The Swindle Ruling, British Culture, and Freedom of Expression
July 22nd, 2008Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
If you are paying attention to the latest dust up over climate change then you know that a judgment has been rendered (PDF) by the relevant British authority (OFCOM) on complaints about the airing of a controversial documentary by UK Channel 4 challenging consensus climate science and politics, titled The Great Global Warming Swindle.
The decision has led to a wide range of reactions and commentary (e.g., NYT’s Andy Revkin, Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre, former IPCC chairman Bob Watson, and many, many others). Here I’d like to address several points that have nothing to do with the substance of the complaint or UK laws governing the public media, but rather the broader issues raised by the controversy for the role of scientists in seeking to limit freedom of expression.
First off, it is probably hard for many non-British (and perhaps even some Brits) to make sense of what is actually going on. Here is my take on the situation, and any UK politics/media experts who may be reading are invited to weigh in and correct or clarify. I paid my 2007 BBC License Fee so I am of course eminently qualified to opine;-) UK Channel 4 is a public television station, and as such its programming falls under certain legislative requirements (a “broadcasting code“), which are enforced by an independent regulatory agency called the Office of Communication or OFCOM.
The very fact that there is such an “Office of Communication” with a mandate to regulate the details of non-profane programming content may strike many Americans as somewhat strange. In a U.S. context restricting what can be said on broadcast television, even public television, is limited in practice to the profane or indecent, and even here the threshold is fairly high (judging by what I let my children watch), if consistently Puritan. Just this week a U.S. federal court threw out a complaint of indecency regarding the Janet Jackson-Justin Timberlake, ahem, Super Bowl “wardrobe malfunction.”
On the British side there is a much longer history of attention to libel in the form of speech but also to the government role in making citizens aware of risks (, e.g., “Mind the Gap”). Academics have called government role in protecting its citizens the “risk society” following the work of Ulrich Beck, and those criticizing such paternalism, from both the ends of the political spectrum, have disparagingly labeled this role as that of a “nanny state.” In short, the fact that OFCOM is rendering a decision on the content of a documentary (much less its far more discussed decision on the content of the reality show Big Brother) is an idiosyncratically British situation that raises important questions about the role of the government in overseeing what information is allowed to be presented to its citizens, in this case via a publicly owned, but commercially funded television. As such, understanding this debate has less to do with the issue of climate change than it does with British politics, history, and culture.
On the other hand, because many of the complainants are scientists, some not even British, another important perspective on this debate is the role of scientists and other academics in efforts to limit the freedom of expression. Arguably, the global scientific community shares a set of norms on the free exchange of information that, while shaped by each of our national and cultural settings, also transcends those situational factors. For example, the value of peer review in scientific publishing knows no national boundaries and is a broadly shared value in the scientific community. Freedom of expression would also seem to have broad support, whether that expression is in the form of shared environmental data or the opinions of government scientists that differ from their political bosses.
On climate change however, some in the scientific community have departed quite radically from support for freedom of expression. For example, recently NASA’s James Hansen has famously called for trials of those who have provided support for the dissemination of skeptical perspectives on climate change, singling out executives in energy companies. Similarly, Joe Romm, of the Center for American Progress, has called for an editor of a newsletter of the American Physical Society to be fired and his colleagues at the APS to be subject to an email pressure campaign for inviting and publishing an article taking issue with the IPCC consensus. Closer to home, in early 2007, I was told by an official at my own university that some of my academic peers from other institutions had contacted our university administration complaining about the apparently heretical public positions that I had expressed on climate change and warned me to “think of my career” before making such statements in the future. Thankfully, when I complained to a wider circle of administrators this official apologized for the comment (a “misunderstanding,” of course) and other CU officials apparently ignored the complaint. These examples of formal and informal sanctions are all used to try to limit the freedom of expression on the subject of climate change.
Should scientists and other academics be working for restrictions on the freedom of expression on climate change, or perhaps sanctions for those expressing or allowing the expression of certain views?
Let me make my position clear — No.
My views are no doubt shaped (maybe determined) by my cultural upbringing as an American and as an academic, and my inclination as a philosophical pragmatist. Here is what Oliver Wendell Holmes (a famous pragmatist) had to say about free expression (for a review of the history of the First Amendment see Anthony Lewis):
[I]f there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.
More specific to academia, in 1975 Yale University published a report on freedom of expression (PDF)which was adopted as formal university policy and is often referred to as a authoritative statement in support of freedom of expression. Here is an excerpt of some of its eloquent and forceful prose (emphases added):
The primary function of a university is to discover and disseminate knowledge by means of research and teaching. To fulfill this function a free interchange of ideas is necessary not only within its walls but with the world beyond as well. It follows that the university must do everything possible to ensure within it the fullest degree of intellectual freedom. The history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable. To curtail free expression strikes twice at intellectual freedom, for whoever deprives another of the right to state unpopular views necessarily also deprives others of the right to listen to those views.
We take a chance, as the First Amendment takes a chance, when we commit ourselves to the idea that the results of free expression are to the general benefit in the long run, however unpleasant they may appear at the time. The validity of such a belief cannot be demonstrated conclusively. It is a belief of recent historical development, even within universities, one embodied in American constitutional doctrine but not widely shared outside the academic world, and denied in theory and in practice by much of the world most of the time.
On the obligations of academics (and I would argue that the responsibility extends to scientists at research institutions that are not universities, such as government labs), the report states:
We value freedom of expression precisely because it provides a forum for the new, the provocative, the disturbing, and the unorthodox. Free speech is a barrier to the tyranny of authoritarian or even majority opinion as to the rightness or wrongness of particular doctrines or thoughts.
If the priority assigned to free expression by the nature of a university is to be maintained in practice, clearly the responsibility for maintaining that priority rests with its members. By voluntarily taking up membership in a university and thereby asserting a claim to its rights and privileges, members also acknowledge the existence of certain obligations upon themselves and their fellows. Above all, every member of the university has an obligation to permit free expression in the university. No member has a right to prevent such expression. Every official of the university, moreover, has a special obligation to foster free expression and to ensure that it is not obstructed.
It is troubling to see academics and scientists working hard to sanction certain people because of what they say, rather than taking on the arguments on their merits, as frustrating and difficult a task that might seem to be at times. Some might argue that the threat of climate change is so important that we cannot allow certain voices to be heard. The Yale report says of such perspectives:
We have considered the opposing argument that behavior which violates these social and ethical considerations should be made subject to formal sanctions, and the argument that such behavior entitles others to prevent speech they might regard as offensive. Our conviction that the central purpose of the university is to foster the free access of knowledge compels us to reject both of these arguments. They assert a right to prevent free expression. They rest upon the assumption that speech can be suppressed by anyone who deems it false or offensive. They deny what Justice Holmes termed “freedom for the thought that we hate.” They make the majority, or any willful minority, the arbiters of truth for all. If expression may be prevented, censored or punished, because of its content or because of the motives attributed to those who promote it, then it is no longer free. It will be subordinated to other values that we believe to be of lower priority in a university.
The conclusions we draw, then, are these: even when some members of the university community fail to meet their social and ethical responsibilities, the paramount obligation of the university is to protect their right to free expression.
So while I don’t really have an informed or relevant position on UK media regulations or even on the substance of the Swindle program, I do feel strongly that the current wave of climate blasphemy that seems to be popular among prominent scientists involved in the climate issue is one day going to be looked back upon as a low point in this debate. Climate change is important, but so too are other values, and freedom of expression is among them.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:30 pm
”…the apparently heretical public positions that I had expressed on climate change and warned me to “think of my career” before making such statements in the future.”
It is a chance that you don’t dispute the IPCC conclusion, since even though you have clearly enunciated your position which is probably stronger than the IPCC itself.
Imagine what treatment you would receive if you hadn’t stated your position clearly. When Sourcewatch give a not so flattering portrait of you:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roger_Pielke
It is kind of funny that the same people who fight for the liberty of scientist to speak while they are asking to silenced people who they don’t agree with.
Such an attitude is kind of scary and his kind of a reminder of how Russia was lead to its downfall (the inability to challenge the authority).
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Roger,
I can’t tell whether you think Beck is calling for “mind the gap” announcements in a risk society or whether you’re simply saying that other academics misinterpret Beck as calling for this, but that’s not at all how I read him.
Risk Society is one where risk is technological and ubiquitous, so “mind the gap” would be useless. There’s no gap to mind because risk is everywhere.
What Beck calls for is, as I see it, much closer to the position you advocate: radically democratic discourse rather than privileged technocratic discourse. Where Jasanoff describes much science-policy debate as “boundary work” where different parties try to exclude their opponents from debate by claiming that their science is “junk,” I read Beck saying, “tear down this wall.” [Note for clarification: I'm not saying that Jasanoff endorses this sort of boundary work, but that she describes it in her ethnographies of science policy tribes.]
In light of the distinctions between freedom of speech in the U.S. and Europe, Prometheus fans really ought to read your colleague Myanna Lahsen’s outstanding paper, “Technocracy, Democracy, and U.S. Climate Politics” (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1892-2005.50.pdf), which argues that the U.S. is particularly plagued by politically financed fraudulent science (e.g., the Oregon Institute) that threatens to devalue open discourse on environmental science analogously to Gresham’s law.
In this light, I would like to ask you how you would feel about someone who (mis)applied what you’ve written here on climate science, careers, and scholarly freedom to a young creationist seeking advancement in an academic biology department.
Let me be clear that I am in no way drawing an analogy between your views and creationism. I am not. What I am trying to do is explore whether there’s a recognizable boundary or bright line that we could draw for academic policy to distinguish responsible heresy from stupidity or fraud.
If we can’t say that creationism has no place in a biology department, then we devalue the idea that there is indeed good and bad scholarship.
So for me, the question becomes how, given what we know from STS about the difficulty of drawing bright lines or “objectively” evaluating scientific propositions, to maintain standards of excellence without stifling originality and (responsible) heterodoxy.
One direction I’m exploring on this is the notion Harry Collins and Robert Evans advocate in “Rethinking Expertise” (a fantastic book!) that we should distinguish science that’s “intrinsically political” from that which is “extrinsically political”
In Collins and Evans’s jargon, “intrinsically political” means that there is unavoidably a political part to the science—no one doing climate science can avoid the political, and try as they might, political values will influence their science; but that does not mean that they can’t do good, useful, and valid science. “Extrinsically political” science, on the other hand is science that’s done for the sake of a political end. In Collins and Evans’s view, the fact that all technological expertise is to some degree intrinsically political does not disqualify it from being reliable or true in a pragmatic sense (in other words, a good scientist will follow a code of professional conduct that reduces to insignificant quibbles the philosophical objections Latour, Hacking, or Feyerabend might make about social constructedness and lack of fully rational or objective tests), but a scientist doing science with the overtly political end of producing results to support a pre-ordained policy (a form of what you and Sarawitz call “scientizing the debate”) would be unacceptable.
As I read Lahsen’s paper, the U.S. suffers from a particularly virulent strain of extrinsically politicized science and thus, lowering the bar of expertise in the name of democratizing the debate or supporting intellectual freedom, actually devalues good scholarship by diluting it with “simulated scientific authority” just as printing ever more money devalues currency. As I say above, it looks like Gresham’s law.
Of course, the alternative raises the perennial question, “quis custodiet?” but I continue to trust the mores of our scientific communities to wrestle with this honestly.
What I take away is certainly that I agree with your horror at bringing lawsuits or criminal prosecutions to bear on climate or political debates. And I also share your aversion to attempts to pressure universities from outside, particularly where the pressure is extrinsically political.
But within the university and within the scientific community, whilst speaking as a professional free expression is a right to which one is entitled only in the context of good scholarship; and so long as the politicization of the community’s judgment upon scholarship is only intrinsic there is an obligation to use that judgment to demarcate reasonable dissent from worthless or irresponsible views.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:25 am
Sylvain-
Thanks. That Sourcewatch page is quite humorous:
“Roger Pielke has interacted with some Republicans (horror!) and has corrected lies placed on his Wikipedia page (shock!)”
What can you do? Laugh it off I suppose.
Jonathan-
Too much in your thoughtful comment to get to presently, but let me just say that I don’t think freedom of expression is contingent upon “good scholarship” — but perhaps you mean something narrower than I am interpreting. More later . . .
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:44 am
Roger: I’m distinguishing different fora for free expression. You discuss academic freedom (fear for professional advancement & job security) as well as broader freedom of expression (threats of litigation or prosecution).
In the public square, there ought to be no constraints, but within academic departments, when you raise the question of pressure in your job to conform to politically defined views, I assert that we need to distinguish improper, politically motivated, pressure from proper accountability to good scholarship.
I would reject the notion that anything goes in the name of academic freedom (e.g., that biblical creationism is acceptable scholarly work in a biology department) and use that starting point to argue that we can reasonably constrain academic freedom to “good scholarship.”
I worry about the Gresham’s law problem that counterfeit science (Oregon Institute stuff, not responsible work that merely fails to pass a “political correctness” test) is diminishing the credibility of all scholarship and making it harder for reasonable people to advance the public debate sensibly.
I’m considering (but am not certain I’m right here) whether the kind of ad hominem abuse directed at you and other scholars is due in part to an inflationary devaluation of scholarship that results from allowing democratic inclinations (more free discourse) to go too far in erasing the demarcation between expertise and demagoguery.
On the other hand, if you reject my initial proposition and assert that academic freedom does extend to creationism, then we would have a fundamental normative disagreement and I doubt that either of us would change the other’s mind.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:10 am
Jonathan-
Thanks, but isn’t the issue of academic freedom largely irrelevant here (as important as it is)?
The issues under discussion in the Swindle case, Hansen’s call for trials, Joe Romm’s call for a pressure campaign, and my own experiences all involve public expression, not academic expression.
Similarly, the Oregon situation that you refer to also was not an issue within academia.
So does Science magazine have the right to reject a paper on creationism by one of our academic colleagues for failing to meet standards of peer review? Sure. Should this same colleague be sanctioned in the form of limiting freedom of expression for expressing support for creationism or its teaching in public debates? I don’t think so.
So while I recognize that different fora matter, I am not sure that this fact is particularly relevant to the discussion of the public, political debate on climate change and the calls for suppression of speech.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:27 am
“I worry about the Gresham’s law problem that counterfeit science (Oregon Institute stuff, not responsible work that merely fails to pass a “political correctness” test) is diminishing the credibility of all scholarship and making it harder for reasonable people to advance the public debate sensibly.”
Jonathan, you should be much more worried about what the IPCC is doing to science than what the Oregon Institute or the producers of Swindle are doing to science.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
“For example, recently NASA’s James Hansen has famously called for trials of those who have provided support for the dissemination of skeptical perspectives on climate change, singling out executives in energy companies.”
I don’t know what has been in the water lately, but this is the same line that Lomborg is currently pushing. Did Hansen actually call “for trials of those who have provided support for… skeptical perspectives on climate change”?
Absolutely not. Here is Hansen’s comment, in context:
“Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including disguised funding to shape school textbook discussions.
CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”
He is clearly talking about those CEOs deliberately engaged in disinformation campaigns to protect profits at the expense of the public welfare.
He isn’t calling for those expressing skepticism about anything to be tried. In his opinion, those deliberately misleading the public, as was the case with the tobacco wars, should be tried- not immediately punished, but given a fair hearing.
The discovery phase of the Kivalina lawsuit will presumably offer us some insight into whether or not benign skepticism or deliberate conspiracy was at the heart of the propaganda campaigns.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Jon-
Welcome back, and thanks for the most recent parsing;-)
Hansen’s statement refers to the support by fossil fuel companies that “choose to spread doubt about global warming” — yes, I did rephrase this as “skeptical perspectives on climate change.” It is a distinction with no difference.
What US or international law would you suggest be used as the basis for such trials?
All informational campaigns are the product of some “conspiracy” designed to influence some outcome. Free speech (in the US) fully allows for propaganda. Here is a useful definition:
“Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
If you make such expression illegal then there would be no speech at all.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Roger,
“Welcome back, and thanks for the most recent parsing;-)”
I thought I was undoing the parsing to get back to the actual statements…
“Hansen’s statement refers to the support by fossil fuel companies that “choose to spread doubt about global warming” — yes, I did rephrase this as “skeptical perspectives on climate change.” It is a distinction with no difference.”
Actually you’re still deliberately ignoring the relevant context.
“Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including disguised funding to shape school textbook discussions.
CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”
There is a clear difference between skepticism and deliberate disinformation. Or, at least to most of us there is. Hansen’s comment quite explicitly refers to those knowingly engaged in disinformation.
“What US or international law would you suggest be used as the basis for such trials?”
Without stating an opinion on whether or not I agree that they should be tried, the relevant body would be the ICC.
“All informational campaigns are the product of some “conspiracy” designed to influence some outcome. Free speech (in the US) fully allows for propaganda. Here is a useful definition:”
I’m aware that propaganda has a broad and often protected meaning, which is why I phrased my final statement the way I did. However, civil conspiracy and concert of action are tortious acts. I don’t harbor any illusion that should evidence of criminal conspiracy arise that ExxonMobil, Duke Energy, et al. will ever face charges, but the point being that not all propaganda is protected speech. Something I would hope would be self-evident.
“If you make such expression illegal then there would be no speech at all.”
Only if we agree on what is being discussed. It doesn’t seem that you are talking about what either Hansen or I am.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Jon-
I don’t think that the intent of the person expressing a view matters one bit from the perspective of freedom of expression. How in the world would you be able to distinguish whether a view is actually held versus not?
If I assert on this blog that the moon is made of green cheese (and somehow you know that in my heart I really believe that it is Camembert) do you really think that this is or ought to be an illegal act?
But perhaps you can point to a US or international law (and to be clear, not a venue, such as the ICC, which you mentioned) that makes it illegal to communicate disinformation, that is, information that you define as that which the speaker knows to be false? To head off a few red herrings, I am not talking about libel nor lying under oath in a formal setting (like a trial), but information related to political debates that take place in the public.
If there is no such law (hint: there is not), perhaps then you might suggest the text of legislation that you would propose.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
“I don’t think that the intent of the person expressing a view matters one bit from the perspective of freedom of expression.”
Of course it does. I can’t tell whether or not this is a joke. This goes to the heart of protected speech.
“How in the world would you be able to distinguish whether a view is actually held versus not?”
That is where proving the conspiracy comes in. Unless Exxon et al. have been smart enough to shred every document and purge every hard drive (and given the number of documents that have already been leaked, I doubt it), the evidence will be there if a conspiracy took place.
“If I assert on this blog that the moon is made of green cheese (and somehow you know that in my heart I really believe that it is Camembert) do you really think that this is or ought to be an illegal act?”
Irrelevant example. If you spend millions of dollars funding various think tanks to promote a drug as safe that you have evidence is not, you will find yourself on very thin ice. Hansen’s invocation of the tobacco wars was not random, which is why I object to you leaving it out twice.
“But perhaps you can point to a US or international law (and to be clear, not a venue, such as the ICC, which you mentioned)”
I said ICC because Hansen invoked crimes against humanity. As I said, without agreeing or disagreeing as to whether or not that is appropriate, the ICC is appropriate arena.
“that makes it illegal to communicate disinformation, that is, information that you define as that which the speaker knows to be false?”
They can be part and parcel of fraud, conspiracy, violations of consumer protection laws, etc. I think you are a little too narrowly focusing what would be illegal for an individual to say, vs. what actions would be illegal for a corporation to perform. That might have something to do with the repeated excising of Hansen’s comment from its proper context.
Hansen isn’t calling for any Tom, Dick, or Harry who says “global warming is horseshit” to be tried, no matter how many times people choose to frame it that way.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Jon-
You are talking about: “fraud, conspiracy, violations of consumer protection laws” — These are of course separate from issues of freedom of speech, especially as discussed in this posting. So you are correct, we are discussing very different things. If Jim Hansen wants to clarify what he meant by his statement, he is of course welcome to do so, meantime his comments will be interpreted based on exactly what he said. He clearly said oil company executives be put on trial for spreading “doubt about global warming.” I don’t see anything about fraud, conspiracy, or consumer protect, but perhaps you have spoken to Jim for clarification.
There is no provision under the ICC for the prosecution you are referring to, certainly not “fraud, conspiracy, violations of consumer protection laws” which are not classified in internationallaw as “crimes against humanity”.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
“You are talking about: “fraud, conspiracy, violations of consumer protection laws” — These are of course separate from issues of freedom of speech, especially as discussed in this posting. So you are correct, we are discussing very different things.”
I am talking about what Hansen was talking about. That this happens to be different than the way you characterized Hansen in your post is not a result of me misreading your post, but rather your post mischaracterizing Hansen.
“If Jim Hansen wants to clarify what he meant by his statement, he is of course welcome to do so, meantime his comments will be interpreted based on exactly what he said.”
If that were the case, it would be lovely. Somehow, I doubt that and I expect that this meme will live on.
“He clearly said oil company executives be put on trial for spreading ‘doubt about global warming.’”
Only in such cases as they were doing so intentionally to deceive in the mode of tobacco companies. You keep leaving that part out.
“I don’t see anything about fraud, conspiracy, or consumer protect”
That would be rather implicit in the reference to the tobacco wars.
“perhaps you have spoken to Jim for clarification.”
I’d be happy to ask him whether or not he was referring to skeptics or to those engaged in the knowing and deliberate deception of the public in the same mode as tobacco companies did, but I’d rather not trouble him to repeat himself.
“There is no provision under the ICC for the prosecution you are referring to”
The prosecution Hansen referred to was “crimes against humanity”, which the ICC is the appropriate venue for, whether or not one agrees with the implication that the actions can be constituted as such. It is after all one man’s opinion about a rather small number of people engaged, should his suspicions be correct.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
“can be constituted as such” = “constitute such” or “can be construed as such”, take your pick. Apparently I chose both at the same time.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Jon
Following your reasoning the Kennedy’s should be prosecuted because they oppose the building of a wind-farm off the atlantic coast because it would degrade the views from their estate.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ted-kennedy-defeats-cape-cod-wind-mill-farm
Or Maybe, Dr Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, should be put on trial for saying that developing countries like India and China shouldn’t be put to CO2 cap. This is in direct contradiction with Hansen’s position about the urgency of reducing CO2.
Even though I’m very skeptical of the science of GW, I still find some action to be practical ideas that I support.
For example: to reduce the demand for energy I would suggest that no house should have access to more than 2500 kw/h of electricity per month, if someone like Al Gore needs more he can always buy solar panel and wind turbine to meet his requirement. Heated pool, spas and heated driveway could be banned since they are not necessity of life.
Such measure would certainly help reduce the cost of energy and help reduce the amount of co2. I wonder why Al Gore hasn’t think of it. These measure would also have the advantage to affect a very little percentage of the population
Finally, just like Roger pointed out many times it is not the disagreement about the science that prevent action to be taken. What prevent any action to be taken is the disagreement about what should be done.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Sylvain,
“Following your reasoning the Kennedy’s should be prosecuted because they oppose the building of a wind-farm off the atlantic coast because it would degrade the views from their estate.”
If it can be shown that they are engaged in deliberate disinformation that they know will result in harm to others for their personal profit, sure why not? It isn’t a partisan issue for me. If I was some raving environmentalist I would support Robert Kennedy, Jr. Instead I consider him a dangerous twit, especially given his drinking from the vaccine-autism kool aid.
“Or Maybe, Dr Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, should be put on trial for saying that developing countries like India and China shouldn’t be put to CO2 cap. This is in direct contradiction with Hansen’s position about the urgency of reducing CO2.”
Eh… Pachauri was selected by the Bush administration precisely because he holds those views. They were not a secret. He has served his purpose as a convenient figurehead, nothing more. Futhermore, Pachauri has no issue with China and India reducing CO2 provided they do so via mechanisms where the developed world and largest emitters en toto provide clean energy and the developing world is allowed to pull itself out of poverty. I don’t agree with the lack of accountability inherent in this position, but the US refusing to set binding emissions targets certainly won’t do anything to change it either.
“Even though I’m very skeptical of the science of GW, I still find some action to be practical ideas that I support.”
While I appreciate the sentiment, this really has no bearing on the subject at hand.
Look, I’ll fight for your right and anyone else’s right to free speech. This does not apply to concerted efforts amongst corporations funding disinformation campaigns to confuse the public about issues pertaining to its own well being, be it tobacco companies or (should the evidence fully bear out the story it points to so far) which fossil fuel corporations did the same.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Jon:
I’m a lawyer, not a scientist. It appears to me that you are trying to carve out an exception to freedom of speech based on the fear that some are spreading disinformation. A couple of comments:
1. Oliver Wendell Holmes opined that that the First Amendment protects free thought, “not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate.” Similarly, and perhaps even more pertinent, the great Judge Learned Hand also worried about partisan scholars, whom he called “advocates, agitators, crusaders, and propagandists.” Judge Hand declared, “You cannot raise the standard against oppression or leap into the breach to relieve injustice, and still keep an open mind to every disconcerting fact, or an open ear to the cold voice of doubt.”" I am satisfied,” the Judge warned, “that a scholar who tries to combine these parts sells his birthright for a mess of pottage.” His words cut both ways for those “scholars” on both sides of the AGW debate who ridicule the other side and attempt to stifle freedom of thought and expression.
2. It seems to me that you should welcome debate. If you detect fraudulent science, you should counter that with arguments that clearly expose the fraud rather than trying to stifle the speech. If the facts are ultimately on your side, your arguments and logic will prevail.
3. Worse, who decides if a purported scientific study is fraudulent? You? Hansen? It seems to me that the climate science community has great difficulty enforcing the open sharing of data, code, etc. without trying to act as the arbiters of the “true science.”
I’m not sure why you’re defending Hansen’s ridiculous comparison of studies skeptical of AGW with the tobacco companies’ pattern of deception regarding the health consequences of smoking and nicotine addiction. As a layman, it seems to me that a healthy debate is finally occuring on the theory and consequences of global climate change.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
rick says:
“I’m not sure why you’re defending Hansen’s ridiculous comparison of studies skeptical of AGW”
Apparently you haven’t read a thing I’ve said, nor Hansen’s statement in context.
“It appears to me that you are trying to carve out an exception to freedom of speech based on the fear that some are spreading disinformation.”
False.
“It seems to me that you should welcome debate.”
I certainly do.
“If you detect fraudulent science, you should counter that with arguments that clearly expose the fraud rather than trying to stifle the speech.”
My entire point is that Hansen isn’t calling for a “stifling of speech” but rather a trial based upon tobacco corporations-type disinformation campaigns. Read his own words. He isn’t calling for the stifling of free speech.
“Worse, who decides if a purported scientific study is fraudulent? You? Hansen? It seems to me that the climate science community has great difficulty enforcing the open sharing of data, code, etc. without trying to act as the arbiters of the “true science.”
This is easily side-stepped by examing the evidence. Hansen feel confident that there will be evidence. I do not make such claims, but based on the bulk documents I have seen snagged by whistle-blowers already, that doesn’t concern me much.
“I’m not sure why you’re defending Hansen’s ridiculous comparison of studies skeptical of AGW with the tobacco companies’ pattern of deception regarding the health consequences of smoking and nicotine addiction.”
You’re not sure because you obviously can’t or choose not to read his statement in the appropriate context.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Jon
You posted Hansen’s quote in context as follows
“Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including disguised funding to shape school textbook discussions.
CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”
And This is Rogers Interpretation of Hansen’s comment:
“…recently NASA’s James Hansen has famously called for trials of those who have provided support for the dissemination of skeptical perspectives on climate change, singling out executives in energy companies. ”
If I analyze his comment step by step:
(Hansen)
“Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future.”
He seems to say that “these special interest” are the only reason why so little has been accomplished toward this transition.
(Hansen)
“Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including disguised funding to shape school textbook discussions.”
I fail to see the difference with what Roger said:
(Roger)
“…those who have provided support for the dissemination of skeptical perspectives on climate change…”
How else would these company spread doubt about GW other than by providing the possibility to skeptic to voice their opinion outside the circle of journals or organization like the IPCC.
(Hansen)
“CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. ”
Now it seems that these “special interest” know that the scientist they support are lying.
(Hansen)
“In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”
Which confirms Roger’s interpretation:
“…recently NASA’s James Hansen has famously called for trials of those…, singling out executives in energy companies. ”
I believe that Roger’s interpretation is correct.
What I find disturbing about this comment is that those “special interest” should be put on trial before we know for certain that a crime has been committed. For the moment there is no clear certainty that the future will be catastrophic. There are no certainties that model are able to predict correctly what will happen 50 to 100 years ahead.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Jon-
In order for Hansen’s trials to occur, all skeptics would have to be discredited as being incorrect and Hansen’s (or IPCC’s) view has to be 100% correct. Comparing AGW to tobacco companies is comparing apples to oranges. And to suggest that those who spread a different point of view (whether propoganda or not) should be tried for crimes against humanity is ridiculous. As Sylvain mentioned above where is the crime?
I believe Hansen has been shouting about the coming apocolypes for almost twenty years and the world IMO has not gone off the deep end. And until we better understand the entire climate process (which I think we are far from) all the hubris from the AGW crowd is just more noise in an ever changing world.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Jon-
In order for Hansen’s trials to occur, all skeptics would have to be discredited as being incorrect and Hansen’s (or IPCC’s) view has to be 100% correct. Comparing AGW to tobacco companies is comparing apples to oranges. And to suggest that those who spread a different point of view (whether propoganda or not) should be tried for crimes against humanity is ridiculous. As Sylvain mentioned above where is the crime?
I believe Hansen has been shouting about the coming apocalypse for almost twenty years and the world IMO has not gone off the deep end. And until we better understand the entire climate process (which I think we are far from) all the hubris from the AGW crowd is just more noise in an ever changing world.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Sylvain,
“I fail to see the difference with what Roger said:
(Roger)
“…those who have provided support for the dissemination of skeptical perspectives on climate change…”
How else would these company spread doubt about GW other than by providing the possibility to skeptic to voice their opinion outside the circle of journals or organization like the IPCC.”
The difference is the comparison of the methods to those of the tobacco companies. For example, Exxon tossing a few tens of thousands to a free market think tank in order for that think tank to press the message that the markets should be trusted to provide the solution is one thing. Exxon giving money to the same think tank to deliberately confuse the public as to the dangers of greenhouse emissions by running a “They call it pollution, we call it life” campaign is another.
The key to the context of Hansen’s statement, which Roger consistently leaves out, is the tie-in to the tobacco wars.
Jerry,
“In order for Hansen’s trials to occur, all skeptics would have to be discredited as being incorrect and Hansen’s (or IPCC’s) view has to be 100% correct.”
This is patently false. Are you even reading what I or Hansen actually said? This has nothing to do with individual skeptics, let alone “all” of them. This is however exactly the way that Lomborg is presenting it, and I wanted to make sure such a misrepresentation didn’t take hold here as well.
“Comparing AGW to tobacco companies is comparing apples to oranges.”
By this do you mean “comparing corporations that funneled money into front groups in order to cause doubt among the public over the threat to the public good their product caused to tobacco companies”? If so, I’ll politely disagree. And two veterans of the tobacco wars are confident enough that the tactics have been similar that they are leading a lawsuit on behalf of Kivalina.
“And to suggest that those who spread a different point of view (whether propoganda or not) should be tried for crimes against humanity is ridiculous.”
They aren’t being accused of simply “spreading a different point of view”. They are being accused of engaging in a systematic and deliberate effort to mislead the public about the dangers their products pose to the public good.
“As Sylvain mentioned above where is the crime?”
There are a number of crimes that could fit, I’ve listed some above. Whether or not one believes that in aggregate they amount to crimes against humanity is a different animal altogether. The point that I keep trying to drive that apparently doesn’t seem to be sticking is that in Hansen’s opinion, you and everyone else in the world are free to express your skepticism over something- but that companies that knowingly attempted to mislead the public as the tobacco companies did should be held accountable. This is quite obviously not an issue of stifling the free speech of citizens.
“I believe Hansen has been shouting about the coming apocalypse for almost twenty years”
You are free to believe whatever you want. That doesn’t make your beliefs correct.
“and the world IMO has not gone off the deep end.”
Who said that by 2008 the world “would go off the deep end”? Strawman much?
July 24th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Jon-
There is considerable interest here in what expression you think should be restricted or illegal. Unfortunately, your discussion is so vague as to make it hard to understand what you are saying, so perhaps you can answer the following questions.
You cite the CEI campaign “CO2 is life” as an example of expression that you think is or should be illegal. But if I state that “CO2 is life” you apparently think that is OK. Correct?
The fact that CEI received money from Exxon and used it when stating “CO2 is life” together makes the expression illegal? So you would recommend charging the Exxon and CEI officials with what? Or just Exxon?
Perhaps you could share the general principle here that you are invoking. Reference to a specific law would be helpful.
Again, I am trying to understand your point. You complain that I am not taking up the case of tobacco, and I am not as I previously said that I did not want to follow red herrings such as libel or perjury. The subject under discussion on this thread is political expression, so lets keep the focus there and not wander off topic, as interesting as those subjects may be.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:12 am
“Exxon giving money to the same think tank to deliberately confuse the public as to the dangers of greenhouse emissions by running a “They call it pollution, we call it life” campaign is another.”
How does “They call it pollution, we call it life” mislead the public?
Please rank these worlds in total biomass:
1) The world of the most recent ice age,
2) The present world, and
3) A world that has double the present atmospheric CO2 concentration, and is 1-3 degrees Celsius warmer.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Could you please, Jon, give an example on what corporate-funded deliberate disinformation you or Hansen think should be dragged into the courtrooms? I want an example of a statement that was demonstrable wrong when expressed, i.e. a lie.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:56 am
The work of some “tobacco scientists”:
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EAE03/01801/EAE03-A-01801.pdf
July 24th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Typical liberal behavior. One of their crown princes finally goes of his nut and says what he really thinks and then they have to fall all over themselves making excuses to defend the indefensible. The same thing happened with Clinton.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Just out of curiosity, have any tobacco execs been convicted, or even tried, for spreading disinformation?
July 24th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Jon – It seems to me the difference between tobacco and the fossil fuel industry is obvious. The tobacco companies had internally generated and externally generated data that proved that smoking caused health problems. They allegedly suppressed this information and then lied about it under oath. These scientifically based, documented health effects of smoking are in no way comparable to the projected impacts of fossil fuel derived CO2 in the future, especially based on the current state of climate change research. It is possible that 1) man-made CO2 may not have any measureable effect on global temperatures (i.e. the models are wrong), 2) it may have an effect but not produce any of the horrible effects that are projected by Hansen and his ilk, and 3) could actually be beneficial with regards to biomass growth or in other ways not known. So how are the energy companies able to mislead people about what may or may not happen?
July 24th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Perhaps Jon is busy with other matters. Or perhaps, as he has done before on several occasions at this site, he has just dropped by to levy allegations and then leave the conversation midstream. Do that a few times and you start to get a reputation. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he’ll reengage.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Or perhaps he feels that he has no argument to add or no way to clarify what most of us don’t understand.
On the subject of tobacco executive that have been caught lying under oath, I believe, though I may be mistaken, that they weren’t caught on the subject of health risk but on the subject of the nicotine addiction.
They new that nicotine made cigarettes addictive and even did research to enhanced that effect. Under oath they said that they didn’t know that nicotine was addictive which was a lie.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Thanks, Sylvain. Being “caught lying under oath” would seem to be grounds for a perjury prosecution. Were any of them convicted?
July 24th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
“Perhaps Jon is busy with other matters.”
Well, yes. It happens.
“Or perhaps, as he has done before on several occasions at this site, he has just dropped by to levy allegations and then leave the conversation midstream. Do that a few times and you start to get a reputation. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he’ll reengage.”
That’s terribly considerate of you. Should I presume that the times where I have responded to you and you didn’t respond in a day or two if at all (e.g. the Gore-Nargis topic, the Pachauri topic) are indicative of your character?
Classy. Mighty classy.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
It is amusing also that if less than 12 hours, or in this case less than nine, go by it is presumed one has “disengaged”.
I have other obligations from time to time, as I assume the rest of you do. I’ll presume that this will serve as a place-holder to prevent further speculation?
July 24th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Jon- I look forward to your reengagement.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Hunpecked
I don’t believe they have been prosecuted for it, but I’m not sure. If not they should have been.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Roger was seen conversing with Republicans? Well that’s it for you, Pielke. Your credibility just evaporated, utterly. I’m all for Free Speech too, but there are limits; there is a boundary which may not be transgressed and you bounded over it like a March hare.
And a Professor from CU! Is nothing sacred? As the gentleman above wisely noted, the University has the right, nay, the duty, to police its members, both personally and professionally. Summary sacking and professional defrockment seem entirely inadequate, but alas, the University’s reach extends (for now) only as far as its demense.
No matter; an example must be made. Those like Pielke who abuse the sacred right of Free Expression in flagrant converse with Republicans are engaged in deceptions every bit as pernicious as those propagated by the Evil Energy Cartel or Big Tobacco: They confer, however minutely, legitimacy to Republicanism. Surely, no reasonable person would disagree.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
If tobacco execs haven’t been prosecuted for their nefarious activities, it seems odd that Hansen and Jon would try to associate them with their case for trying oilmen: “The oil guys should be tried because they’re as bad as the tobacco guys!” “Uh, the tobacco guys weren’t convicted of anything.” Oops.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602374.html
“. . . Can lie to Congress. Tobacco company executives stood in front of the august body in 1994 and, under oath, said that nicotine was nonaddictive and that they knew of no studies linking cigarettes to cancer. The Justice Department tried to prove that the suits had lied, but the executives insisted that these were their personal viewpoints.”
July 25th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Shocking that people with an education are having this conversation
July 25th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Hi Jon,
(Assuming you return),
“They aren’t being accused of simply “spreading a different point of view”. They are being accused of engaging in a systematic and deliberate effort to MISLEAD the public about the dangers their products pose to the public good” – Emphasis added.
Your statement “mislead the public” is the crux of the problem and why you’re going to continue to find it impossible to get your point across, or understand the other posters:
Having not paid detailed attention to the lawsuits my understanding is that the tobacco companies got themselves in trouble because they deliberately supressed medical evidence that smoking causes, and or increases the liklihood of cancer.
With regards to climate change the established facts are not as clear. The earth has been warming, and the majority hypothesis is that CO2 is the trigger of other positive feedbacks. CO2 radiates heat, it should cause warming, it does cause it in a closed test, but nobody has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt how much net impact it has had or will have on our climate.
If you dispute that point and believe it has been 100% proven and that the energy companies knew this then yes they would have “deliberately mislead the public”. However the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 has not been proven to be xx. There are unanswered questions and legimate scientists who question the net impact of CO2.
It would seem to me that by your reasoning, somebody who discusses a 20 foot rise in sea level by 2100, as opposed to the IPCC’s lower estimate, should also face consequences. Or is “misleading the public” for the “good of mankind” ok?
July 25th, 2008 at 7:46 am
“Jon- I look forward to your reengagement.”
Oh do grow up. Please.
July 25th, 2008 at 7:47 am
“So how are the energy companies able to mislead people about what may or may not happen?”
A tobacco company has no evidence that a given cigarette will cause cancer. A pharmaceutical company can have evidence that while there is no direct causal link as of yet known, a statistically significant number of test subjects taking a drug of theirs experienced severe medical complications.
Neither of these scenarios absolves the corporations in question of their obligation to not mislead the public, while neither deal in absolute certainty.
July 25th, 2008 at 7:54 am
“You cite the CEI campaign “CO2 is life” as an example of expression that you think is or should be illegal. But if I state that “CO2 is life” you apparently think that is OK. Correct?”
I was using that as an example of something that if done to deliberately mislead the public would presumably be illegal. I have no direct knowledge of the specifics of that particular campaign. I only assume that it is deliberately misleading because it is laughably absurd if it was created earnestly.
“The fact that CEI received money from Exxon and used it when stating “CO2 is life” together makes the expression illegal?”
No. The intent is the point. If ExxonMobil was giving money to CEI to deliberately mislead the public it would be presumably prosecutable. If Exxon just threw a wad of cash at CEI for no particular reason and CEI independently decided to create such ads, I doubt that Exxon could be held responsible.
“So you would recommend charging the Exxon and CEI officials with what? Or just Exxon?”
Depends obviously on what the evidence justifies.
“Perhaps you could share the general principle here that you are invoking. Reference to a specific law would be helpful.”
I’ve referred to a few. Civil conspiracy, concert of action, fraud, etc.
“Again, I am trying to understand your point. You complain that I am not taking up the case of tobacco, and I am not as I previously said that I did not want to follow red herrings such as libel or perjury.”
No, Roger, I complain that you keep stripping the context from Hansen’s remarks in order to construe them as being more encompassing than they actually are.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Sorry Jon, you are 100% wrong.
There is no law prohibiting ExxonMobil (or anyone else) giving money to a group in support of its public outreach, even if the content of outreach is, in your view, mine, or many others, misleading whether willfully or not.
There is no legal provision under what you cite as “Civil conspiracy, concert of action, fraud, etc.”.
Not only is there no such prohibition, but quite the opposite, freedom of political expression has been consistently upheld under the U.S. legal system under the First Amendment. You have us chasing a red herring.
If you are instead calling for the creation of new legal sanctions against such expression, then we are back to where my post started. Once again I stand 100% behind my characterization of Hansen’s remarks, which were:
“For example, recently NASA’s James Hansen has famously called for trials of those who have provided support for the dissemination of skeptical perspectives on climate change, singling out executives in energy companies.”
You have been repeated asked to cite a specific law or even a precedent for such trials and you have only offered vague generalities. The reason is there is no such law.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:44 am
“There is no legal provision under what you cite as ‘Civil conspiracy, concert of action, fraud, etc.’.”
Wait, wait, wait. Are you claiming that no corporation has ever been tried under civil conspiracy, concert of action, fraud, etc. for misleading the public about its product(s)?
July 25th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Jon-
We are now squarely into classic trolling behavior.
You can re-read this thread and see that this post is about public, political speech. It is not about libel, perjury, or even commercial speech (e.g., advertising) or specific product claims (e.g., health benefits of pharmaceuticals).
So the answer to your question is that no, I am aware of no CEO who has ever been prosecuted for his/her company providing money to an advocacy group in support of the messages that they wish to share with the public, under any U.S. law.
Remember, you started this conversation by accusing me of misrepresenting Jim Hansen’s comments because you had some unique knowledge about what he actually meant in his statement — as opposed to what he actually said and I characterized. It turns out that there is in fact no basis for what you say he actually meant, as you cannot point to a single case, precedent, or law in support of your claim. Should you wish to provide an example of a CEO whose company provided money to a third party for public outreach who was subsequently prosecuted (much less convicted), then I will stand corrected.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:52 am
“We are now squarely into classic trolling behavior.”
I’d say that line was crossed at 8:05pm yesterday.
“You can re-read this thread and see that this post is about public, political speech. It is not about libel, perjury, or even commercial speech (e.g., advertising) or specific product claims (e.g., health benefits of pharmaceuticals).”
By narrowing the focus to such, you are necessarily excluding Hansen’s comments, which I am fine with. Hansen’s comment was clearly much closer to “product claims” than political speech.
“Remember, you started this conversation by accusing me of misrepresenting Jim Hansen’s comments because you had some unique knowledge about what he actually meant in his statement — as opposed to what he actually said and I characterized.”
We are arguing at cross purposes because you keep asking for a law under which the persons Hansen refers to should be tried when he names it explicitly. Obviously no executive has been tried for crimes against humanity, so precedent doesn’t apply. This all started because I objected to your divorcing Hansen’s comment from its context- it doesn’t take “unique knowledge of what he actually meant” to see that he isn’t referring to speech itself. All it takes is the full context of his statement. Unless you honestly believe that he was talking about trying any and all persons that publicly expressed a skeptical point of view or facilitated such???
July 25th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Jon-
All I have to go on is what Hansen actually said, the text of which is available at Dot Earth:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/are-big-oil-and-big-coal-climate-criminals/
Here is what Hansen said:
“Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link.”
Specifically — “SPREAD DOUBT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING”
Yes, I very much interpret this reference to spreading doubt as a reference to speech itself, and specifically speech about the certainty global warming. Had product safety been on Hansen’s mind he might of included the words “product safety” in his comments. Hansen continues:
“Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming.”
“METHODS” of what? Of spreading doubt about global warming. Spreading doubt is exactly what Hansen is talking about. He continues:
“CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual.”
“WHAT THEY ARE DOING” Which is what? Spreading doubt about global warming. Hansen continues:
“In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”
So what should these trials be about. SPREADING DOUBT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. This specific type of speech is what Hansen is talking about in his remarks.
Now you are free to believe that Hansen is really talking about “product liability” or whatever, I think he is talking about the criminalization of “spreading doubt about global warming” by the CEOs of energy companies, specifically Exxon and Peabody. Of course if he were concerned about representations of product safety he could participate in a class action suit under existing laws, rather than make up some new sort of silly illegal act under international law. Regardless, your strident assertion of a “mischaracterization” on my part remains empty.
I’ve exhausted my side of this particular exchange, should you wish a final word on this subject it is all yours.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Roger, you see: Hansen wants to criminalize “SPREADING DOUBT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.”
Hansen said: “Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link.”
The tobacco reference provides the necessary context for rational human beings to see that Hansen is not condemning the voicing or promotion of skeptical views, but doing so in a SPECIFIC manner- in the way that tobacco companies did. I find it impossible to believe that someone can have this pointed out to him repeatedly and still come away with the view that Hansen was talking about speech, even political speech. He literally invoked the tobacco wars as a specific example of what amount to product claims.
“I think he is talking about the criminalization of ’spreading doubt about global warming’ by the CEOs of energy companies, specifically Exxon and Peabody.”
He says, in his opinion, that CEOs of energy corporations KNOWINGLY misleading the public on global warming should be tried.
Is he talking about the criminalization of a certain kind of speech or talking about corporations misleading the public about the side effects of their product?
C’mon. This isn’t difficult.
“Regardless, your strident assertion of a “mischaracterization” on my part remains empty.”
You flatly recharacterized his statement to be much more expansive than it was.
“I’ve exhausted my side of this particular exchange, should you wish a final word on this subject it is all yours.”
You’re not disengaging on me, are you?
July 25th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Roger, Roger; why do you continue to get goobered up with this tar-baby? Is there some incipient masochism at work?
The basic issue is dead simple: Hansen’s accusation rests squarely on the assumption that he has (or there is) demonstrated a causal link between the use hydrocarbon fuels and dangerous climate change. He hasn’t. Therefore, his statements are merely libelous.
The Big Tobacco example is no example at all – it’s a cherry-red herring. Big Tobacco was found to have knowingly tried to mis-lead the public.* Were Hansen of sound mind, he might have a care about endorsing such tactics, as he could well find himself on the receiving end of the very same accusations (but wait: he’s a scientist, he’s excruciatingly enlightened, and he’s a government employee; please pardon my momentary naiveté).
Until and unless the fuel companies are proven to have deliberately mis-lead the public, they have every right to press the minority viewpoint; they have every right to a voice in policy (we’ll only briefly mention the issue of comparative spending on AGW between the fuel companies & the environmental lobby at this point – even one inconvenient fact per thread is apparently one too many for some).
I suggest you paste this Confuciounism across the top of your monitor:
Argue with a fool and there are two fools arguing.
________________________
*Maybe. I have not researched this for myself, which is the only way I’m convinced of anything these days.
July 26th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
The implication in Hansen’s statement is that the “special interests” KNOW that he (Hansen) is right about global warming being a coming catastrophe, and so when they “spread doubt about global warming” they are being deliberately misleading. There does not seem to be any place in his worldview for the possibility of an honest disagreement. Any disagreement has to be because the other side is dishonest, or even evil. Many people on both sides of this issue have this sort of view. That is why it is so difficult to have a satisfying discussion of the subject.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Mike say,”There does not seem to be any place in his [Hansen's]worldview for the possibility of an honest disagreement. Any disagreement has to be because the other side is dishonest, or even evil.”
I think you have revealed a key unstated assumption in Hansen’s comment.
Perhaps another implicit one is that the CEOs are guilty of “crimes against humanity” just for continuing to operate fossil fuel companies. They are not “moving heavily into renewable energies,” but continue to enable our addiction to fossil fuels–just as the tobacco companies did to death sticks–by continuing to do “business as usual.”
But really, maybe everyone is just taking Hansen’s comment too literally and parsing it to death. Don’t you think he might just have been using a rhetorical device–a bit of hyperbole to get across his strong sentiments?
July 27th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Roger, it would be a kindness if you fixed your blog, so not so many posts are lost in the ether, and so trolls like me and Jon know when to check back. Unless you are deliberately trying to keep the barriers to posting high, that is.
A shorter version of my comments:
1. You provide no helpful advice for scientists. What, never criticize others who flagrantly misuse scienc, even if your own good name is at stake? Are scientists to be seen but not heard, unless through papers and specially sanctioned fora?
2. Politics is very much a sophisticated game of insiders delibately manipulating information and public opinion for private gain. Are scientists simply to ignore this, and leave the field to the PR masters?
3. It`s too bad you`re feeling pressure at CU, but that`s NOT the same as scientists complaining about the Swindle polemic, nor Jim Hansen complaining about fossil fuel execs.
4. As for Jim Hansen, he`s not the government, is he? He might be hungering for legal sanction against a few executives for funding the indirect misinformation campaigns that we know have been underway, but he`s not lawmaker, prosecutor, judge or jury, is he? He`s just an individual, expressing his own opinion, to which he is entitled.
5. Do you recognize the difference between legal sanction and moral sanction? Until now, the fossil fuel firms have very successfully blocked policy changes on the legal front – even the disclosure of information that would aid adaptation (that we are now getting 4+ years late – so you shouldn`t be surprised that the result has been pressure building up on the moral suasion side. If you don`t like that heat, then maybe you can help push for policy changes, instead of simply criticizing scientists (who are understandably frustrated) whenever they criticize the abuse of science.
6. In the big picture human societies solve common problems by developing complex rules, implemented and enforced by community moral suasion (such solutions might shade into “private property”). Anybody who thinks we can address commons like the atmosphere, the oceans, etc. without moral persuasion simply doesn`t understand how human communities interact with their environments. Presumably this is not an insight new to you.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:19 am
TokyoTom
1. Type your comments into a text editor and save them. Then cut and paste into Roger’s comments box. You’ll never lose another comment again.
2. When has Roger ever suggested scientiests ignore the reality of politics, or the fact that politicians spin? As far as I can tell, he hasn’t even suggested scientists should never spin. He just points out that scientists can spin, and points out when they appear to be doing so. He also points out that when scientists spin science, the public will notice they are spinning, and respond accordingly.
3. Did Roger say scientists phoning CU to pressure him to shut up about things is exactly the same as their complainging about Swindel or Hansen’s complaining about fossil fuels. (To be presice, what you call “complaints” involved filing a law suit to impose legal sanctions for the airing of “Swindle” and the Hansen’s complaints seem to be calling for criminal sanctions. ) Of course the three aren’t the same. But they are distinct examples of different methods being used to limit people’s ablity to express their opinions in public. That is: These are different ways activists are trying to supress American’s rights under the first Amendement, and whatever right individuals may have in the UK.
4. Jim Hansen is not the government. Of course he is entlitled to express his opinions. Others, like Roger, are entitled to criticize him when he appears to be calling for suspension of civil liberties guaranteed under our constitution. The precise right Hansen appears to suspect is freedom of speech. Unlike Roger who relied on moral suasian and merely criticizes Hansen, Hansen calls for legal sanctions against those with whom he disagrees.
5. Do you recognise the difference between legal and moral suasion? Roger’s criticism of Hansen would fall under the category of attempt to exercise moral suasion. Hansen’s call for criminal trials would fall under the category of suggesting one should use legal wuation.
6. Has Roger complained about people trying to exercise moral suasion? As far as I can tell, he’s complained about people calling for criminal or professional sanctions against those who exercise their first amendment rights under the US constitution!
July 27th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Tokyo Tom-
You write: “You provide no helpful advice for scientists.”
I wrote a book offering advice to scientists in policy and politics called The Honest Broker. Whether or not that advice is helpful is another matter;-)
Jim Hansen has every right to speak his views, in fact I was an early defender of exactly this right on this blog, see my post of Jan 26, 2006 titled “Let Jim Hansen Speak”.
But the distinction that you miss is that Hansen is calling for the criminalization of speech (“legal suasion” in your words) by certain individuals. Were he to simply stick to talking about coal trains (“moral suasion” in your words)and such I’d simply think that his actions were counterproductive, rather than a step down the slippery slope of authoritarianism.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Also, I’ve seen the mock up of our upgraded blog, and commenting will soon be much easier. Stay tuned!!
July 27th, 2008 at 10:00 am
TokyoTom
You write:
“5. Do you recognize the difference between legal sanction and moral sanction? Until now, the fossil fuel firms have very successfully blocked policy changes on the legal front – even the disclosure of information that would aid adaptation (that we are now getting 4+ years late – so you shouldn`t be surprised that the result has been pressure building up on the moral suasion side. If you don`t like that heat, then maybe you can help push for policy changes, instead of simply criticizing scientists (who are understandably frustrated) whenever they criticize the abuse of science.”
Yes people can be frustrated that their fear are not taken as seriously as they think other people should (I’ve been in that situation and a colleague died while working because nobody listened).
But is the frustration directed at the right people. In Hansen’s mind, CEO’s, of fossil fuel industries, have knowingly and single handedly defeated the agenda he personally supports.
Roger pointed out here, and even Steve McIntyre at Climate audit, that the debate in science isn’t a reason to delay action.
Is Hansen frustration really toward these CEO’s? Isn’t it toward his and IPCC failure to convince peoples? (like in my case earlier)
Couldn’t inaction be caused by his own lack of valid argument?
Couldn’t inaction be caused by the inability of “alarmist” to realize/downplay the difficulty of the task ahead?
Couldn’t inaction be caused because no one really knows what the future holds?
To call for trial of CEO’s Hansen put the blame of his failure on others.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:03 am
Luci, thanks for your comments.
1. Good advice. But some fools never learn.
2. “When has Roger ever suggested scientiests ignore the reality of politics, or the fact that politicians spin?” When have I suggested that this is his advice?
“As far as I can tell, he hasn’t even suggested scientists should never spin. He just points out that scientists can spin, and points out when they appear to be doing so. He also points out that when scientists spin science, the public will notice they are spinning, and respond accordingly.”
He hasn’t done this here. It’s good that you keep careful track of what he HAS said, so you can better interpret what he intends when he’s being rather vague. But I suspect that much of his actual and desired audience could understand him better if he more directly states his views, with fewer assumptions that people understand what they may not have read.
3. “Did Roger say scientists phoning CU to pressure him to shut up about things is exactly the same as their complainging about Swindel or Hansen’s complaining about fossil fuels”? No, but he didn’t exactly distinguish them, either, which was my point.
“Of course the three aren’t the same. But they are distinct examples of different methods being used to limit people’s ablity to express their opinions in public. That is: These are different ways activists are trying to supress American’s rights under the first Amendement, and whatever right individuals may have in the UK.”
Yes, but no. We all live in societies, so our words have consequences. The consequences that worry me most are the ones involving state sanction, but you and Roger both fail to make any important distinctions. We are not all free to say whatever we want, whenever we want to, and corporations have even less freedom when it comes to political speech and economic speech, both of which are highly regulated. In the case of Swindle, it is the British government that regulates broadcasting – in an ideal world, there would be less of it; the complaining scientists didn’t create the forum in which they complained, but if such forum did not exist, private rights of action for fraud or misrepresentation coud be made in court: would these also be wrong and oppressive?
4. “Others, like Roger, are entitled to criticize him when he appears to be calling for suspension of civil liberties guaranteed under our constitution.”
Of course.
“The precise right Hansen appears to suspect is freedom of speech. Unlike Roger who relied on moral suasian and merely criticizes Hansen, Hansen calls for legal sanctions against those with whom he disagrees.”
I’m with you in hoping we move more toward a society with less government and fewer state-enforced rules, but that’s a libertarian aim; most, like Jim Hansen and Peabody Coal, seem to prefer less social pressure and more formal rules, which might easily be drafted to prohibit corporations from engaging in behavior of the type that Hansen criticises. Here’s to more moral opprobrium, and less rules!
5. “Hansen’s call for criminal trials would fall under the category of suggesting one should use legal wuation.”
Hansen might be calling for legal sanction, but since he has no power to create, prosecute, judge or enforce laws, isn’t it rather clear that he’s exerting moral suasion, rather than legal pressure?
6. Has Roger complained about people trying to exercise moral suasion? As far as I can tell, he’s complained about people calling for criminal or professional sanctions against those who exercise their first amendment rights under the US constitution!
July 29th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Roger, I look forward to your new and improved blog, and of course wish it every success.
Meanwhile I will continue my habit of inputting directly into the comment box, and occasionally taking Lucia’s advice of backing up before hitting “Post”.
Thanks for your response.
1. First, I understand that your book has been well-received and, judging from what I have seen previously on your blog, have every reason to suppose that it contains useful advice for scientists. My point was that your general hand-wringing here about “freedom of expression” in three very different contexts provides very little in the way of analysis of the similarlities or dissimilarities of the three situations, or of in the way of useful insights or advice to scientists.
As I noted on a previous post, debates over government policy are frequently contests by differing interests to review benefits at the expense of others, with “science” and “facts” being used as a political football by each side to score points. Instead of providing specific advice to scientists as to how they can avoid, reduce or otherwise effectively deal with being used as a political football, it seems (to me at least) that you offer no sympathy to scientists generally but instead to criticize them, for a political game that they did not create and are largely pawns of more sophisticated and powerful interests.
It’s puzzling that you rarely seem to have a harsh word for any of the real economic interests plaing the climate change game (it’s money, after all, that is the bane of politics), but in any event, perhaps you’d care to share with your blog readers and others an occasional positive suggestion for scientists, along with the ongoing criticism? Sometimes a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.
2. Second, as for Jim Hansen, you say “the distinction that [I] miss is that Hansen is calling for the criminalization of speech (“legal suasion” in your words) by certain individuals.” While you touch on very important issues, it seems to me that you have them rather confused (not only in the case of Dr. Hansen, but also in the case of Swindle).
Let me make it clear that I have criticized Dr. Hansen’s call for “public trials” as inappropriated, wrong-headed and counterproductive – see http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/06/26/jim-hansen-warns-of-slow-motion-disaster-and-welcomes-future-public-trials-of-fossil-ceos-for-buying-government-delay.aspx – but what he’s suggested is that certain corporate executives be responsible, not for their own speech but for corporate behavior – primarily, the payment of others to make science and policy arguments in ways designed to influence policy debate while making it appear that such corporations have no connection to such arguments.
If Hansen is referring to direct speech of executives, then “free speech” issues would be directly implicated, but otherwise his criticism
relates primarily to the “freedom of speech” that societies give to corporations, which are not individuals but creatures of the state, and secondarily to the liability of executives for the corporate actions that they may direct or approve. These questions are subsets of the broader question of what “freedom of expression” is, as protected by our constitution and laws.
As Jon rightly pointed out, nowhere is “freedom of speech” absolute, nor does the protection of free speech mean that the speakers have no liability whatsoever for the content or purposes of their speech. Nor are corporations guaranteed as much “free speech” as citizens – in fact, for quite some time in the US corporations were not considered to have any rights to “free speech” at all. We still closely regulate corporate (even religious) behavior affecting political/policy matters (from direct political endorsement and contributions to talking behind doors with officials and politicians), we prohibit corporations from talking too much with competitors, we hold corporations responsible for false and misleading statements, etc.
I would agree with you that what corporations have done so far regarding climate PR efforts probably doesn’t violate any statute or regulation, but I wouldn’t be sure of that. But I would say that there is no reason in our law and jurisprudence relating to free speech for a current protection given to rather obvious political meddling by corporations be etched in stone. In fact, given the corrupting influence of corporate money, we might be better off if corporations had less free speech protection (as in the days when corporations had much less power), not more.
Where we do agree is that probably Jim Hansen’s words don’t actually help his cause. Most people can’t be bothered to think clearly about “free speech” and Hansen is no PR expert, so he plays into the hands of the powerful whom he attacks, who can turn such attacks into ammo to discredit Dr. Hansen – such as this masterful job of disinformation by Vic Spec of Peabody Coal that Andy Revkin posted at Dot Earth: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/06/28/big-coal-is-very-concerned-about-how-jim-hansen-is-quot-cheapening-the-dialogue-quot.aspx.
3. Dr. Hansen aside, I’m surprised you didn’t describe more carefully what your concerns were about the criticism of “Swindle”. Martin Durkin and Chaneel 4 had plenty of free speech – noone stopped them from saying anything. Rather, the question was one of consequences for what one says. Presumably scientists who felt misquoted or misrepresented by the program had legitimate grounds for making complaints? What would you have them do? Is a lawsuit okay, but not a contribution to a complaint to a regulator? As for criticism by other scientists, what venues are fine, if any? Should scientists refuse to participate in any “amicus” briefs before any court or regulatory body? Should scientists never deign even to publicly criticise – in journals, the press, etc. – the speech of others?
It is the fact that you have really provided so little analysis to go with your criticism that troubles me.
Regards,
Tom
July 29th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Sylvain:
It’s interesting that you can report that “Roger pointed out here, and even Steve McIntyre at Climate audit, that the debate in science isn’t a reason to delay action” and then ask a series of questions, all without pondering – could Jim Hansen be right in criticising fossil fuel company executives for preventing the US at the federal level from not only developing any meaningful climate policy, but even for preventing – for YEARS – the disclosure of climate change data and analysis that were mandated by law much earlier?
As I noted in a response to Vic Spec of Peabody Coal, Dr. Hansen is “just castigating the fossil fuel firms for what is rather pedestrian (and undeniable) in the modern world – that powerful economic interests have no qualms about ignoring public and common interests for the sake of private gain, or about employing whatever tool they can to influence government action via both politicians and public opinion.”
The fossil fuel firms are not all-powerful; there have been lots of efforts made to change policy at the state and local levels, and there is a large collection of various interests who now seem set to turn policy in ways that may be disadvantageous to coal and other fossil fuels. But there’s no denying the fossil fuel firms have had the inside ear of the administration and have effectively block policy changes at the federal level up until now.
July 29th, 2008 at 5:54 am
Tom-
You ask:
“perhaps you’d care to share with your blog readers and others an occasional positive suggestion for scientists, along with the ongoing criticism?”
Sure – how about:
Don’t try to limit the freedom of expression of others using procedural or legal tactics.
For plenty more advice, go get yourself a copy of The Honest Broker, maybe a few more for your friends, family, and colleagues
July 29th, 2008 at 11:18 am
TokyoTom,
If the debate in science shouldn’t influence policy, then Hansen cannot be right. Thus he is showing frustration toward his own failure to convince the public of the urgency of the matter.
What delays introductions of policies at federal level is the simple fact that there is no agreement on what these policies should be.
I don’t remember the fossil fuel industries being against the Wind Farm project near the Kennedy’s estate. What I do remember is opposition to carbon taxes and/or market.
Also isn’t Hansen giving his approval to biofuels, one of the main reason for the soaring food prices, which many third world country can now ill afford.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Sylvain: “What delays introductions of policies at federal level is the simple fact that there is no agreement on what these policies should be.”
Thanks for such a refreshingly simple and naive view of politics! And the “lack of agreement” has nothing to do with who is benefitted by and who’s ox is gored by various policies, or their relative power and political pull?
If you really believe that, then surely you’d also believe that the reason that the wind farm project near the Kennedys’ estate has been held up just because of the merits or lack of merit of the proposed project?
It is good that you’ve noted the opposition by fossil fuel industries to carbon taxes and/or cap and trade. Is it simply because they think such policies have no merit?
I’m sorry, but just what does Hansen’s alleged supoort for biofuels and the supposed linkage of such biofuels to grain prices have to do with the role of fossil fuel interests in blocking meaningful climate change policy changes? All you’ve done is point to another major corporate welfare hog – Archer Daniels Midland – and the willingness of Congresscritters and enviros to feed it.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Roger, your advice, “Don’t try to limit the freedom of expression of others using procedural or legal tactics?”, is empty, because you can’t be bothered to say what it means.
Here you’ve provided three examples, but can’t be bothered to parse through them, instead advising all blog readers and scientists to READ MY BOOK! Is this really the way you expect to be effective?
July 29th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
“Thanks for such a refreshingly simple and naive view of politics! And the “lack of agreement” has nothing to do with who is benefitted by and who’s ox is gored by various policies, or their relative power and political pull?”
Of course, each group lobby for the policy that they think they can benefit the most from. The first thing they think about is their own welfare, not how much their policy will benefit the earth. This is the main reason why they are disagreeing. This is also why European countries, who have the most to gain by a Kyoto protocol type of approach are swearing only by and the US who have nothing to gain from it, reject it.
“If you really believe that, then surely you’d also believe that the reason that the wind farm project near the Kennedys’ estate has been held up just because of the merits or lack of merit of the proposed project?”
I believe that the Kennedy’s opposed the wind farm project because they would have to bear inconvenience from it being built. I pretty sure that they would have been all for it if it had been built near a zone where poor folks live. They would undoubtedly have supported the expatriation of these same folks.
The question about the biofuel has not link with Hansen’s comment. It has to do with policy not having the desired effect even if Hansen support it. You can look at this text on page 9 point 3 to have an idea that he sees it has essential:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/StateOfWild_20080428.pdf
My point is that AGW should create a possible food crisis in the future. Biofuels are creating a crisis now, yet the future crisis is a catastrophe while the present one is unnoticed.
July 30th, 2008 at 4:51 am
Tom-
I’ve given you a general principle and illustrated it with three concrete examples in this post, and have expressed similar concerns about the Bush Administration, Royal Society, and most recently the Free Enterprise Action Fund. I’d be happy to parse them even further if you’d like to ask specific questions. The general point seems fairly straightforward and obvious — In political debate engage the issues, don’t seek to muzzle your opponent. But if that is unclear, ask a specific question.
On my book, yes, in fact I did write it to be read — the more widely, the better as far as I’m concerned — and to that end I don’t mind shilling for it
July 30th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Sylvain: “Of course, each group lobby for the policy that they think they can benefit the most from. The first thing they think about is their own welfare, not how much their policy will benefit the earth.”
Thanks; now at last you’ve just said exactly what Jim Hansen has been saying – except he’s been saying that the fossil fuel firms have been very sophisticated, have alot of political pull and have obviously been successful in blocking changes from current policies (which just so happen to maximize their benefits).
Hansen’s support for biofuels extends only to “practices that enhance carbon
retention in the soil”; as corn does the opposite, it’s clear he isn’t encouraging ethanol. In any event, the recent contribution of clearly wasteful ethanol subsidies to increases in grain prices (of course the primary responsibility for bottlenecks in supply lies in developing country consumption subsidies and corrupt management) have NOTHING to do with the role of fossil fuel interests in blocking meaningful climate change policy changes. So thanks for the threadjack.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
“I’d be happy to parse them even further if you’d like to ask specific questions. The general point seems fairly straightforward and obvious — In political debate engage the issues, don’t seek to muzzle your opponent. But if that is unclear, ask a specific question.”
This is precious (artful), Roger. You’ve so far haven’t even begun to parse the examples you’ve raised, while Jon and I have drawn a number of distinctions that you have not and asked your views on them any number of times. Shall I give you a Cliff Notes version of my specific questions?
Your “positive” advice, “Don’t try to limit the freedom of expression of others using procedural or legal tactics?”, like your negative advice that “scientists and other academics [should not] be working for restrictions on the freedom of expression on climate change, or [for] sanctions for those expressing or allowing the expression of certain views” is empty, because you can’t be bothered to explore what it means (much less justify it) in any particular context.
But as you don’t seem inclined to explore how your suggestion plays out in particular situations, let me leave with a general comment: like any other “rights” (such as a right to carry a gun), a right to say what one one wants to say free of governmental restriction is not unlimited and does not imply that the speaker has no responsibility (informal or legal) for the consequences of exercising such a right. Each of the situtations you have mentioned is quite different as to whether the right to speak is being infringed (by government) and as to the consequences being sought.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
TokyoTom,
Lobby from both side of the fence are pressuring for actions that benefit them, and both side are sophisticated (for example presenting “an inconvenient truth” in school, look very similar to what Hansen is saying has being sophisticated.
Fossil industries to my knowledge don’t object to other source of energy like solar and or wind-farm.
Also, you have misread Hansen:
“Farming and forestry
practices that enhance carbon
retention in the soil and biosphere
must be supported.”
Then continue with:
“Biofuel power plants with carbon
sequestration can draw down
atmospheric carbon dioxide,…”
Nice try.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:34 am
Tom-
I didn’t see any questions in that last comment.
This situation seems pretty clear cut to me, so while I hear your frustration, I don’t really understand it. If you ask specific questions that I can try to answer, I’d be happy to try.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:30 am
Roger, you have offered this as your suggestion to scientists (Hansen, Swindle and Royal Society), academics (backdoor criticism of you)and others (Steven Milloy): “In political debate engage the issues, don’t seek to muzzle your opponent” and “Don’t try to limit the freedom of expression of others using procedural or legal tactics”.
That you think that this advice is “pretty clearcut”, in the face of my comments and those of Jon above, is a pretty good indication that you are not prepared to do any serious thinking on the topic, consider common distinctions or clarify your objections with those who do. Too bad; it makes it easier for those whom you seek to influence to discount what you have to say.
August 1st, 2008 at 7:04 am
Tom-
Thanks for your judgments about my ability to do any clear thinking. I’ve asked for specific questions, you’ve refused to offer them, and are now engaged in the old blog-hijack trick of baiting the host via insults and accusations. Your track record here suggests that you are being impersonated, but who knows;-)
In any case, I’ll repeat my offer to answer specific questions and provide the pointer to my book, which you need not of course read, but if you are indeed interested in a far more developed sense of my views on scientists in policy and politics that you will get on the blog, it is available.
However, especially as an anonymous poster, please don’t expect much in the way of substantive replies to hostile and rude comments. We encourage posters here to use their real names, focus on substance, and recognize that communication via blogs can be frustrating and difficult, but ultimately rewarding.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Roger, at July 27, 2008 07:42 AM and July 29, 2008 02:05 AM (as well as at July 29, 2008 02:03 AM via comments made to Lucia), I asked a number of questions and made a number of observations that you have almost completely disregarded.
I`m disappointed and frustrated with that, sure, but am not making any “accusations” or engaging in any “tricks”. As a test, please feel free to look through what I`ve written in those posts and confirm what you`ve responded to.
You are free to decline to respond, Roger; it`s your blog and of course you`ve got other things calling for your time, as we all do. Perhaps I`m being too hasty in concluding that you are declining to focus on substance, but I decline your invitation to repeat myself, for the same reasons.
As to what is “trollish”, “hostile” or “rude”, as well as “substantive”, you and other blog readers are entitled to come to your own judgments. I am also have to leave to your judgment whether my relative anonymity makes my comments any less worthy of consideration.
You, of course remain free at any time to ban anonymous commenters; until such time as you determine to withdraw that invitation, I will appreciate and be grateful for it.
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I revist this thread because it has occurred to me there are some thread-pertinent lessons that might be drawn from how it has gone rather sour.
It is of course somewhat ironic on a thread in which Roger stress the importance of freedom of expression to a productive political debate that Roger is rather quick to accuse his interlocutors of “classic trolling behavior”, of engaging in “the old blog-hijack trick of baiting the host via insults and accusations”, and of “hostile and rude comments”, as well as to imply that anonymous posters don’t deserve substantive replies.
While I don’t believe that Roger’s conclusions are justified, much less consistent with his concern for open debate, this is not my point. Rather, I want to note that this discussion illustrates that simply favoring “freedom of expression” tells us very little about how participants in the climate discussion – or any other political discussion – should behave.
Sometimes promoting and preserving open debate might even REQUIRE that blog administrators make hard decisions to silence disruptive and abusive commenters. Moreover, slander, libel and misstating the views of others (a la Swindle) may not only deserve sanction, but allowing it to go unchallenged may also put blog administrators at risk. Taking action to remove comments and ban or pre-screen certain comenters may adversely affect the “freedom of expresion” of those sanctioned, as well as causing others to self-censor. But beyond that, in my view at least (it’s not entitrely clear, as this is hosted by a government-funded university), this blog is Roger’s personal forum and not a government-owned “public space”, and he would be wholly entitled to ban whomever he wishes, simply because it pleases him to do so. He is also free to note when people comment anonymously, or to require all posters to register and comment in their own name; this has obvious parallels to the criticisms of Exxon by the Royal Society and Jim Hansen for contributing to the public debate not solely in its own name, but by paying for others to do so without attribution.
In short, limiting freedom of expression or imposing sanctions on abuses of it may justified or even necessary to enhancing a political discussion. One may be resolutely in favor of “freedom of expression”, while justifiably favoring, acknowledging or imposing restrictions on it oneself.
Roger, I do hope you’ll think that this comment is substantive and fair, and neither hostile nor abusive.
Regards,
Tom
August 4th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Tom- Thanks for your comment. The issue here is not whether there are limitations to the freedom of expression in the abstract. Certainly there are, and some have been discussed on this thread.
The issue is a much more concrete and focused question — should scientists use formal (e.g., legal) mechanisms or even seek to create new formal mechanisms to limit what can be said on the issue of climate change?
I think that the answer is no, for reasons I’ve explained.
Does the fact that there are other situations where expression is limited mean that those situations are analogous or relevant to the issue that I have raised? Perhaps, but so far I don’t see a useful analogy, and even the smoking-tobacco company analogy that was proposed does not fit well here. So if you want to argue for prohibitions on certain expression in the climate debate, you are free to do so (one advantage of free speech;-), but so far I don’t see a compelling case made based on particulars rather than sweeping generalities.
Thanks again.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:21 am
Roger, thanks for restoring the thread. Thanks also for providing another statement of your views, so perhaps we can try again to look at “particulars rather than sweeping generalities”.
1. Let me first, however, note that I lack sufficient humor (sorry) to enjoy your mischaracterization of my aim, which is NOT of course to “argue for prohibitions on certain expression in the climate debate”. Rather, I have been at pains to indicate ways in which YOUR position – now formulated as “scientists [should not] use formal (e.g., legal) mechanisms or even seek to create new formal mechanisms to limit what can be said on the issue of climate change” – is incoherent, inconsistent with actual precepts of “freedom of expression”, and consequently used to criticize scientists in ways that seem to me to be rather blunt and a bit unfair.
Your mileage may vary, of course, on my criticism but I am certainly not arguing for any new formal mechanisms to limit what can be said on the issue of climate change.
2. I note that, at the end of the day, you might decide that you still believe it is advisable for scientists not take actions that LOOK LIKE constraints on others’s freedom of expression – since criticisms by scientists may be easily misconstrue by others, etc. – but such a judgment would in principle be distinct from whether or not scientists are in fact infringing any rights of others or “limiting what can be said on the issue of climate change”.
3. So let’s take a look again at how the Pielke Principle in some of the cases that have been raised on this and related threads:
- the Royal Society’s letter to Exxon. In the letter, the Royal Society noted that Exxon had engaged in the practice of funding third parties to, on an unatributed basis, make science and policy arguments on behalf of Exxon, noted that Exxon had undertaken to end such practice and asked Exxon as to actual its progress in ending such practice. All that RS sought to do was to try to clarify when, precisely, Exxon was speaking, without at all criticising any message Exxon wishes to make. It seems that the RS may have leaked such letter, thereby putting public pressure on Exxon, but in any case the RS (i) did not seek to use any formal mechanisms or (ii) seek to limit what could be said by Exxon on the issue of climate change. So how doe the Pielke Principle apply?
- Martin Durkin’s Channel 4 “Swindle” polemic (his language): after Ch. 4 had run the Swindle documentary, a number of scientists criticized Swindle for misused and fabricated data, out-of-date research, misleading arguments, and misrepresenting the positions of Sir David King, Professor Carl Wunsch and the IPCC, and some scientists joined the many complaints that were filed with OFCOM (the UK broacast regulator) against Ch. 4 for airing Swindle, which was also released as a DVD (and not subject to OFCOM).
How does the PP apply here? As Swindle had already been broadcast (and released on DVD), did complaints about its accuracy (seeking a fine or a mandated correction) the same as seeking to limit what can be said on the issue of climate change?
What if instead of filing a complaint with a regulator, the scientists who thought they had been misrepresented (or libelled/slandered) had simply sued the producers and/or Ch 4 – would that violate the PP?
- Jim Hansen. You have said that Hansen “has famously called for trials of those who have provided support for the dissemination of skeptical perspectives on climate change, singling out executives in energy companies.” More narrowly, Hansen (i) said “In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature”, but (ii) not for what they or their firms said themselves about climate change but for funding sophisticated, disguised campaigns to spread doubt about global warming despite knowing full well the long-term consequences of continued business as usual.
I have criticized Hansen myself for invoking possible use of the state – see http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/06/26/jim-hansen-warns-of-slow-motion-disaster-and-welcomes-future-public-trials-of-fossil-ceos-for-buying-government-delay.aspx – but has Hansen actually sought to “use formal (e.g., legal) mechanisms or even seek to create new formal mechanisms to limit what can be said on the issue of climate change”? Are you stretching your Principles so they cover not actually seeking formal mechanisms, but simply expressing an opinion or hope that some else does? Hansen, of course, is not a not prosecutor, judge, jury or even a legislator.
Further, has Hansen sought to limit what can be said on the issue of climate change, or is he criticizing fossil fuel firms for paying OTHERS to say without attribution what the fossil fuel firms prefer not to say directly?
I take it that for purposes of your Principles, corporations should be treated the same as individuals? As I previously noted, the “freedom of speech” that societies give to corporations, which are creatures of the state, is not always the same as what they give to individuals. It was once considered that corporations had no free speech rights themselves, but even though corporations now seem to be “more equal” the regular citizens, we still closely regulate corporate (even religious) behavior affecting political/policy matters (from direct political endorsement and contributions to talking behind doors with officials and politicians), we prohibit corporations from talking too much with competitors, we hold corporations responsible for false and misleading statements, etc.
I would agree with you that what corporations have done so far regarding climate PR efforts probably doesn’t violate any statute or regulation, but I wouldn’t be sure of that. But I would say that there is no reason in our law and jurisprudence relating to free speech for a current protection given to rather obvious political meddling by corporations be etched in stone.
- Steven Milloy/FEAF. Milloy has asked the SEC to issue a statement to all publicy listed firms to the following effect:
1. False and/or misleading statements on material matters may violate the anti-fraud provision of the federal securities laws.
2. Statements by registrants on global warming and other environmental issues could be considered material.
3. There is considerable ongoing debate about the science of global warming and its impacts and;
4. Statements to the effect that “the science is conclusive,” “the debate is over,” and that “human activities are definitely causing harmful global warming” should be avoided.
It would seem to me that only item 4, by which the SEC would specifically discourage the use of particular language, would be a step too far.
Except for Steve Milloy, my questions above are largely restatements of questions I posed to you previously. Your further thoughts are appreciated – though I understand your time limits (nor do I wish to be too trollish or forward).
Regards,
TT
August 6th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Tom-
Thanks for your comment and questions. Some replies follow:
1. Let me underscore my position, which is: “scientists should not use formal (e.g., legal) mechanisms or even seek to create new formal mechanisms to limit what can be said on the issue of climate change”
And as I mentioned far up in this thread, I am referring explicitly to political expression, not perjury, libel, commercial, etc.
2. The RS letter to Exxon is a separate issue from freedom of expression, and not really relevant here. As I stated on that thread, the issue was whether the RS was to serve as an advocacy group for particular causes and against others. In my opinion, they should not take on this role. Others may disagree.
3. Swindle. I have already said that issues of libel are not my focus. I have no problems with scientists seeking to correct what they see are factual errors, and complaining loudly about this. Perhaps the best parallel example to my concerns is when scientists lobbied Cambridge University Press to cease publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, lest people’s minds be exposed to improper knowledge. Book or movie burning is not something I think scientists should engage in. See #1 above. Seems pretty clear to me.
4. I won’t split hairs with you on Hansen’s statement. The call for trials was absurd. I don’t know how to respond to your suggestion that it was the funding provided by corporations to pressure groups that might have been illegal. I can’t imagine how so. I have already (several times in fact) expressed on this thread that i am not talking about commercial speesh, but political expression.
5. While I appreciate the elevation of a principle of freedom of political expression to the lofty and impressive title of the “Pielke Principle”;-) Freedom of expression would seem to pre-date this thread by some time, and I am simply restating a view that is fundamental to American democracy, and more specifically modern academic inquiry. There is nothing tricky or fancy about my views, which again are a follows:
“scientists should not use formal (e.g., legal) mechanisms or even seek to create new formal mechanisms to limit what can be said on the issue of climate change”
You reject the notion that scientists SHOULD seek such mechanisms, so perhaps we ultimately agree, even if we may disagree on the justifications.
Thanks
August 6th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Weall to often forget that free speech, like all freedoms, comes with responsibilities. We are not talking about quashing science, weare talking about a non-scientist broadcasting on public airwaves. WRT “Swindled” Roger’s arguments are correct but misapplied.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:10 am
Roger, thanks for your further thoughts.
1. I understand that you are referring to political speech, and that you exclude “libel, perjury, or even commercial speech (e.g., advertising) or specific product claims (e.g., health benefits of pharmaceuticals)”.
Please note that sometimes political speech may be libelous and may be commercial speech (indeed, ALL speech by corporations is commercial speech).
2. Roger, at any number of times in the discussion above you have lumped in the Royal Society’s letter to Exxon with the other examples we are now discussing. Now you say it is “a separate issue from freedom of expression, and not really relevant here”, and that “As I stated on that thread, the issue was whether the RS was to serve as an advocacy group for particular causes and against others.”
Well, I appreciate the clarification as to what your views are now, but in your initial post on the RS letter (September 21, 2006, titled “David Whitehouse on Royal Society Efforts to Censor”), didn’t you say the following?
- “Let me say in no uncertain terms that in my opinion the actions by the Royal Society are inconsistent with the open and free exchange of ideas, as well as the democratic notion of free speech. … The Royal Society is seeking to use the authority of science to limit open debate. This is not, to put it delicately, the most effective use of scientific authority in political debates. …. A strategy based on stifling debate is sure to backfire, not just on the climate issue, but for the scientific enterprise as a whole.”
and
- “I agree with the spirit of Dr. henson’s views, especially when he writes, “However the Royal Society sees its role in debates about science, is it appropriate that it should be using its authority to judge and censor in this way?” This question perfectly captures my concerns and is the message that I endorse 100% from the letter. Thanks for the chance to clarify.”
It seems to me that you have fairly consistently, indeed, up until your last post on this thread, confused the RS letter with “freedom of speech” issues. That’s one of the reasons why I have pushed the issue. I’m happy that you now apparently agree that the RS letter to Exxon is a separate issue from freedom of expression, and doesn’t violate the PP (which I continue to use because I think your summary is an apt one).
3. Swindle. You say that issues of libel are not your focus; that’s one clarification out of the way. But what about issues of misrepresentation? Do you disapprove of Prof. Wunsch or Sir King asking Ofcom to require Ch 4 to correct misrepresentations?
You have “no problems with scientists seeking to correct what they see are factual errors, and complaining loudly about this.” I’m happy you seem to agree that seeking a correction of errors is not the same as trying to limit what can be said. But what are you saying in the context of Swindle? Should or should not scientists seeking to ask a regulator to require the correction of errors?
Your offer another example: “when scientists lobbied Cambridge University Press to cease publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, lest people’s minds be exposed to improper knowledge.” Can you clarify how your opposition to this is consistent with the PP (which I thought focussed on actions by governments)? What formal (legal) action was sought?
As I inquired in my previous comment, it may be appropriate to distinguish between (1) activities that actively seek to use the state to block or sanction expression (but not sanctions for false/libelous statements) and (2) other activities that merely create social pressure or private/non-governmental sanctions. If you are seeking to do (2), then it would be helpful if you noted that while such activities do not violate rights of expression, they may still be undesirable for scientists for certain reasons.
4. Hansen. “Splitting hairs” may be important Roger, particular if one wants to be clear and fair. One can recognize that Hansen’s statement didn’t violate anyone’s rights to expression but still find it objectional on the grounds that it calls for formal sanction on activities that are not clearly illegal.
BTW, my point was not that “it was the funding provided by corporations to pressure groups that might have been illegal”, but that we should be careful, when we discuss issues of “freedom of expression” to note that while corporations are full of individuals who have rights of free expression, corporations themselves are often not considered to have the same rights. All corporate speech is commercial speech, to refer to a distinction you acknowledged earlier.
5. Again, I think your summarization of what scientists should not do in order to avoid violating free speech principles is fine. But the principles certainly allow nuance in reviewing different situations, which nuance may be important – as can be readily seen when we review various examples.
Further, as I have suggested, I think that it may be acceptable to decide to criticize – or to counsel against as counterproductive – activities that do not strictly violate free speech principles but still come close to implicating them. While you might wish to lay out and explain a broader view – in order to help scientists to better advance political debate on science-related topics, but it doesn’t seem to me that you have done so yet (rather tending to sweep everything into broad criticisms of suppression of free expression).
Here, my goal has not been so much to lay out all of my views as to figure out more precisely what yours are, and why.
Regards,
Tom
August 7th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Hi Tom-
We are picking off a few of your issues, which is good, but running circles around others. A few replies:
1. You state, “Please note that sometimes political speech may be libelous and may be commercial speech” — granted. I still am not talking about situations of libel or commercial speech. I think that we both agree here that the subject matter I have raised is not what corporations say directly in regards to their business (despite Milloy’s efforts).
2. On the RS, you seem to have forgotten the very useful distinction between moral suasion and legal sanction that you introduced here earlier. On the RS I do indeed write:
“The Royal Society is seeking to use the authority of science to limit open debate. This is not, to put it delicately, the most effective use of scientific authority in political debates.”
There is no inconsistency between saying that some organizations should avoid appeals using moral suasion to limit expression, and all scientists should avoid appeals to legal sanction to limit expression. In your parsing of the latter I have pointed out that the RS example is not relevant.
3. You ask, “Should or should not scientists seeking to ask a regulator to require the correction of errors?”
Of course not, because this places the regulator in the position of arbitrating truth claims. My understanding is that OFCOM wisely did not accept such a role. Nor should they. Claims to truth cannot be regulated. Sorry.
4. Lomborg’s book was brought to a Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty. I have a paper and organized a special issue on this situation, should you want more, but yes, scientists sought formal sanctions via legal means, akin to Swindle. If you want links to papers and such just ask.
5. You write, “One can recognize that Hansen’s statement didn’t violate anyone’s rights to expression but still find it objectional on the grounds that it calls for formal sanction on activities that are not clearly illegal.”
Sure, I don’t think I ever said Hansen’s comments violated anyone’s rights. I think I said that the policies (i.e., trials for execs) he was calling for were plain old dumb;-)
6. You write, “I think your summarization of what scientists should not do in order to avoid violating free speech principles is fine. But the principles certainly allow nuance in reviewing different situations, which nuance may be important – as can be readily seen when we review various examples.”
Whew! Agreed;-)
August 8th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Roger, thanks for the further comments.
I appreciate that you have agreed that there is a distinction between legal sanction and moral sanction and that in some instances an apparent infringement on freedom of expression may not actually violate the principles (tied to legal sanction) that you laid out (the PP) on what scientists should not do. However, you continue to criticize some of these activities by scientists, without clearly acknowledging that they do not violate the PP and without spelling out a general argument for why you disagree with such activities/find them unadvisable.
Allow me to point out these cases and to continue to ask you to clarify more precisely what your advice is and the basis for it.
2. Royal Society. While you precviously expressly argued that this was a case of an “effort to censor”, you now say it is “a separate issue from freedom of expression, and not really relevant here”, while continuing to criticize it, on the grounds that the RS was “seeking to use the authority of science to limit open debate” and that “some organizations [like RS, presumably] should avoid appeals using moral suasion to limit expression”.
While I would disagree with your first characterization (as I note in my next paragraph), my principal question is: Since legal and moral sanction are different (and I much prefer efforts ar moral suasion over legal sanction), can you please spell out your view on when and why organizations like RS should avoid appeals using moral suasion to limit expression? It does a disservice to the debate simply to lump legal and moral sanction together, which is why I thought you agreed to distinguish them. Further, in your immediately preceding post, you said that “the issue was whether the RS was to serve as an advocacy group for particular causes and against others. In my opinion, they should not take on this role.” Well, will the real RP criticism please stand up? Do you have any generalized advice you can draw from RS, or is it limited just to them? You can serve the debate better if you would clarify your views
As an aside, I disagree that RS was “seeking to use the authority of science to limit open debate”. The RS was simply trying to get Exxon to clarify when Exxon was actually talking, either directly or indirectly. Just as you have questioned the accountability of comments who post anonymously (like me), RS is right to note that when Exxon uses others to comment for it, Exxon is seeking to avoid accountability for its actions. This seems to me to be perfectly fair, and in fact a service to the debate. If you think that this is a role that RS should not be playing, or should be played with more balance, then we need to hear your reasons.
3. Swindle. I agree completely that scientists should not seeking to ask a regulator to require the correction of errors, for the reasons you offer – though suing privately seems to me perfectly fine.
However, more nuance is still helpful. Unfortunately, regulators often DO adjudicate truth claims, which is why people run to them when they see something they consider false on the telly. But what the complainants failed to notice was that Ofcom requires strict truth only on NEWS programs, and Swindle was not broadcast as news and so Ofcom’s review was much more limited. Thus while getting some vindication, the complainants also played into the PR hand of CH4 and the Swindlers. Obviously the complainants, in retrospect, might be considered unwise, and a positive lesson might be that scientists should be much more careful, since seeking to get a regulator to adjudicate truth might blow up in one’s face. But that’s entirely different from saying that seeking an adjudication is attempting to squelch free speech.
4. Lomborg. The Danish committee is an entirely different issue from whether Cambridge U Press publishes his book. I’d say the first is clearly a no-no under the PP, while the second is entirely fair (at least under PP). If you want to argue against the publishing pressure, you need to advance reasons other than PP.
5. Hansen. Again, can you distinguish between whether Hansen’s words violated the PP, or whether you simply have other arguments for why his statements were unwise/counterproductive?
Thanks again for your time.
Regards,
Tom
August 8th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tom- Thanks for your further comments. Some replies:
1. You ask: “can you please spell out your view on when and why organizations like RS should avoid appeals using moral suasion to limit expression?”
Well here we are again. The answer is that the RS should take on the role of an “honest broker”. What do I mean by that? Please check out my book from your local library.
You write: “You can serve the debate better if you would clarify your views”
Well, I’ve tried in a short book. You’ve complained when I suggested that you read it. Here we are again.
2. On publishing pressure, see Chris Harrison’s paper, linked on our site (yes, another request to read;-)
3. Hansen. Bad policy advice, bad tactics. What more can I say?
Thanks.
August 26th, 2008 at 5:20 am
Roger, thanks for the further comments. Allow me to respond, in reverse order:
3. I think many would agree that Hansen’s words on fossil fuel CEOs may be bad policy advice and bad tactics – but presumably Hansen has a different view. In any case, I note that you no longer insist that his statement violated your formulation of what scientists should not do:
“scientists [should not] use formal (e.g., legal) mechanisms or even seek to create new formal mechanisms to limit what can be said on the issue of climate change” (viz., no seeking legal sanction!).
It looks like we have gotten close to some agreement on RS and Swindle as well.
2. Thanks for the reference to Chris Harrison’s paper. Not being overly lazy or disinclined to reading, I’ve tracked it down and, for the benefit of any other curious readers who might happen along, note that it is here, along with a host of other useful essays by you, Daniel Sarewitz, and Naomi Oreskes regarding the enganglements between science and policy: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/pielke_tse_debate.html
1. Deva vu all over again. I wouldn’t say that this thread has been unproductive, but I can say that it has been quite frustrating and disappointing to struggle to try to understand your views when you not only decline to describe them.
Regards,
Tom