Should climate change denial be made a criminal offence?

[Wolverine2]

In answer to the question that started this thread - no, as that will only play into the hands of those who have agendas, like carguy (hell, the name gives it away!)

Those who refuse to accept the reality of climate change as it is presented to them have agendas, many of which involve the almighty dollar/euro. We shouldn't do anything that allows them to paint themselves as victims of a surpression of free speech. They may be talking out of their arses, but they're entitled to talk out of their arses. And we have the right to point out that they are talking out of their arses and laugh at them as well.

[thebrom]

Certainly not - but the deliberate distortion of scientific paper's should be treated as libel by the courts.

Is that not in itself a form of denial?

Surely any legislation would not be banning freedom of speech, people could still deny it, however any lobby, newspaper or political party trying to distort research papers and facts to suit their cause would be subject to penalties. It would be orchestrated and malicious campaigns seeking to distort the facts much like the tobacco lobby tried to do that I'm talking about, not the likes of Bobert who are just looking for attention.[/quote]

[myksav]

Hey thebrom,
This kind of thing doesnt do the cause any good.
The cause being - ignoring the people who it suits to continue business as usual and getting on with trying to change things for the better, for the present and for the future.
We can't wait for the water to be lapping around our children's ankles before we do something.
The least we can do is change ourselves.
Forget about China and the dude down the road in the penis compensator.

Live higher than sea level and build a few boats.

[myksav]

Coming back to the issue of energy efficiency though, introducing pilot projects on building energy efficiency while at the same time announcing huge investment in an energy supply heavily reliant on subsidy in the current market is questionable. I get the feeling we're doing the wrong thing first.

I don't really see why one necessarily has to come before the other can be touched. Why not put resources into both demand reductions and improvements in the grid?

The first link you post is the most relevant. I'm not sure what uptake has been like but this needs to be rolled out quicker and on a larger scale with an advertising campaign to match. Also, is 30% of the capital cost really enough to incentivise people to proceed? Uptake of these scheme will dictate its level of success and the government should not rely on people looking to find out about it themslves. Also, with the current downturn in the construction sector there is a strong supply of contractors in a position to carry this work out on a large scale without inordinate rises in costs charged. By addressing this first it would alleviate the pressure on taking decisions in relation to longer term energy security and environmental considerations which will have significant influences on the economy as a whole.

Exactly! The surplus of labour in construction is a huge opportunity, but in order for it to be capitialised, it'd require FF accepting that a degree of borrowing for capital spending is necessary. As for 30% being enough, I'm not sure. I'd certainly like to see it higher (the state covering half of your costs would be a particularly good selling point), but obviously there are spending constraints mostly out of control of the Green Party. That said, increasing fossil fuel prices only serve to incentivise energy-saving improvements further. There comes a point where people will have to take some initiative themselves - the government can't hold their hand through every stage.

One of the problems with waiting for the fuel cost to increase enough to force energy saving improvements is that the fuel cost now directly effects the costs in doing the improvements. As the price goes up, so does the improvement costs.
There is a failure in improvements while costs are low enough to make it truly viable for everyone.

[thebrom]

Coming back to the issue of energy efficiency though, introducing pilot projects on building energy efficiency while at the same time announcing huge investment in an energy supply heavily reliant on subsidy in the current market is questionable. I get the feeling we're doing the wrong thing first.

I don't really see why one necessarily has to come before the other can be touched. Why not put resources into both demand reductions and improvements in the grid?

The first link you post is the most relevant. I'm not sure what uptake has been like but this needs to be rolled out quicker and on a larger scale with an advertising campaign to match. Also, is 30% of the capital cost really enough to incentivise people to proceed? Uptake of these scheme will dictate its level of success and the government should not rely on people looking to find out about it themslves. Also, with the current downturn in the construction sector there is a strong supply of contractors in a position to carry this work out on a large scale without inordinate rises in costs charged. By addressing this first it would alleviate the pressure on taking decisions in relation to longer term energy security and environmental considerations which will have significant influences on the economy as a whole.

Exactly! The surplus of labour in construction is a huge opportunity, but in order for it to be capitialised, it'd require FF accepting that a degree of borrowing for capital spending is necessary. As for 30% being enough, I'm not sure. I'd certainly like to see it higher (the state covering half of your costs would be a particularly good selling point), but obviously there are spending constraints mostly out of control of the Green Party. That said, increasing fossil fuel prices only serve to incentivise energy-saving improvements further. There comes a point where people will have to take some initiative themselves - the government can't hold their hand through every stage.

One of the problems with waiting for the fuel cost to increase enough to force energy saving improvements is that the fuel cost now directly effects the costs in doing the improvements. As the price goes up, so does the improvement costs.
There is a failure in improvements while costs are low enough to make it truly viable for everyone.

1) Most grants are subsidised by the government
2) If people spend less on heating and electricity, they will have more money to spend in the economy thus creating more jobs.

[myksav]

One of the problems with waiting for the fuel cost to increase enough to force energy saving improvements is that the fuel cost now directly effects the costs in doing the improvements. As the price goes up, so does the improvement costs.
There is a failure in improvements while costs are low enough to make it truly viable for everyone.

1) Most grants are subsidised by the government
2) If people spend less on heating and electricity, they will have more money to spend in the economy thus creating more jobs.

Where does the Gov't get the money for the subsidies? Taxes. Nothing to be expected from the EU as we are net contributors now.
It will be difficult to spend less on heating and electricity with the increases in fuel and the proposed 30% hike in electricity prices.
With these increases, 'spare' money becomes less, less spending, less jobs.

I get a kick out of the adverts that say "lowering the thermostat by one degree, from 22 to 21 degrees, will save you so much on heating bills and help the environment". Fair enough, but I can't figure how people can live in a house that hot. The max in my house is 17 degrees, a perfectly comfortable shirt-sleeves temperature.
If your house is 22 or 21 degrees, you're going to feel cold when you go outdoors most of the year.

[Itchy ClickFinger]

Denying Climate change seems a bit crazy to be honest but I wouldn't make it a criminal offence .Though (on Reflection) If the Government had made Voting No a criminal offence in the first place , they could have pushed through that Lisbon thing Much easier.
Anyway, what sane observer can deny that the climate has always changed and probably always will? and indeed if it stops changing it might be very worrying indeed.
Hey! maybe we should make trying to stop climate change a criminal offence.
Just a Thought.........

[mryoungdan]

As to the 80% claim, if I remember correctly the actual number is 80% accept the global warming explanation, not that 80% reject it.

It is a pity the site lost excellent posters like this

[Sync]

No. Convicting people for espousing ideas and beliefs is oppressive.