Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?

(If so, guys like this fookin' eejit, who engage in the usual leftwing, Alinskystyle attacks on those his ilk and he disagree with, should be the first ones imprisoned for misinforming the public about the real and wholly independent cause of all global climate change: the sun, stupid...
T he importance of clearly communicating science to the public should not be underestimated. Accurately understanding our natural environment and sharing that information can be a matter of life or death Author

Lawrence Torcello Assistant Professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology , like this guy's an e pert in climatology

!limate change causes earth"uakes# $ow%

Disclosure Statement !a"rence Torcello does not "ork for, consult to, o"n shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that "ould benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation is funded by the following universities: Aberdeen, #irmingham, #radford, #ristol, $ardiff, $ity, %urham, &lasgo" $aledonian, &oldsmiths, !ancaster, !eeds, !iverpool, 'ottingham, The (pen )niversity, *ueen's )niversity #elfast, +alford, +heffield, +urrey, )$! and ,ar"ick. It also receives funding from: -efce, -efc", +A&., +/$, R$)0, The 'uffield /oundation, The ,ellcome Trust, .sm1e /airbairn /oundation and The Alliance for )seful .vidence

&etter communication may ha'e sa'ed li'es in Italy(s )'A"uila earth"uake. *he$i+,-, !! &.-/A
The importance of clearly communicating science to the public should not be underestimated. Accurately understanding our natural environment and sharing that information can be a matter of life or death. ,hen it comes to global "arming, much of the public remains in denial about a set of facts that the ma2ority of scientists clearly agree on. ,ith such high stakes, an organised campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent. The earth3uake that rocked !'A3uila Italy in 4556 provides an interesting case study of botched communication. This natural disaster left more than 755 people dead and nearly 88,555 people homeless. In a strange turn of events si Italian scientists and a local defence minister "ere subse3uently sentenced to si years in prison. The ruling is popularly thought to have convicted scientists for failing to predict an earth3uake. (n the contrary, as risk assessment e pert %avid Ropeik pointed out, the trial "as actually about the failure of scientists to clearly communicate risks to the public. The convicted parties "ere accused of providing 9ine act, incomplete and contradictory information:. As one citi;en stated< ,e all kno" that the earth3uake could not be predicted, and that evacuation "as not an option. All "e "anted "as clearer information on risks in order to make our choices. $rucially, the scientists, "hen consulted about ongoing tremors in the region, did not conclude that a devastating earth3uake "as impossible in !=A3uila. #ut, "hen the %efence >inister held a press conference saying there "as no danger, they made no attempt to correct him. I don=t believe poor scientific communication should be criminalised because doing so "ill likely discourage scientists from engaging "ith the public at all. #ut the tragedy in !=A3uila reminds us ho" important clear scientific communication is and ho" much is at stake regarding the public=s understanding of science. I have argued else"here that

scientists have an ethical obligation to communicate their findings as clearly as possible to the public "hen such findings are relevant to public policy. !ike"ise, I believe that scientists have the corollary obligation to correct public misinformation as visibly and une3uivocally as possible. >any scientists recogni;e these civic and moral obligations. $limatologist >ichael >ann is a good e ample? >ann has recently made the case for public engagement in a po"erful 'e" @ork Times opinion piece< If @ou +ee +omething +ay +omething.

Misinformation and criminal negligence

+till, critics of the case in !=A3uila are mistaken if they conclude that criminal negligence should never be linked to science misinformation. $onsider cases in "hich science communication is intentionally undermined for political and financial gain. Imagine if in !=A3uila, scientists themselves had made every effort to communicate the risks of living in an earth3uake ;one. Imagine that they even advocated for a scientifically informed but costly earth3uake readiness plan. If those "ith a financial or political interest in inaction had funded an organised campaign to discredit the consensus findings of seismology, and for that reason no preparations "ere made, then many of us "ould agree that the financiers of the denialist campaign "ere criminally responsible for the conse3uences of that campaign. I submit that this is 2ust "hat is happening "ith the current, "ell documented funding of global "arming denialism Aand 2ust "ho is funding the blameBclimateBchangeBonB)+ campaignCD >ore deaths can already be attributed to climate change than the !=A3uila earth3uake and "e can be certain that deaths from climate change "ill continue to rise "ith global "arming. 'onetheless, climate denial remains a serious deterrent against meaningful political action Aagainst the )nited +tates, but "e'll continue to let $hina and India pollute as they see fitD in the very countries most responsible for the crisis.

Climate denial funding

,e have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to e tend to all activities of the climate deniers "ho receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public=s understanding of scientific consensus. $riminal negligence is normally understood to result from failures to avoid reasonably foreseeable harms, or the threat of harms to public safety, conse3uent of certain activities. Those funding climate denial campaigns can reasonably predict the public=s diminished ability to respond to climate change as a result of their behaviour. Indeed, public uncertainty regarding climate science, and the resulting failure to respond to climate change, is the intentional aim of politically and financially motivated denialists.

>y argument probably raises an understandable, if misguided, concern regarding free speech. ,e must make the critical distinction bet"een the protected voicing of one=s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised campaign to undermine the public=s ability to develop and voice informed opinions. Protecting the latter as a form of free speech stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that undermines the very concept. ,hat are "e to make of those behind the "ell documented corporate funding of global "arming denialC Those "ho purposefully strive to make sure 9ine act, incomplete and contradictory information: is given to the publicC I believe "e understand them correctly "hen "e kno" them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their "illful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.

Consensus: 97% of "climate" scientists agree that consensus trumps science in 99.99% of the time

Temperature data from four international science institutions. All sho" rapid "arming in the past fe" decades and that the last decade has been the "armest on record.

012
'inetyBseven percent of climate scientists agree that climateB"arming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,Eand most of the leading scientific organi;ations "orld"ide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The follo"ing is a partial list of these organi;ations, along "ith links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AME ICA! SCIE!TI"IC S#CIETIES

Statement on climate change from $% scientific associations F(bservations throughout the "orld make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.F A4556D4

American Association for the Advancement of Science FThe scientific evidence is clear< global climate change caused by human activities is occurring no", and it is a gro"ing threat to society.F A4558D7

American Chemical Society F$omprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem.F A455GDG

American &eo'hysical (nion F-umaninduced climate change re3uires urgent action. -umanity is the ma2or influence on the global climate change observed over the past H5 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.F AAdopted 4557, revised and reaffirmed 455I, 45E4, 45E7DH

American Medical Association F(ur A>A ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on $limate $hange=s fourth assessment report and concurs "ith the scientific consensus that the .arth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.F A45E7D8

American Meteorological Society FIt is clear from e tensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is humanBinduced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dio ide A$(4D, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous o ide.F A45E4DI

American )hysical Society FThe evidence is incontrovertible< &lobal "arming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the .arth=s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. ,e must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning no".F A455IDJ

The &eological Society of America FThe &eological +ociety of America A&+AD concurs "ith assessments by the 'ational Academies of +cience A455HD, the 'ational Research $ouncil A4558D, and the Intergovernmental Panel on $limate $hange AIP$$, 455ID that global climate has

"armed and that human activities Amainly greenhousegas emissionsD account for most of the "arming since the middle E655s.F A4558? revised 45E5D6

SCIE!CE ACADEMIES

International academies: *oint statement F$limate change is real. There "ill al"ays be uncertainty in understanding a system as comple as the "orld=s climate. -o"ever there is no" strong evidence that significant global "arming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the "arming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities AIP$$ 455ED.F A455H, EE international science academiesDE5

(+S+ !ational Academy of Sciences FThe scientific understanding of climate change is no" sufficiently clear to 2ustify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.F A455HDEE

(+S+ &#,E !ME!T A&E!CIES

(+S+ &lobal Change esearch )rogram FThe global "arming of the past H5 years is due primarily to humanBinduced increases in heatBtrapping gases. -uman 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice.F A4556, E7 ).+. government departments and agenciesDE4

I!TE &#,E !ME!TAL -#DIES

Intergovernmental )anel on Climate Change 9,arming of the climate system is une3uivocal, as is no" evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, "idespread melting of sno" and ice, and rising global average sea level.:E7 9>ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the midB45th century is very likelyK due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.:EG KIP$$ defines Lvery likely= as greater than 65 percent probability of occurrence.

#T.E

ES#( CES

List of worldwide scientific organi/ations The follo"ing page lists the nearly 455 "orld"ide scientific organi;ations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action. http<MMopr.ca.govMsNlistoforgani;ations.php

(+S+ agencies The follo"ing page contains information on "hat federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change. http<MM""".c4es.orgMdoc)ploadsMfederalBagenciesBadaptation.pdf

eferences

,. R. !. Anderegg, 9. pert $redibility in $limate $hange,: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Ool. E5I 'o. 4I, E4E5IBE4E56 A4E Pune 45E5D? %(I< E5.E5I7Mpnas.E557EJIE5I. P. T. %oran Q >. 0. Rimmerman, F. amining the +cientific $onsensus on $limate $hange,F Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Ool. 65 Issue 7 A4556D, 44? %(I< E5.E546M4556.(575554. '. (reskes, 9#eyond the Ivory To"er< The +cientific $onsensus on $limate $hange,: Science Ool. 758 no. HI54, p. E8J8 A7 %ecember 455GD? %(I< E5.EE48Mscience.EE578EJ.

+tatement on climate change from EJ scientific associations A4556D

!
AAA+ #oard +tatement on $limate $hange A4558D

"
A$+ Public Policy +tatement< $limate $hange A45E5B45E7D

#
-umanInduced $limate $hange Re3uires )rgent Action A45E7D

$
&lobal $limate $hange and -uman -ealth A45E7D

7
$limate $hange< An Information +tatement of the American >eteorological +ociety A45E4D

%
AP+ 'ational Policy 5I.E $limate $hange A455ID

9
&+A Position +tatement on $limate $hange A45E5D

1&

Point science academies' statement< &lobal response to climate change A455HD

11
)nderstanding and Responding to $limate $hange A455HD

1
&lobal $limate $hange Impacts in the )nited +tates A4556D

1!
IP$$ /ourth Assessment Report, +ummary for Policymakers A455ID

1"
IP$$ /ourth Assessment Report, +ummary for Policymakers A455ID

'ot (ust the )och brothers: 'e* study re+eals funders behind the climate change denial effort
Dec 20, 2013

3r. 4obert 5. &rulle is a professor of sociology and en'ironmental science at 3re6el 7ni'ersity in 8hiladelphia. !redit: !A/&/

A ne" study conducted by %re el )niversity's environmental sociologist Robert P. #rulle, Ph%, e poses the organi;ational underpinnings and funding behind the po"erful climate change countermovement. This study marks the first peerBrevie"ed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort. Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organi;ations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, #rulle found that, "hile the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of "ellBkno"n conservative foundations, the ma2ority of donations are Fdark money,F or concealed funding. The data also indicates that 0och Industries and . on>obil, t"o of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organi;ations. $oinciding "ith the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organi;ations through third party passBthrough foundations like %onors Trust and %onors $apital, "hose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically. #rulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science in %re el's $ollege of Arts and +ciences, conducted the study during a yearBlong fello"ship at +tanford )niversity's $enter for Advanced +tudy in the #ehavioral +ciences. The study "as published today in Climatic Change, one of the top E5 climate science 2ournals in the "orld.

The climate change countermovement is a "ellBfunded and organi;ed effort to undermine public faith in climate science and block action by the ).+. government to regulate emissions. This

countermovement involves a large number of organi;ations, including conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative foundations, "ith strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians. FThe climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the "orld to act on the issue of global "arming,F said #rulle. F!ike a play on #road"ay, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight S often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians S but behind the stars is an organi;ational structure of directors, script "riters and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you "ant to understand "hat's driving this movement, you have to look at "hat's going on behind the scenes.F To uncover ho" the countermovement "as built and maintained, #rulle developed a listing of EEJ important climate denial organi;ations in the ).+. -e then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organi;ation, combining information from the /oundation $enter "ith financial data submitted by organi;ations to the Internal Revenue +ervice. The final sample for analysis consisted of EG5 foundations making H,466 grants totaling THHJ million to 6E organi;ations from 4557 to 45E5. 0ey findings include<

!onser'ati'e foundations ha'e bank-rolled denial. *he largest and most consistent funders of organi+ations orchestrating climate change denial are a number of well-known conser'ati'e foundations, such as the /earle 9reedom *rust, the 5ohn $illiam 8ope 9oundation, the :oward !haritable 9oundation and the /arah /caife 9oundation. *hese foundations promote ultra-free-market ideas in many realms. ;och and <66on=obil ha'e recently pulled back from publicly 'isible funding. 9rom 011- to 011>, the ;och Affiliated 9oundations and the <66on=obil 9oundation were hea'ily in'ol'ed in funding climate-change denial organi+ations. &ut since 011,, they are no longer making publicly traceable contributions. 9unding has shifted to pass through untraceable sources. !oinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding gi'en to denial organi+ations by the 3onors *rust has risen dramatically. 3onors *rust is a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. *his one foundation now pro'ides about 0?@ of all traceable foundation funding used by organi+ations engaged in promoting systematic denial of climate change. =ost funding for denial efforts is untraceable. 3espite e6tensi'e data compilation and analyses, only a fraction of the hundreds of millions in contributions to climate change denying organi+ations can be specifically accounted for from public records. Appro6imately >?@ of the income of these organi+ations comes from unidentifiable sources.

FThe real issue here is one of democracy. ,ithout a free flo" of accurate information, democratic politics and government accountability become impossible,F said #rulle. F>oney amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public s3uare. Po"erful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global "arming and raise public doubts about the roots and remedies of this massive global threat. At the very least, American voters deserve to kno" "ho is behind these efforts.F This study is part one of a threeBpart pro2ect by #rulle to e amine the climate movement in the ).+. at the national level. The ne t step in the pro2ect is to e amine the environmental movement or the climate change movement. #rulle "ill then compare the "hole funding flo" to the entire range of organi;ations on both sides of the debate.

College 'rofessor: 0*ail climate change deniers12

.otair 3 U 57MEJM45EG U #ruce >c*uain Posted on Tuesday4 March $%4 56$7 8:8%:8% )M by See9And"ind

It never fails. At some point, the mask slips among the 9tolerant: members of academia and "e are e posed to their real controlling and authoritarian face. (ver the past fe" "eeks there have been t"o good e amples of this. At -arvard, "e had senior +andra 0orn A9a 2oint history of science and studies of "omen, gender and se uality concentrator:, "hatever that might beD declare that academic freedom is an outdated concept and that 9academic 2ustice: is a much better concept< In its oftBcited +tatement of Principles on Academic /reedom and Tenure, the American Association of )niversity Professors declares that 9Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.: In principle, this policy seems sound< It "ould not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political "hims of the moment. @et the liberal obsession "ith 9academic freedom: seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has 9full freedom: in research and publication. ,hich research proposals receive funding and "hat papers are accepted for publication are al"ays contingent on political priorities. The "ords used to articulate a research 3uestion can have implications for its outcome. 'o academic 3uestion is ever 9free: from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, se ism, and heterose ism, "hy should "e put up "ith research that counters our goals simply in the name of 9academic freedom:C Instead, I "ould like to propose a more rigorous standard< one of 9academic 2ustice.: ,hen an academic community observes research promoting or 2ustifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

Tolerance of ideas you don=t like or agree "ithC /orget about it. Instead, refuse to fund research that doesn=t conform to your agenda and "e=ll call that 9academic 2ustice:. /eel a little chillC 'o" "e have an assistant professor of philosophy at the Rochester Institute of Technology "ho "ould like to see those "ho disagree "ith him on climate change put in 2ail. Apparently freedom of thought and speech and the right to disagree are outdated concepts as "ell. .ric ("ens at the %aily $aller brings us up to date< The professor is !a"rence Torcello. !ast "eek, he published a 655B"ordBplus essay at an academic "ebsite called The $onversation. -is main complaint is his belief that certain nefarious, unidentified individuals have organi;ed a 9campaign funding misinformation.: +uch a campaign, he argues, 9ought to be considered criminally negligent.: Torcello, "ho has a Ph.%. from the )niversity at #uffalo, e plains that there are times "hen criminal negligence and 9science misinformation: must be linked. The threat of climate change, he says, is one of those times. Throughout the piece, he refers to the bi;arre political aftermath of an earth3uake in !=A3uila, Italy, "hich sa" si scientists imprisoned for si years each because they failed to 9clearly communicate risks to the public: about living in an earth3uake ;one. 9$onsider cases in "hich science communication is intentionally undermined for political and financial gain,: the assistant professor urges. 9Imagine if in !=A3uila, scientists themselves had made every effort to communicate the risks of living in an earth3uake ;one,: Torcello argues, but evil 9financiers: of a 9denialist campaign: 9funded an organised VsicW campaign to discredit the consensus findings of seismology, and for that reason no preparations "ere made.: 9I submit that this is 2ust "hat is happening "ith the current, "ell documented funding of global "arming denialism,: Torcello asserts. 'o mention of the current, "ell documented funding of global "arming alarmism AAl &ore, call your booking agentD. 'o mention of the science that counters many of the claims of alarmists. 'o mention of the une plained EH year temperature pause. In fact, no mention of anything that might derail his argument. #ut that=s par for the course among alarmists, and Torcello is certainly one of them. And, as he makes clear, he "ill not tolerate deniers because they=re not only "rong, they=re criminals< Torcello says that people are already dying because of global "arming. 9'onetheless, climate denial remains a serious deterrent against meaningful political action in the very countries most responsible for the crisis.: As such, Torcello "ants governments to make 9the funding of climate denial: a crime.

9The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to e tend to all activities of the climate deniers "ho receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public=s understanding of scientific consensus.: (f course the reason he=s so upset is this ne" fangled thing called the internet has enabled anyone "ho is curious about the climate debate to actually see both sides of the argument layed out before them. /or the alarmists, that has inconveniently helped a ma2ority of people reali;e that the science behind the alarmism is "eak at best and fraudulent in some cases. It has also helped them understand that the alarmist science that Torcello "ants enshrined as 9truth: "as gathered from deeply fla"ed computer models and fudged data. And, it has also let the voices of dissenting scientists be heard. /inally, this ability for the public to "eigh the arguments has found most of the public vie"ing climate change as a minor problem at best. Torcello "ould like to make all of that a crimnal activity based simply on his belief that the alarmist argument is the accurate argument. -e=d 2ail the heretics and deny the public the opposing argument. The Torcellos of the "orld once tried to do this to a man named &allileo. And "e kno" ho" that "orked out. It is al"ays easy to "ave a"ay those like Torcello and claim they=re an anomoly. #ut it seems "e see more and more of them popping up each day. The struggle to gain and maintain freedom is a daily struggle. It is the Torcellos and the 0orns of the "orld "ho "ould S for your o"n good, of course S be happy to help incrementally rob you of your freedoms. They must be called out each and every time they do so and e posed for "hat they are.