By Anthony Watts
Originally published at Climate Realism
Unable to win the debate in the court of public opinion, climate activists are increasingly calling for the imprisonment of climate realists. The latest example is an article in The Carbon Brief titled “How climate change misinformation spreads online.” The authors, who are all University of Exeter professors, advocate fines and imprisonment for people publishing “climate misinformation” online. They justify their call for imprisonment by claiming tremendous harm from “misleading information that is created and spread with intent to deceive.”
That’s one take, another take is that those who publish what the Left deems as “misinformation” are actually publishing what might be dubbed “inconvenient truths.” The 2006 film by Al Gore of the same name is a case in point. Gore, not being particularly good at details, published a boatload of misinformation in that film, and social media responded to correct the record. In one scene Gore used an animated clip of a polar bear in danger of drowning, trying to get onto a tiny ice flow made smaller, presumably by global warming. Gore cited this as the new normal of drowning polar bears. The reality? Scientists documented one drowned polar bear at sea after an intense storm, something that hasn’t been seen since. According to an Associated Press article:
“A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.”
Social media was the first to point out problems with Gore’s polar bear claims, and they were proven right.
Then there’s the claim Gore made about Mt. Kilimanjaro losing its ice cap due to “global warming.” Again, social media was the first to point out that what was really happening was a consequence of deforestation around the base of the mountain making less water vapor available by the process of evapotranspiration – trees releasing water into the atmosphere. Without as much water vapor aiding replenishing snows, the ice simply dried up like old ice cubes in a freezer, a process known as sublimation.
And finally, Gore made the bold claim in 2009 that the Arctic ice cap might be gone in five years. Again, social media was the first to point out the problems with this claim. To this day, the Arctic ice cap remains, and Gore no longer references any of those claims he once made.
If it weren’t for social media, we’d still be hearing about these claims. The mainstream media choose not to subject alarmist climate claims to even cursory analysis, and investigative reporting is virtually non-existent. Yet, because social media does investigate and fact-check, pushing against a group-think narrative and exposing the lies and real misinformation surrounding the climate scare, climate alarmists have to fight back using dirty tricks like labeling social media authors as if they were radical enemies of the state, worthy of imprisonment in the gulag.
This isn’t the first time such wild calls for criminalization of contrary climate opinion have been made, in fact, it goes back to 2014: Lawrence Torcello, a liberal arts professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, writes in an essay at The Conversation that climate scientists who fail to communicate the correct message about “global warming” should face trial for “criminal negligence.” A commenter on his article went even further to suggest that I should be sent to the war crimes tribunal in the Hauge for having a different opinion on climate:
“… I believe Anthony Watts should be frogmarched to The Hague as well. No question, in my mind. In fact, I find the idea of a defense of his actions ethically reprehensible.”
It gets worse. An ugly theatrical play, called Kill Climate Deniers, was even created in Australia about the issue.
The bottom line? Imprisonment of political dissidents has been a common theme with repressive regimes going back to the beginning of history. When those seeking power can’t convince the populace of the merits of their ideas, they start putting people who disagree in jail, hoping that fear will keep the rest in line. Fortunately, we live in a country where free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution.
But, should the time ever come when I’m going to be imprisoned for my viewpoints, I won’t go quietly, and neither will the thousands of independent thinkers on social media.
perhaps not imprison, but rather put them into pleasant camps in concentration with others? they can even prepay & reserve upscale accommodations ?
The 2nd Amendment exists to protect the first Amendment.
Perhaps not until there is no snow.
Alternatively, snow denying could become an offence by 2025.
Al Gore and climate wankervists have been running the line that ‘snow will be a thing of the past’ since the late 1980’s. Time is up.
Anthony,
Can you find one passage in the essay where the authors “advocate fines and imprisonment for people publishing “climate misinformation” online”? It is
true that they list such things but only as a part of a survey of solutions that
others have suggested. They then point out that:
“Regulation has been described as a “blunt and risky instrument” by a European Commission expert group. It is also potentially a threat to the democratic right to freedom of speech and has overtones of “Big Brother”.
Reading the article it is clear that the authors do not advocate fines or indeed advocate for any particular solution but rather have listed all solutions that people have suggested and pointed out that every one is flawed.
Tell me Izaak, why do you suppose the authors of the study didn’t include the death penalty in the list of punishments for disinformation?
What say you?
Look at the picture about 2/3rds of the way down.
It quite clearly labels fines and imprisonment as the proper punishment for climate misinformation.
Mark,
The picture does no such thing. The caption states “A summary of the potential ways to counteract misinformation found in the literature, along with their criticisms and caveats. ” And along with the
rest of the essay it lists ways that other people have suggested dealing with the issue. It does not advocate for any particular solution and in fact points out the flaws in all of them.
Why doesn’t it list the death penalty as a suggestion Izaak?
Why are you ignoring my question Izaak?
You are ignoring it aren’t you?
Of course I am ignoring it. It is a ridiculous question. Firstly I am not privy to the
thoughts of the authors and so cannot speak with any authority as to why they did
or did not include possible solutions. However they state that the solutions listed are
those found in the scientific literature and I would hazard a guess is that nowhere in
the scientific literature can you find the suggestion that the death penalty be imposed on
people who spread misinformation about the climate. If you think that is wrong then please provide a reference to peer reviewed literature where such a suggestion is made.
There you go Izaak! Bravo!
Thank you, agreed. It is absolutely a ridiculous question.
And that’s exactly my point.
That which is out of the question, i.e., not advocated because of ridiculousness, isn’t included in the list of possible punishments by the author’s of the paper. But not because no one has advocated for such a solution.
They have: https://tinyurl.com/y92gq6bq
Hence, that which IS “in the question,” so to speak, i.e., NOT ridiculous, is thus presented in the paper and therefore, a priori, advocated. That means, contrary your argument, jail time for me, at least according to the author’s referenced in this article who obviously champion for the same.
Otherwise, why include it in this ostensibly academic, peer-reviewed paper published in an obviously only superficially reputable journal, that purportedly attempts to deal in a serious manner with that which your side believes is a critical social issue of our time?
What say you?
Izaak, are they planning on using any of those solutions on Mann? The biggest DISinformation spewer out there?
Am I allowed to ask what melted the several ice ages, long before any industrial activity or burning of fossil fuels?
Charles Monnett was the “federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.” According to Wikipedia, after a 2 and a half year investigation The Department of the Interior “cleared his record of any reference to wrongdoing and awarded him $100,000.”
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the EU try to stifle speech on the internet over Human-caused Climate Change.
China’s new laws aimed at reigning in Hong Kong, apparently allow the Chinese to arrest anyone in the world who has spoken it what they consider a manner detrimental to China.
That doesn’t mean the Chinese communists will knock on your door and arrest you, if you don’t live in China. But it does mean if you travel to China or Hong Kong, they can arrest you there for what you said about China, no matter where you are from, or what free speech laws were in effect.
If the US Democrats win the presidency in November, we can expect an all-out assault on American freedom of speech, and many of our other freedoms.
The Democrats want to turn the US government into the China Model: A few Elites running things, and lots of Peons obeying the dictates of the Elites, and the Elites get to keep power in perpetuity.
Alarmists are the criminals, and if justice still existed in America for non-leftists (it doesn’t) we could prove it.
Perhaps it is time to defund Exeter University if it not prepared to take action against the disgusting advocates of closing down democratic freedoms and imprisoning people who have temerity to object to being lied to by Marxist climate alarmists. This feels like something more appropriate to the tyranny of Nazi Germany than Britain.
These despicable people are nothing short of Climate-Nazis. Nazism was a form of socially transmitted dementia – a herd mentality whereby leaders sought to repress, imprison, and even kill dissenters to “purify” their philosophy. They used propaganda and terror tactics (the Brown Shirts) extensively.
How are these “Green Activists” calling for repression, imprisonment, and even killing any different?
I guess they are too stupid to have any self-awareness or shame.
“I guess they are too stupid to have any self-awareness or shame.”
Nailed it.
Universities should be renamed Activist Centres.
The correct title is Socialist education camps.
“The authors, who are all University of Exeter professors, advocate fines and imprisonment for people publishing “climate misinformation” online. They justify their call for imprisonment by claiming tremendous harm from “misleading information that is created and spread with intent to deceive.””
These highly qualified folks (PhD candidate Computer Science, Assoc. Professor Data Science, Assoc. Professor Geography) clearly are on to something. I am not sure they understand the consequences however. If we jailed all the folks disseminating misinformation about climate change/global warming there won’t be many proponents of the unproven theory walking the streets and those who are properly sceptical can begin to address some real issues. Sounds like a great idea.
What do you expect from N Socialist bigots and control freaks?
What do you think AH would have done?
The Climate Alarmists and their co-workers are heading in the same direction as the fascists of the 1930s and 1940s with the imprisonment and execution of those who oppose their core beliefs. Intolerance of ideas is the Hallmark of the Left.
Greenies can’t do maths. The nearly 10 million respondents to the 2015 UN “YourWorld” survey placed “climate change” last in the list of things they were worried about, so the potential number of climate miscreants is very large. (The new version, YourWorld2030, is designed to correct this horrendous error. Every option contains the UN’s version of sustainability, so any permutation in the results can be used to justify climate alarmism. Anyone can do the survey multiple times, so it can be stacked.)
Britain has plenty of spare prison cells has it? Some there still lament the fact that they are not able to export their undesirables to Australia. They had a few prison ships. HM Prison Weare, just along the coast at Portland, didn’t close permanently until 2006.
Climate change denialism
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/06/17/climate-change-denial/
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/10/21/denialfunding/
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/06/22/climate-change-denial-research/
“Fortunately, we live in a country where free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution.”
For Now. When the Democrats take ove in November, they will pack the Supreme Court with Wise Latinas and your Constitution won’t be worth the paper it is printed on.
Climate activists are foreign state activists and fully intend to overthrow governments of the Western world. This makes them a “Clear and Present Danger” with all the implications that has for the US president and should have for all other Western government’s.
This is supposed to be science right? LOL. Where in the scientific method does it say “lock up those who disagree with you”? It doesn’t. Nor does it say “believe” or “the majority of scientists say so”. Predictions, predictions and more predictions.
If the democrats win in November it might go full Marxist. I hope not.
The insanity is accelerating.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-is-the-breathe-act-squad-members-push-defund-police-reparations
Among the gems in this bill:
Eliminate life sentences
Permanently closing all federal prisons and immigration detention centers
Abolish gang databases as well as armed cops and metal detectors in schools
Establish pilot programs for a uneiversal basic income.
Afford voting rights and lifetime education to illegal immigrants and incarcerated prisoners
Divest from agencies like the DEA and ICE
Eliminate ankle monitors
Offer a 50% federal match for projected savings when states and local jurisdictions close detention facilities, including jails.
Forgive all outstanding court debt
Create a plan to close youth detention centers
Create tools to promote environmental justice
Create a “Commission to Study Reparation Proposal for African-Americans” to design reparations for mass incarceration and police violence.
MarkW,
Thanks for drawing attention to the Breathe Act Bill.
After reading the Fox News story, I went looking for other news reports on “ the BREATHE Act.”
The leading articles were by CUT, apparently a NY publication ( “Yes, Activists are serious about defunding the Police”) and ABC7 News from LA.( “Movement for Black Lives Bill proposés sweeping legislative changes to judicial system”).
Neither contained any comment by persons opposed to or doubtful of the good sense of the proposals.
Patrisse Cullors thé admitted ‘trained Marxist’ co-founder of BLM got lengthy quotes in the ABC7 News piece.
The depth of the insanity in the Bill as discussed by Fox was repeated in these articles.
Interestingly from the CUT article, I learned that “ No text of the actual Bill has yet been released but the Summary lays out demands for a time bound plan etc.” and “The BREATHE Act Bill would encounter gargantuan resistance in Congress if it were to be introduced in full: No Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has claimed to support calls to defund the Police….”
While H.L. Mencken’s contempt for politicians in the US knew no bounds, I doubt that even he would think this effort by two members of the Squad would gain traction.
I have a different plan. Let the “Dope Busters” loose again. DopeBusters 2.0, reboot or rides again. Cleaned up a mess 11 other security companies refused to even bid on and did a great job. 3 decades wasted because of politics.
https://www.unz.com/article/how-farrakhan-solved-the-crime-drug-problem/?highlight=dope+busters
I disagree with Farrakhan on a lot of issues but give credit where it’s due. He identified the problem (black on black violence), came up with a solution and implemented it successfully 30+ years ago.
“He identified the problem (black on black violence), came up with a solution and implemented it successfully 30+ years ago.”
Am I missing the /sarc here? You link to some anti-Semitic article as your evidence? Bugger off!
I have a suggestion for what should be done about Lawrence Torcello: it’s called rattan, and they do it in Singapore, and in a just world, it would have already happened.
“….Fortunately, we live in a country where free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution….”
We had freedom of speech back in my native Czechoslovakia as well…
Popular joke from communistic times went like this:
“Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, but it does not guarantee freedom after the speech”
You got everything else in your article spot on right.
Except this bit.
If your freezer is not frost-free than the ice might sublimate over a long length of time.
Frost-free freezers have warming cycles that melt the ice’s surface layer.
That warming cycle is also the cause of freezer burn. Where moisture is removed from a frozen product and condenses on the container/wrapper.
Frost-free and auto-defrost freezers are less efficient than manual defrost machines. It uses energy to heat the coils sufficiently to melt the ice and then drop the coil temperatures again.
If you want to test the hypothesis, put the ice cubes into water and air tight containers. They’ll still get smaller as water is removed from the cubes and collects as separate ice in the container.
Yes! The internet is full of false sublimation attributions. There used to be a time when freezer manufacturers posted documentation that rebutted sublimation claims.
Keep in mind Anthony, that those loons would have to commit tens of thousands of us WUWT followers.
No I, and I believe many many others will not go quietly.
Vote for President Trump and/or against democrats this Fall!
There is also that odd little habit of leftist alarmists where they have an overwhelming tendency to hate and assault their own whom switch sides, or cite contrary science.
Within the logical frame that climate alarmists have constructed, this makes perfect sense: Unless the World acts immediately to halt climate change, hundreds of millions will die. Casting doubt on this theory will make halting climate change impossible, so hundreds of millions will die. Therefore, persons who cast doubt on the theory are future mass murderers, and should be sanctioned by whatever means now, before they can sabotage the necessary actions to prevent hundreds of millions from dying.
What can be our response to that logic? There is none. We can only say, catastrophic climate change will not happen. We can’t prove it, and they’ve got Greta Thunberg for their Robespierre.