Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?

citizenschallenge

The Conversation

https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111

Lawrence Torcello  |  March 13, 2014

Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?

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. ...

The earthquake that rocked L'Aquila Italy in 2009 provides an interesting case study of botched communication. ...

The ruling is popularly thought to have convicted scientists for failing to predict an earthquake. On the contrary, as risk assessment expert David Ropeik pointed out, the trial was actually about the failure of scientists to clearly communicate risks to the public. The convicted parties were accused of providing “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information”. As one citizen stated:

We all know that the earthquake could not be predicted, and that evacuation was not an option. All we wanted was clearer information on risks in order to make our choices.

Crucially, the scientists, when consulted about ongoing tremors in the region, did not conclude that a devastating earthquake was impossible in L’Aquila. But, when the Defence Minister held a press conference saying there was no danger, they made no attempt to correct him. I don’t believe poor scientific communication should be criminalised because doing so will likely discourage scientists from engaging with the public at all.

But the tragedy in L’Aquila reminds us how important clear scientific communication is and how much is at stake regarding the public’s understanding of science. I have argued elsewhere that scientists have an ethical obligation to communicate their findings as clearly as possible to the public when such findings are relevant to public policy. Likewise, I believe that scientists have the corollary obligation to correct public misinformation as visibly and unequivocally as possible.

Many scientists recognize these civic and moral obligations. Climatologist Michael Mann is a good example; Mann has recently made the case for public engagement in a powerful New York Times opinion piece: If You See Something Say Something.

Misinformation and criminal negligence

Still, critics of the case in L’Aquila are mistaken if they conclude that criminal negligence should never be linked to science misinformation. Consider cases in which science communication is intentionally undermined for political and financial gain. Imagine if in L’Aquila, scientists themselves had made every effort to communicate the risks of living in an earthquake zone. Imagine that they even advocated for a scientifically informed but costly earthquake readiness plan.

If those with 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 were made, then many of us would agree that the financiers of the denialist campaign were criminally responsible for the consequences of that campaign. I submit that this is just what is happening with the current, well documented funding of global warming denialism.

More deaths can already be attributed to climate change than the L’Aquila earthquake and we can be certain that deaths from climate change will continue to rise with global warming. Nonetheless, climate denial remains a serious deterrent against meaningful political action in the very countries most responsible for the crisis.

citizenschallenge

Climate denial funding

We 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 extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.

Criminal negligence is normally understood to result from failures to avoid reasonably foreseeable harms, or the threat of harms to public safety, consequent 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.

My argument probably raises an understandable, if misguided, concern regarding free speech. We must make the critical distinction between 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.

What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial? Those who purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.

citizenschallenge

Sou, on a cut an paste like this with many links - what's okay, what's not?


I posted the above as a conversation starter.

citizenschallenge

The Ethics of Inquiry, Scientific Belief, and Public Discourse Lawrence Torcello Public Affairs Quarterly 25 (3):197-215 (2011) http://philpapers.org/rec/TORTEO-2 Abstract: The scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change is firmly established yet climate change denialism, a species of what I call pseudoskepticism, is on the rise in industrial nations most responsible for climate change. Such denialism suggests the need for a robust ethics of inquiry and public discourse. In this paper I argue: (1) that ethical obligations of inquiry extend to every voting citizen insofar as citizens are bound together as a political body. (2) It is morally condemnable for public officials to put forward assertions contrary to scientific consensus when such consensus is decisive for public policy and legislation. (3) It is imperative upon educators, journalists, politicians and all those with greater access to the public forum to condemn, factually and ethically, pseudoskeptical assertions made in the public realm without equivocation

FlyingDutchman

While I certainly agree that it's a complex problem and I'm not a lawyer or have any other experience with legalese, I think I can roughly summarize my opinion as follows: staying silent when someone else is wrong is not a crime, but willingly lying when speaking on a subject is. So for example, I would say the Italian scientists that didn't do enough fear-mongering for the earthquakes are not at fault. If however, one of them would have responded to the politician saying things were fine with 'yeah, sounds about right' they would be at fault since they would know that's wrong. The politician on the other hand should be held responsible since he was saying something he knew was wrong (he presumably talked to those scientists, right?). Sadly, while I don't know the details of what happened in Italy after the earthquake, holding politicians accountable for their words seems to go counter to some universal constant or whatever given how few are ever tried for it.

VictorVenema

FlyingDutchman said:

Sadly, while I don't know the details of what happened in Italy after the earthquake, holding politicians accountable for their words seems to go counter to some universal constant or whatever given how few are ever tried for it.

The scientists were acquitted in a higher court. The case against a politician was upheld; I do not remember if it was this one, but that seems likely.

citizenschallenge

VictorVenema said:

FlyingDutchman said:

Sadly, while I don't know the details of what happened in Italy after the earthquake, holding politicians accountable for their words seems to go counter to some universal constant or whatever given how few are ever tried for it.

The scientists were acquitted in a higher court. The case against a politician was upheld; I do not remember if it was this one, but that seems likely.

Yes, all in all it seems that justice was served.

Updated: Appeals court overturns manslaughter convictions of six earthquake scientists

By Edwin Cartlidge  Nov. 10, 2014 , 3:45 PM

http://www.sciencealert.com/italy-s-earthquake-scientists-have-been-cleared-for-good

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

http://www.nature.com/news/italian-seismologists-cleared-of-manslaughter-1.16313

FlyingDutchman

Well, then things aren't quite as bad as they seemed to be, at least. Good to hear!

john

Because of the court case in Italy Climate Scientists may have a fear that they will be prosecuted because they did not inform the public and the decision makers.
Considering the amount of FUD being propagated and  repeated by the elected representatives in most countries, this may be hard to fly in a court.
Perhaps down the track the statements of the elected etc. may be reviewed especially those who repeated the mantra of the very companies who are going to be the guilty parties in this whole disastrous mess. 
How to cut through the FUD?
Extremely difficult considering there is vested interest in any other message to the general public.
Not every country has the kind of information service enjoyed in Australia and perhaps England.

tadaaa

the Italians seem to have a habit for this sort of thing

not quiet the same but the Italian legal eagles got really hot and bothered over the death of Ayrton Senna

from the linked article - the below quote caught my eye

http://atlasf1.autosport.com/99/dec08/horton.html

"The overwhelming feeling generated from these proceedings was that the court - as was its duty - was trying to pin blame and not trying to find the cause."

Ken Fabian

My own view is that, whilst ordinary citizens can believe, say and promote whatever they like people who hold positions of trust and responsibility do not. That would include accredited scientists but just as importantly, politicians and other elected and appointed officeholders as well as company directors/CEO's who, in most jurisdictions have legal obligations and responsibility for the decisions they make. It should include journalists and news editors although the legal status of presenting falsehoods within our media can be questionable, even without the blurring of opinion and news and the "freedom" of the media to be politically partisan.

 Unfortunately the common law system, that establishes precedents for assigning responsibility - at least where I live - is not well suited to the multigenerational nature of the climate problem and the balance between benefits and harms from energy and it's byproducts. When the benefits - cheap energy, economic activity, returns on investments and employment -  are fairly immediate and quantifiable the harms are less immediately obvious, more difficult to quantify and prove in a legal sense, irrespective of their cumulative and irreversible nature.

For scientists I would expect that misrepresenting the state of knowledge within their specialty and the work of their peers - what is widely accepted and what is not - would be at the least, a form of professional misconduct. Presenting a maverick opinion as mainstream and well grounded ought to lead to some kinds of sanctions. Other kinds of professional misconduct is subject to some serious legal sanctions - the doctor or engineer who's negligence or misconduct leads to harm. I suspect that without more explicit and legislated responsibility the "academic freedom" argument will continue to excuse a lot that ought to be inexcusable.