DENIAL OF GLOBAL WARMING - Is this a crime against humanity?

Question

For at least the last 20 years our society has been aware that we, humankind, might have been having a negative impact on our environment through our carbon emissions and the destruction of natural habitats.

Very early on, the debate fractured into two camps, those for whom it was obvious that there was a problem and that this problem could only get worse and the consequences intensify the longer we left it to act; and those for whom nothing but absolute proof would be good enough to convince them that there was a problem in the first instance, before any action could or should be taken.

Despite the enormity of the task and the incredible complexity of the problem that faced them, the scientifc community has over the last two decades invested huge amounts of manhours in data gathering and computational modelling capability to derive an unambiguous conclusion - there is a problem, we are to blame and we have to act quickly or we face horrendous consequences if we do not.

The debate fractured in the first instance because vested interest and greed in big corporations, Governments and individuals alike prompted these people/institutions to cast doubt, to demand an almost impossible level of proof and the confuse, delay and obfuscate on the issue, to such a degree that at some points in the process it looked like we might never get to the obvious answer that was staring us in the face all along.

Now that the results are in, we still see people in total denial of the issue. Wading into the debate time and again still saying that there is no issue here and that we can carry on regardless, despite the enormity of the risk that we would take following their direction.

As to continue to deny that there is a problem continues to cause doubt and uncertainty, and as such engenders inertia to act when we all must face or responsibilities on the matter. This places all our futures at risk and in jeopardy. Surely, this is therefore a crime against humanity!

Some links for you to follow on Global Warming, the science, the economics, morality and other 'monsters behind the door'.

(1) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
http://www.grida.no/Newsroom.aspx?m=54&pressReleaseItemID=1050

(2) THE STERN REPORT
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm

(3)AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH:
http://www.climatecrisis.net

(4) GLOBAL DIMMING
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

Also, and for the record this question was not about whether global warming exists or whether we are causing it or whether we should or could do anything about it. That debate is now OVER. This question postulates that denial about Global Warming is a henous act which endagers society and future generations - aka a crime against humanity. I think it does and although there are one or two good comments addressing this the rest is simple denial.

Answer 1

If a credible rebuttal of global warming were to come about, your proposed law would forbid it.

if anything, it would add fuel to the fire of the corporate ostriches with their heads in the sand and their patsies.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

There is no categorical proof the horrendous consequences will actually happen. Nobody actually knows for sure that global warming can be eased or stopped from happening even if drastic measures are taken, such as ending all aircraft flights throughout world, closing down all coal and oil power stations and stopping all cars . Doing all that worldwide would have horrendous consequences on the world economy and mankind, yet just might be an utter waste of time and effort.

Even if it was possible and practicable to do this in every single country in the world, nobody in the world can say for sure whether it will solve "the problem" referred to, or conversely whether "the problem" is now too far gone for any such action to be futile and pointless. Nor does anybody in the world know for sure whether the earth has some mechanism that will self correct the problem and the predicted harm to mankind just won't happen? It is all theoretical belief. Some might say God will act but nobody knows that either. So if nobody actually knows this how can a crime against humanity be realistically contended?

Answer 4

I would be very happy to see the reduction of carbon emissions and other polutants.

However I don't think the argument has been made either way.

The earth has had many many cycles over the milenia it has existed.

However if we are in a cycle of warming there are 2 scarry things that may happen possibly sooner than those you would charge with any crime would like.

1. The Atlantic conveyer could stall due to fresh water melt from the ice caps, so northern europe would be locked in an ice age, this happened during the middle ages when run off from the great lakes partly stalled it, causing famin on a vast scale.

2. The planets core could rise however slightly and cause a mass of volcanic activity, which would lead to globel cooling similar to a nuclear winter.

Either way we get balence, but we may not be arround to see it...

That's assuming GW exists, and we can't stop it.

Answer 5

The reason some of us would like proof is that there are many well respected scientists (and no they aren't all on the Corporations or Government payroll) that make equally persuasive arguments that there is not sufficient proof to indicate that mankind is responsible for the current warming trend and if we are to what extent. Also, the UN Commission on Climate Change did spend a lot of time money and effort to come to their conclusion, but they did not allow their work to be independently peer reviewed. Being that the document was commissioned by the UN and there are many questions about their methodology, models and review practices it leads thoughtful people to believe it is purely a political document and not worthy of kickstarting a bunch of knee jerk reactions to solve a problem that we don't truly know whether it is a problem or to what extent.

And just to clear up another one of your claims, since there is dissent amongst qualified scientists there is no unambiguous conclusion. There is only consensus among a group of politically appointed scientists. There was not even unanimous agreement as to the conclusions from the scientists involved with the UN Commission on Climate change. They produced their report (which it has been agreed on that its a political document and not a scientific report at this point) based on the finding of a majority of the scientists involved in the study. Thats not science my friend. Thats politics.

Answer 6

I believe global warming could well be true, but what to do about it, I mean besides the obvious trivialities: putting in energy saving bulbs, etc. I really think it needs something much more then this.
That's just the governments trying to pass the responsibility over to the consumer. When really its down to the way we generate power. There must be a way of generating free energy, that can not only be used in the home and industry but also in vehicles. Some people believe the American government already know about this free energy, but are holding it back, for the sake of present oil industries, car manufacturing, and electrical industries.

Answer 7

It's not just a crime against humanity, it is a crime against mother earth. The thing about it that is so arrogant it is that a lot of it stems from greed and profiting of big corporations and the assumption that the earth will eventually adapt to the survival of the fittest. So it is assumed that whatever species are affected by global warming were selectively removed through the natural process of evolution. Again... ARROGANCE! Mother earth will eventually find a way to protect itself against what endangers it the most. MANKIND. I believe that the planet is a living thing, and much like anti bodies protect individuals, the planet will eventually purge itself of what is doing the most damage. Mankind is completely susceptible to that aspect. As a global populace people need to understand that no matter how much money there is in corporate pursuits that damage our planet, we have to be around to appreciate that profit. If we can not or are not around, then what's the purpose? It's an uphill battle waking people up to the reality of the situation.

Answer 8

Global warming, now considered to be established fact, the Antarctic sea ice is getting smaller season by season and is estimated to have shrunk by 20% in the last 50 years, http://www.guardian.co.uk/antarctic/story/0,13993,1085643,00.html the arctic is experiencing a similar phenomenon, causing polar bears a problem, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece many people will be affected by the rise in sea levels. http://www.science.org.au/nova/082/082key.htm the entire planet is feeling the effects of this runaway greenhouse effect. I would not expect all life on earth to become extinct as a results of this problem, however there will be extinctions, human populations will also suffer, though the human race will survive, significant portions of it will be displaced or die due to rising sea levels. Would I call it a crime against humanity? In some respects yes, but it is wider than that, the whole planet is affected. I would say crime is perhaps not the best way to describe this, it is a tragedy of international proportions, finding ways of reducing the impact & helping those affected by this problem are In my opinion more important now, than other considerations. This can only happen if there is international cooperation.

Answer 9

Nope. If we are doing it and we cant,don't or wont change it and we all die. What exactly do you think is a worse punishment. You gonna take my air conditioner away? Go ahead, we are all ready dead remember. The thing to remember when trying to scare people into buying into your theories is this. 1. If we are all going to die from global warming, most of us are going to tell you to shut up. My last days on earth will not be spent with you whining about how 20 years ago you told us so. 2. you still have not proved that global warming is going to do any thing more than make it snow more there for cooling the planet.

Answer 10

Of COURSE global waring is a reality. Today, we heard that this winter has been the warmest SINCE the 1600s.

What caused some year in the 1600s to have a warmer winter? What caused the end of the last Ice Age? Man? Cars? Industry? No, of course not - the Earth caused it . Look at the size of our world. Look at the TINY bit we occupy.

You flatter yourselves, those of you who think YOU control the Earth's environment - NATURE is in charge, and we are part of nature. Sit back, and enjoy the ride. It only lasts about 80 years - stop trying to think you have ANY part in how it pans out.

Answer 11

Wake up and smell the coffee that was made from burning carbons. If it were that bad then why does your spokesman Dr. Al (do as I say and not as I do) Gore burning so many carbons.

From a news report today, Big Al has 3 mansions, In his Mansion located in TN "The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press spanning the period from Feb. 3, 2006, to Jan. 5. That is far more than the typical Nashville household, which uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year". Now in his defense he purchased 16,200 kilowatt-hours. This means that he still burned 1.7 million kilowatt-hours more then the average home with just this one mansion. That would have taken care of 11 more families.
Then we don't even need to get into his burning carbons flying on private jets instead of using first class commercial transportation. Now granted he uses the small jets while the majority leader Mrs Nancy give me the biggest jet, has to fly in a 757 back and forth from Washington to SF.
These are the people that are telling you and me that we need to buy the more expensive light bulbs to save energy, we need to by smaller cars to make way for their limos on the highways. I would give them more thought if they would display an effort as well. I guess if they did conserve energy they might be thought of as CONSERVATIVE.

So should Al G. and Nancy P. be brought up on charges of crimes agianst humanity? I think that will help him win his politzer