posted
If just part of what Al Gore and those most scared of Global Warming say are correct, then major oil companies have been using their money to create a campaign of misinformation denying Global Warming, or man's/oil's role in it.
Could we, as a group of oil's customers, sue them for false advertising?
Is there that much of a legal difference between Oil companies giving money to Group A, so that Group A makes scientific sounding statements that are lies, than if McDonald gave money to Advertising Company A, and Advertising Company A produced comercials stating Big Mac's were healthy?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can sue anyone for pretty much anything you want. Winning your lawsuit will be the very tricky part
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I understand it, political statements -- even blatantly false ones -- are protected speech.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And just what kind of false advertising have you seen? Please, some specifics here.
If anybody is to be accused of false advertising, look to Al Gore and the producers of his doc. There are more misrepresentations in that one movie than in anything ever said by any oil company in any ad. It's just fear mongering. Al Gore won't debate the other side on this issue, its just easier for him to bring in the big bad bugaboo of the oil companies.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Al Gore won't debate the other side on this issue...
What do you mean? Who is the "other side," and who among them has asked to debate him? Moreover, why should Al Gore -- who's neither a scientist nor a politician nowadays -- engage in this debate? It's like saying "Jon Stewart won't debate the issues;" not only has Jon Stewart not been invited to debate the issues, there's also the question of why Jon Stewart should be the one debating any issues.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Al Gore never appears on a show with people who will challenge his assertions. He'll show up on Stewart or the Terry Gross show on NPR to be fawned over, but he won't address the substantive allegations of his critics. I've seen and heard his responses to critics. Its always along the lines of "those critics are just the mouth peices for the Big Oil." His doc ignores competing points of view and misrepresents the evidence. If he were interested in an honest debate he wouldn't misrepresent the evidence and resort to name calling critics.
As little respect as I have for Al Gore, I have enough respect for him to consider him as more than just another Jon Stewart. You may consider Al Gore to be just an entertainer and a late-night source of humor, but I take him seriously when he claims to be a public advocate on this issue, to have dedicated his life to bringing attention to this issue, and to be very well versed in the "science."
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If he were interested in an honest debate he wouldn't misrepresent the evidence
What evidence, specifically, are you accusing him of misrepresenting? Is he misrepresenting it by using accurate information to come to conclusions that you do not agree with, or using inaccurate information? Do you just think he's wrong, or not following accepted methods to reach his conclusions?
I tend to view Al Gore and his movie as a mouth piece for the scientific and popular community that researched and supports the findings that indicate Global Warming is a threat and specify human action as a leading cause. It is not his evidence that is supposedly being misrepresented, nor is it his supposed misrepresentation. The conclusions illustrated are the results of many accredited scientist's extensive research. It is not merely a case of a defunct politician screaming about how much he hates "big oil," it is tested theories that have not been disproved, that deserve more attention from the nation, corporations and the world so that we can find definite answers to these questions, and continue to test the hypotheses that have been put forward, instead of hollering "Not true! All lies! They just don't like us harmless little oil companies... sniff."
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I bought a coffee yesterday and the paper cup it was in was too thin, and it scalded my hands, so I asked for a second cup to put around it, and was pointed to a sign charging an extra 10 cents for the second cup. What's the deal with that? They make their coffee too hot and their cups too thin and expect me to pay more to correct it! That's like a restaurant selling poisoned food and charging extra for the antidote. They deserve to be sued.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, virtually every scientist in the world does agree that humans are a significant contributor to an ongoing trend of global warming, and virtually every detractor is, it appears, a few degrees of seperation away from an energy or automotive company.
It isn't enough to believe someone is wrong, especially in the face of overwhelming support for the possibility that they're right. At least, not if you want to prove a point, rather than just reside in a comfortable delusion.
What is telling is the number of people who say the content of "Truth" is wrong, and screech in their next breath that under no circumstances will they see "that" movie.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there that much of a legal difference between Oil companies giving money to Group A, so that Group A makes scientific sounding statements that are lies, than if McDonald gave money to Advertising Company A, and Advertising Company A produced comercials stating Big Mac's were healthy?
Yes, because the second hypo is intending to induce people to buy products, which is commercial speech and less protected under the Constitution. It could also be outright consumer fraud.
The former is attempting to influence how people vote, making it political speech. Of course, it's also trying to induce people not to change their buying habits, so there's a commercial aspect, too.
I don't know if the commercial aspects outweigh the political aspects in a constitutional analysis, but it wold certainly be analyzed differently by the courts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I believe, or at least an argument could be made, that the goal of the second group is to promote a product--oil, and to insure that people continue to use it despite scientific evidence that it should not be used.
If it can be proven that burning fossil fuels attributes to green house gases, and that the oil companies are attempting to cover up that issue, must we also prove that they are doing so to keep us buying more oil, and not just lobbying against certain reforms?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Al Gore will not speak to right wing media and George Bush won't speak to left wing media, American politicians hate being asked hard questions, so you will never see a President pull a Yeltsin and address rioters from atop a tank or even participate in Congressional debates (which is not only Constitutional but was probably the intent of the framers as George Washington participated in one before growing bored.)
Acts of bad Science are also an American tradition.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Um, virtually every scientist in the world does agree that humans are a significant contributor to an ongoing trend of global warming, and virtually every detractor is, it appears, a few degrees of seperation away from an energy or automotive company.
Sterling, do you have anything to back up this assertion? The latter one, mostly, is the one I'm looking to see justified.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was disappointed, by the way, by Al Gore's appearance on The Daily Show. According to my memory, it went about like this, towards the end:
STEWART (trying to do his "present both sides" thing): Have you ever run into a critic of global warming and gone, "You know what, that guy kind of has a good point, I should look into that"?
GORE: [pauses, unprepared for the question]: "Um, well, those people are all working for big oil companies."
STEWART: [pauses, not sure whether to take that crap from a rare and valuable guest] [bends over and takes it]
I don't think it would have gone that way, had he been interviewing a conservative about gay marriage Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would not go as far as Sterling went based on what I know, but it is certainly true that http://www.globalwarming.org/ which is the largest and best known site to detract from global warming is payed for by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a right-wing group which is, in turn, payed for by such companies as Exxon, Dow Chemical, GM, Ford and Texaco.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I believe, or at least an argument could be made, that the goal of the second group is to promote a product--oil, and to insure that people continue to use it despite scientific evidence that it should not be used.
Dan, I'm giving the legal reasons for the difference in the way they will be analyzed. Are you saying a court won't look at the political aspects of the speech? If they do, they will b treating it quite differently from the way they would treat McDonald's, even if the end result is the same.
Or are you simply saying a court shouldn't look at them differently? If so, I definitely disagree with you. You want to start enforcing sanctions against incorrect interpretation of scientific data, you're opening up an ugly ball of wax.
quote:If it can be proven that burning fossil fuels attributes to green house gases, and that the oil companies are attempting to cover up that issue, must we also prove that they are doing so to keep us buying more oil, and not just lobbying against certain reforms?
Yes. Commercial speech has little protection. Political speech has great protection.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know details about Big Oil's PR campaign to downplay global warming, though I assume they are hard at work at it.
I do know the cries of "tort reform! We must have tort reform!" are largely because of a sophisticated PR campaign dating back at least to the early 80s and financed by insurance, liquor, tobacco and other corporations seeking to limit liabilities . Just google "tort reform" pr campaign .
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pelegius, Please track the "big oil" money going to Bill Gray, he's the Colorado professor and hurricane expert who predicts the number of hurricanes every year? He's a skeptic. I'm just curious as to whether he's in the employ of the GOP, big oil, or both.
Then there's M. Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric scientist (man, "Big Oil" is everywhere!), who writes about the suppression of dissent in the scientific community and the McCarthyite practices of Global Warming proponents. Here's the link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110008220
I'm sure you think he's on Big Oil's payrole too. But of course, it always easier to dismiss people whose opinions you don't want to agree with by accusing then of having been bought-off.
Puppy, I watched the Gore interview on-line, and I think you accurately discribed the essence of that interview.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mig, citing independent skeptics does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of a coordinated PR campaign against global warming, using think tanks, lobbying groups, etc.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Gore alleges that his opponents are in the pocket of big oil and that no respected scientists disagree with him. He tries to stifle debate in this manner. I presented the opinions of two outspoken scientists who bemoan the lack of scientific honesty by proponents of Global warming and the McCathy tactics of the proponents. If you only read one of the two articles I linked to read the one by Prof. Lindzen in the WSJ.
I can't disprove a negative, all I can do is show that there is ligitimate dissent out there. Where's the proof of a coordinated PR campaign against Global Warming? Who ever is coordinating it, certainly isn't doing a every good job.
I must also ask, why presume that any organized think tanks or groups allied in opposing Global Warming are dishonest or on the take? Doesn't such a presumption work against genuine scientific inquiry?
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well at least one of the people quoted in your first post has come out that he was misrepresented by the article. The article said "Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical." Roger Pielke said in his weblog that "I am not skeptical of a substantial human forcing of climate change including the subset of climate change that is referred to as “global warming”!".
I've also come across blogs/articles that accuse David Harsanyi of misrepresenting the facts and sometimes out and out lying, but they don't reference this article specifically and/or are personal blogs by people that are not of note.
But don't worry, I'm still looking.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Vonk, thanks for the link. It's always fun to read how scientists write. And we lawyers are given a hard time for how we write!
As to your point, he reads like a skeptic to me. Regarding an NBC news special that's going to air in the US on Sunday:
quote:It is a disappointment that this show, hosted by Tom Brokaw, did not use the two hours to present a balanced view on the spectrum of perspectives on the human influences on the climate system. The show relied on just a few scientists with a particular personal viewpoint on this subject which misleads the public on the broader view that is actually held by most climate scientists.
He goes on to refute some of the misrepresentation in the Tom Brokaw report. Specifically that not all glaiciers are retreating and that the crack in the antarctic ice mass has been ther for as long as humans have been going there. The crack is nothing new.
As I see it, Pielke belives that there may be a human activity role in Global Warming but he believes that the role of CO2 has been overstated. Taken from his 8 main points on this issue:
quote:5. Most climate assessments have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate forcing on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change. 7. Attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose.
He also questions the ability of current science to accrately present long-term temperture models:
quote:6. Global and regional climate models have not demonstrated skill at predicting climate change and variability on multi-decadal time scales.
There’s quite a bit of info on his weblog. Again, thank you for the excellent link.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mig, firstly I said the largest group was paid for by interested parties, while explicitly stating that I would not go so far as to say they all were. Furthermore, I never used the term "big oil," but instead actually cited factual donations by oil companies which I named.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
