Do you agree that global warming denial is "criminally irresponsible"?

Question

"The Nobel-winning panel of world climate experts on Monday launched a debate over a landmark report after a top UN official warned any failure to curb global warming would be "criminally irresponsible."

"The effects of climate change are being felt already," Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said.

"Climate change will hit hardest the poorest and most vulnerable countries. Its overall effect, however, will be felt by everyone and will in some cases threaten people's very survival."

"Failing to recognize the urgency of this message and acting on it would be nothing less than criminally irresponsible," he said."

http://green.yahoo.com/news/afp/20071112/ts_afp/unclimatewarmingipcc.html

Do you agree that failing to act to slow global warming is criminally irresponsible?

To clarify, my understanding of the comments were that he didn't literally mean that this denial should be criminal. It seems to me like he's using the figurative meaning of the word.

Answer 1

To take the believe/don't believe argument out of this issue, pretend this is not the issue of Global Warming. See it as a just a possible but general 'threat' to the well being of people that 'MAY' be prevented/reduced by taking action.

What answerers are failing (perhaps intentionally) to delineate is the public from the personal. So my response is in two parts. 'Failing to recognize the urgency of this message or acting on it would be nothing less than criminally irresponsible' if this is the man in the street, then no, I do not consider that he should be. This issue is far too complex to understand enough for people to make a truly 'INFORMED decision without mass Governmental information campaigns and legislation to ensure compliance (such as in times of war). This would be secondary responsibility AFTER Governmental responsibility. So no, people in the street should not be held criminally responsible.

However, Governments have access and expert understanding of all the material needed to make an INFORMED decision as to risk. IF they know that there is a significant RISK, then by not acting, it would, in my opinion by criminally irresponsible. For argument's sake, say, there was a risk to drinking water which could result in mass poisoning. If these risks were assessed to be more than possible, given the current level of information, then in my opinion, of course the Government, could and should inform and act. It would be criminal irresponsible by failing to act (willful neglect) as to do so would result in deaths and illness. Similarly individuals in professional positions that influence policy and action, should be held responsible for willful negligence if they do not whistle blow or act.

Answer 2

Bob answered correctly.

This is UN posturing to prod the Bush administration and others.

Polarizing rhetoric is not helpful.

There are many, many examples of criminally irresponsible behavior by governments and industry. When is anything ever done about it?

To answer your question directly, I don't think the issue can be framed this way. In the beginning of these issues, (smoking, asbestos, etc.) there are always reasonable disagreements over the science. As time goes on, the evidence becomes so overwhelming, or the defendants themselves are caught red handed with damming information that predates their denials, that it becomes a criminal matter. Think about smoking; tobacco kills but it is still legal. So instead, it becomes a permanently enshrined civil matter.

And when we put someone up for trial, who will it be? That we have all, but a tiny minority of brave souls, acquiesced in this, we are all guilty.

Maybe it's time to get past the blame and move forward with the solutions.

Answer 3

As long as you consider the alternative that it is equally or even more criminally irresponsible for scientists to deny the real possibility that the climate could begin cooling rapidly and thrust humanity into a battle it is not prepared to fight, because of your rhetoric.

Answer 4

Let us put it in another way, People in authority to remedy or control the smog that is hovering all over the cities are criminally irresponsible because no one can deny that the smog and pollution are not man made or caused by gasolene or diesel emisions which have caused sickness to millions of people.

Answer 5

convinced, yet you should comprehend that many human beings do not favor to be puzzled through the information. that is a lot easier basically to applaud someone who concurs with in spite of concept is implied by way of their question. To be straightforward, i ought to just about say that that query deserved a "No wonderful answer" because just about no human being (which includes your self) addressed the question requested, it extremely is, even if the sunlight is getting hotter. That documents that you gave changed into on irradiance and sunspot form--yet no longer temperature. it really is totally no longer no longer a threat for irradiance to flow up as image voltaic temperature is going down, or vice versa. just about all of us exceeded over image voltaic temperature (i imagine 1 answer reported it in passing yet gave no documents to help their perspective). regularly, notwithstanding wonderful solutions and thumbs-up are literally not about how good the answer is, notwithstanding it really is instead a popularity contest. for instance, there is yet another answer to this question through a properly-elementary denier and he must have made a mistake typing it, because the answer makes no experience as given (i'm particular even he ought to admit that). in spite of the reality that, the most suitable time I checked he had 8 thumbs as a lot as purely 3 thumbs down, so human beings ought to purely were giving thumbs up because they prefer him.

Answer 6

It's mere speculation to try to ascertain what this fellow meant when he said this, but maybe it was a poke at the U.S. and other developed nations that aren't yet doing their part, and implying that sanctions could be imposed on nations that are especially problematic in their contributions to the problem, and lagging in their efforts to mitigate or control them.

I don't think strict sanctions would be out of line, if that's what he meant. It may also serve to keep developing nations from following suit in trying to emulate the lifestyles of many developed countries. If they knew there would be sanctions imposed down the line, they may chose to grow in a more conscientious manner. In fact they should be encouraged to do so with some sort of mentoring U.N. program, and failure to implement one would be .... "criminally irresponsible?"

Answer 7

More silly whining and complaining by the elites who contribute much more to so called global warming than I do. Of course, they are exempt, because they are so very important to the planet. BS

Answer 8

I think your question is "loaded." First, it is in a forum that is "pro" global warming. Second, you only use quotes that promote the cause of global warming, and none from the opposing viewpoint. Seems you are trying to single out people, that don't agree with you.

Guess you will have to add me to that list, as I say "No, it is not criminally irresponsible."

Answer 9

The founder of The Weather Channel was the first in that "industry" to finally ball up and say it's a scam.

"Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus."

google John Coleman global warming and you'll see the extremely limited press his recent statement generated. It wouldn't be good business to advertise this afterall!

Answer 10

So, how are you running that computer? Did you walk to work or ride your bike or your horse? Will you be in jail with the rest of humanity *(except, of course Algorge)*.

Here is truth about global warming:

Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.
The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.
This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.
Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is
becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).
As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).
When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.

It's been happening for millions of years.

The worrisome and brutal predictions of drastic climate effects are based on computer models, NOT CLIMATE HISTORY.
As you probably know, computer models are not the most reliable of sources, especially when used to 'predict' chaotic systems such as weather.

Global warming/cooling, AKA 'climate change':
Humans did not cause it.
Humans cannot stop it.