him; his own comment is super-vague): “did they mislead their investors and overvalue their companies by ignoring the financial costs of climate change and the potential of having to leave fossil fuel assets in the ground? [...] are they engaged in a conspiracy to mislead the public and affect public policy by knowingly manufacturing false doubt about the science of climate change?”
James Hansen: “he will accuse the chief executive officers [...] of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading”
David Suzuki: This is the one exception I mentioned above; Suzuki is (more precisely: was, 9 years ago) attacking politicians rather than fossil fuel companies. It seems to be rather unclear what he has in mind, at least from that report. He’s reported as talking about “what’s going on in Ottawa and Edmonton” and “what they’re doing”, but there are no specifics. What does seem clear is that (1) he’s talking specifically about politicians and (2) it’s “what they’re doing” rather than “what they believe” that he has a problem with. From the fact that he calls it “an intergenerational crime”, it seems like he must be talking about something with actual effects so I’m guessing it’s lax regulation or something he objects to.
Lawrence Torcello (incidentally, why “no less”? An assistant professor is a postdoc; it’s not exactly an exalted position: “corporate funding of global warming denial [...] purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public [...] not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent”.
“Deceitful Tongues” paper: “the perpetrators of this deception must have been aware that its foreseeable impacts could be devastating [...] As long as climate change deniers can be shown to have engaged in fraud, that is, knowing and wilful deception, the First Amendment afford them no protection.”
So, after nine attempts, you have given zero examples of anyone suggesting that it should be illegal to disbelieve in global warming. So, are you completely unable to read, or are you lying when you offer them as refutation of my statement that, and again I quote, “no one is suggesting that it should be illegal to disbelieve in global warming”?
(I should maybe repeat here a bit of hedging from elsewhere in the thread. It probably isn’t quite true that no one at all, anywhere in the world has ever suggested that it should be illegal to disbelieve in global warming. Almost any idea, no matter how batshit crazy, has someone somewhere supporting it. So, just for the avoidance of doubt: what I meant is that “it should be illegal to disbelieve in global warming” is like “senior politicians across the world are really alien lizard people”: you can doubtless find people who endorse it, but they will be few in number and probably notably crazy in other ways, and they are in no way representative of believers in global warming or “progressives” or climatologists or any other group you might think it worth criticizing.)
Nice Gish gallop, but not one of those links contradicts my statement that
which is what you called “factually incorrect”. Most of them (all but one, I think) are irrelevant for the exact same reason I already described: what they describe is people suggesting that some of the things the fossil fuel industry has done to promote doubt about global warming may be illegal under laws that already exist and have nothing to do with global warming, because those things amount to false advertising or fraud or whatever.
In fact, these prosecutions, should any occur, would I think have to be predicated on the key people involved not truly disbelieving in global warming. The analogy that usually gets drawn is with the tobacco industry’s campaign against the idea that smoking causes cancer; the executives knew pretty well that smoking probably did cause cancer, and part of the case against them was demonstrating that.
Are you able to see the difference between “it should be illegal to disbelieve in global warming” and “some of the people denying global warming are doing it dishonestly to benefit their business interests, in which case they should be subject to the same sanctions as people who lie about the fuel efficiency of the cars they make or the health effects of the cigarettes they make”?
I’m not sure that responding individually to the steps in a Gish gallop is a good idea, but I’ll do it anyway—but briefly. In each case I’ll quote from the relevant source to indicate how it’s proposing the second of those rather than the first. Italics are mine.
Letter from 20 scientists: “corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change [...] The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation [...] played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking.”
Coalition of attorneys general: “investigations into whether fossil fuel companies have misled investors about how climate change impacts their investments and business decisions [...] making sure that companies are honest about what they know about climate change”. (But actually this one seems to be mostly about legislation on actual emissions, rather than about what companies say. Not at all, of course, about what individuals believe.)
Bill Nye (actually the story isn’t really about him; his own comment is super-vague): “did they mislead their investors and overvalue their companies by ignoring the financial costs of climate change and the potential of having to leave fossil fuel assets in the ground? [...] are they engaged in a conspiracy to mislead the public and affect public policy by knowingly manufacturing false doubt about the science of climate change?”
James Hansen: “he will accuse the chief executive officers [...] of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading”
David Suzuki: This is the one exception I mentioned above; Suzuki is (more precisely: was, 9 years ago) attacking politicians rather than fossil fuel companies. It seems to be rather unclear what he has in mind, at least from that report. He’s reported as talking about “what’s going on in Ottawa and Edmonton” and “what they’re doing”, but there are no specifics. What does seem clear is that (1) he’s talking specifically about politicians and (2) it’s “what they’re doing” rather than “what they believe” that he has a problem with. From the fact that he calls it “an intergenerational crime”, it seems like he must be talking about something with actual effects so I’m guessing it’s lax regulation or something he objects to.
Lawrence Torcello (incidentally, why “no less”? An assistant professor is a postdoc; it’s not exactly an exalted position: “corporate funding of global warming denial [...] purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public [...] not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent”.
“Deceitful Tongues” paper: “the perpetrators of this deception must have been aware that its foreseeable impacts could be devastating [...] As long as climate change deniers can be shown to have engaged in fraud, that is, knowing and wilful deception, the First Amendment afford them no protection.”
So, after nine attempts, you have given zero examples of anyone suggesting that it should be illegal to disbelieve in global warming. So, are you completely unable to read, or are you lying when you offer them as refutation of my statement that, and again I quote, “no one is suggesting that it should be illegal to disbelieve in global warming”?
(I should maybe repeat here a bit of hedging from elsewhere in the thread. It probably isn’t quite true that no one at all, anywhere in the world has ever suggested that it should be illegal to disbelieve in global warming. Almost any idea, no matter how batshit crazy, has someone somewhere supporting it. So, just for the avoidance of doubt: what I meant is that “it should be illegal to disbelieve in global warming” is like “senior politicians across the world are really alien lizard people”: you can doubtless find people who endorse it, but they will be few in number and probably notably crazy in other ways, and they are in no way representative of believers in global warming or “progressives” or climatologists or any other group you might think it worth criticizing.)
I was never a fan of beating my head against a brick wall.
Tap.