How can we keep people from voicing skeptisism about climate change?

Question

i understand the fairness doctrine will effectively silence rush limbaugh, hannity and all the others who speak out against it..should we do this?

you did well folks, except for the guy who saw through my ploy..there ain't nothing fair about the fairness doctrine..those who would give up their freedoms for some temporary relief from rush limbaugh deserve neither, but they would be well served to tune into rush limbaugh, mon-fri 11-2 central time.

Answer 1

That's kind of like asking "how can we eradicate free speech?" or "how can we control what people think?"

Uh, you can't. It's called the First Amendment. Worth a read along with all of the other amendments (trust me).

Answer 2

We have a First Amendment here in the US which prohibits silencing anyone. The important thing is to answer those who speak out without scientific foundation. Limbaugh is a disgrace to the Libertarian Party. The Party should make a campaign of responding to his more absurd comments.

I have not heard him in a long time, but is he really saying there is no climate changes, or is he saying that the free market should be the mechanism to changing things? Because there I would agree: consumer boycotts are a free-market method to make manufacturers and retailers aware that they cannot keep their market share if they do not take the concerns of the community seriously. Any company that trades stock should also see stockholder's lawsuits and boycotts.

The invisible hand of the marketplace is a powerful one if we wield it properly.

Answer 3

I get you now! You only want the people who agree with you and that drug doing Rush Limbaugh to have freedom of speech. It'll never happen Bucko! There are a lot better men in the Republican party to use as role models other than a drug addict. I think you've got a crush on Rush.

Answer 4

buddy, you can't silence skepticism on anything. Why ever would we really want to?
There is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, just the dubious comments by partisan biased charlatans.

the only way to combat the misinformation promoted by the folks you mentioned, is to educate yourself, listen to them, and expose them for what they truly are.

this way freedom remains intact, and more people become informed when they see their favorite propagandists demolished with logic and reason.

It also helps to promote critical thinking skills, so people can see for themselves how these people spin facts to promote their own agenda.

I listen to Rush all the time, if for no other reason than to know what delusional comment aquaintances are going to throw at me in an attempt to make me look "wrong". This way I can research the real facts, and have a reasonable response by the time they open their yap.

don't get me wrong, this sort of thing occurs on both sides of the political spectrum, but the libs I know don't get their arguments from entertainers, so it usually isn't as easy to be ready to refute their argument, before they present it.

If you think being on one side or the other is tough, because the other side is constantly attacking you, try basing your views on reason and critical thinking, causing you to be centristic, and watch both of them come at you.

At least with people like Limbaugh around, you get to know ahead of time, what argument the right leaning people are going to present next.

Answer 5

Just consider rush limbaugh a contrary spirit, and believe the opposite of what he says? I can tell you one interesting thing. Your radio has an on off switch! Also remember that the people who don't understand the principles of global warming probably didn't learn their abc's either. One thing we don't have a shortage of in America is idiots, too bad we cant find a useful purpose for them.

Answer 6

It is always counterproductive to censor political speach.

What is needed is a political agreement, from almost everyone, that we need to totally revamp the energy sources of our civilization. This requires persuasion. The scientific case is clear. The possible danger to all of humanity is clear. We now have to communicate this to as many people as possible, in terms they will understand.

Furthermore, the fear that drives many of the skeptics can be allayed. The solution to global warming need not require the creation of socialist institutions, or substantialy reduce our freedoms. It can be done, at least in part, through private enterprise, and in a way that stimulates economic well-being.

Answer 7

Absolutely not. There is nothing wrong with skepticism. In this case, it is a good thing. First of all, there is still a debate about whether or not man is causing global warming. Second, there is still a debate about whether or not global warming will be harmful.
The skeptics have valid reasons for being skeptical. People were once criticized, vilified, ostracized for saying the world is round.

Answer 8

We can keep people from voicing skepticism by passing laws to make speaking skeptically a crime. Much as we muzzle those of the Christian faith from voicing things about the tenets of their faith, make such prohibited speech in public, or with strangers, etc.

We have had a great history of the Supreme Court putting muzzles on folks whose free speech offended someone with clout, who used that to ban such talk everywhere by everybody...or at least everywhere in the US.

Good US political pollution control...if you can't cope with it, ban it.

Just read an article by a guy who was pushed out of his job when he found a possible flaw in some pro-GW work. And would not promise never to tell anybody. But if you can cut off their means of livelihood and publicize it properly, all you need to ruin them.

Answer 9

It's amazing how right-wing trolls and their hosts love to pontificate, isn't it? Unfortunately for them, they only prove my points. One of them offers: "...MSNBC, CNN are losing their audience in greater numbers, while Fox, Hannity or Rush Limbaugh numbers are increasing. ..." Unfortunately, the argument is not only lacking in facts, but illustrates why the Fairness Doctrine is important. For instance, Fox "News" ranted on, as did Rush and Ken doll Sean, about WMDs in Iraq, as well as every other lie put forth by the Bush administration, reaching millions of listeners and viewers, while also slandering the U.N. weapons inspectors, who just happened to be right. If you add political Christian broadcasting to this toxic mix, you get a monopoly that is dangerous. Progressives didn't get on Armed Forces radio until late in 2005, but even then Ed Schultz was threatened with cancellation before he even debuted, because he criticized someone in the Bush administration. This isn't championing free speech. It is patently unfair practice. It also illustrates the tilted news our military is getting. That, too, is dangerous.

Right-wing radio offers propaganda, not facts, with the intent to play on the listeners emotions, without offering content that is based in reality. The ratings prove that FNC, Fox "News" channel is losing out in the ratings. In addition, the ignorance of conservatives about media and radio is further shown when they say the Fairness Doctrine is about "...demanding that the government implement further control or regulation over an entire industry, it might be simpler to look in the mirror, at the rating points & ad revenues & realize that the market for the “progressive” or liberal slant isn’t as popular or pervasive as you assume it to be. ... Again, they miss the point. Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, as well as the leader in progressive talk, Randi Rhodes, are making it in the commercial market. They are not only popular, but growing. The issue is to allow more progressive hosts on local am/fm radio to see if we can also make it. Unless you've been in the battle for radio you don't know what it's like, with conservative corporations not even giving progressives a chance to get on air, or cancelling good hosts before they have the time to prove themselves. You have to give progressive hosts a chance to build an audience, which takes time. But conservatives do not want fairness, which can be seen through their trade policy, as well as their anti-union rhetoric, which has decimated the middle class, by selling out workers for outsourcing all in the name of profit. They want a one-way talking machine on radio, paid by and benefiting only their political partners in business, as well.
Right-wing is on the air and getting advertisers because they're the only game in town, except for a few progressive hosts like Schultz, Miller and Rhodes. The Fairness Doctrine will not keep a bad show on, but it will allow entry to good hosts who are now being shut out by conservative conglomerates
The short version of the Fairness Doctrine is that in 1987 Reagan had it scuttled. Shortly after that Rush Limbaugh began his journey and right-wing radio was created and gradually took over the airwaves, with the help of their corporate friends. The Fairness Doctrine could really make a difference. Why do you think conservatives are screaming like crazy?

Answer 10

I don't think so. If they tried to push the fairness doctrine on radio stations that are primarily talk format, then you could make an issue that NPR needs to have more right-wing commentary. Every college radio station. Even music stations that play music with a political message would have to make equal time for music with the opposite political message...no matter how much the music sucked.