Further to “When You Scratch a Progressive, You Will Find a Fascist Underneath”

DFO, spirit of antichrist manifest in political messianism can come from right or left. Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini were from the left -- Stalin was the one who cast Fascism as right wing. From the right, the pose is often, ill-founded economic salvation. KF kairosfocus

Daniel 2: 44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever, 45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure.” [ESV] kairosfocus

Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon[d] his shoulder, and his name shall be called[e] Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this. [ESV] kairosfocus

F/N: I want to make a suggestion, on the shifting to a focus on political messianism as a descriptive term. generally, I do not like to speak in terms of blanket (and often loaded) labels such as Fascism, Communism, Capitalism etc, but instead to shift focus to key dynamics and driving forces. Yes, we may recognise the labels at some point, but the issue is the underlying dynamics. In this case the particular pivot is political messianism and would-be messiahs riding on ideologies of political salvation or utopianism. This, joined to over-concentration of power in the hands of unaccountable government. Often, courts, policing agencies and regulatory bureaucracies. When such are multiplied by ruthless agit prop, media message dominance tactics and silencing or ruthless marginalisation of dissenting voices, with lawfare [an act of 4th generation war] backed by evolutionary materialistic scientism and its inherent might and manipulation make 'right' - 'truth' -'justice' amorality, things get even more dangerous. Those are trends at work in our day, and the historical lessons of fascist and communist states over the past 100 years, provide sobering insights. We need to wake up and recognise the matches we are playing with, and the conflagrations we may ignite. KF kairosfocus

The typical liberal--we'll substitute progressive here for liberal since they want to run from that word---when confronted with an informed and capable opponent, and realizing the argument has been lost, then turns to his "ace up his sleeve": make your opponent define terms. You see, it all depends on "what the meaning of 'is' is." PaV

SS, you raised the question of definition of fascism, and I responded to it. The core issue as I noted already, is Nietzschean superman lawless politically messianistic statism and total control in some claimed unprecedented crisis where the man of destiny is viewed as rescuer of a core identity group. Mob rule is a common feature, militarisation and ideological, lawless corruption of policing powers and courts [ponder the fate of the White Rose . . . think also Gestapo and SS], and more are common. If you are not addressing these facets, you are not dealing with the core issues. I note, for our civilisation as a whole, that the ongoing abortion holocaust is a major case of corruption of government, law and policing. A dimension that must not be under estimated is enmeshing people in enabling behaviour. The economic dimension typically leaves nominal ownership in the hands of the business class but control comes through the door of regulation and cartelisation in the claimed social interest; the fate of Professor Hugo Junkers in Germany is especially telling here. For convenience, Wiki:

Upon the 1933 Machtergreifung the new Nazi government interfered, and the new Reichskommissar of Aviation Hermann Göring (who allegedly had unsuccessfully applied as a test pilot in the early 1920s) aimed to make Junkers a tool of German re-armament. The Nazi authorities immediately demanded ownership of Hugo Junkers' patents and the majority of shares of his remaining companies. Under threat of imprisonment he eventually acquiesced, to little avail; a year later he was under house arrest and was finally forced to leave Dessau. He died on 3 February 1935 in Gauting near Munich.

His family felt he had been hounded to death and were utterly enraged at the Nazis in the context of his funeral. Individual liberty and conscience are squelched, as the White Rose movement so clearly indicates as does the fate of Niemoller. It is worth pondering the Barmen Declaration of 1934 to understand the attempt to subvert the Christian faith and seduce it into politically messianistic heresy. And more. That which significantly tends in that direction can also legitimately be pointed to as fascistic or neo-fascistic. Fascism itself was a deliberate reworking of classic marxism (which was itself prone to many sub-ideologies and variant forms), so onward reworking is to be expected. There are in fact many very dangerous trends in our civilisation that point to lessons we need to learn from the classic cases of fascism. BTW, modern progressivism is often radical cultural marxism tied to Alinski's ruthless methods and agit prop. Latterly, lawfare has been added. Inject a bit of lawless political messianism, manufactured hysterical reaction to perceived crisis and some some bully boy mob tactics [they don't have to go all the way to SA type violence to be dangerous], and we are looking at an all too familiar pattern. KF kairosfocus

This OP and the comments that advocate for it can be summed up in two small words: crude slur. The claim of the OP is that the ideas and attitudes of fascism are pervasive among progressives; but the OP did not even define what fascist means much less did it make any effort to show that progressives are like fascists; it relies on innuendo and prejudices to do that work. I asked for a definition of fascism; it’s clear that request caught you all off-guard because you’ve been muddling through ever since trying to provide what turns out to be a poor, sloppy definition. KF goes off at great length about the evils of fascism (which are documented and never disputed by me) but he is oblivious to the point of the OP. The point of the OP is to claim that Progressive are fascists, but none of you make any meaningful effort to show that progressives think like fascists or have much in common with fascists at all. You rely on your hateful prejudices to make that link. Hence, I conclude this OP is nothing but a long, drawn-out and contemptable slur, and no longer worthy of attention. I’ll conclude with a quote from KF (from #31), who once again unthinkingly contradicted his own claims.

“Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.”

Emphasis added. This clearly distinguishes progressivism from fascism. Progressivism is about interventionism and a regulated, mixed (or hybrid) economy. sean s. Over and out. sean samis

wd400 (@23#)

What is it about this topic that makes people lose their minds so readily. The question for any investigaton would amount “did directors have evidence for the likely impacts of fossil fuels on climate, which they knowingly witheld”. It’s not about wether director though climate change was not real.

So we're not talking about "known" impacts, but "likely" impacts. According to whom? And how well have they documented their case? This is the "thought police" at work here. Why do you defend this fascist activity?

I did have to laugh at this though

Furthermore, what does it mean to claim something is a “scientific reality”? Aren’t all scientific models provisional in nature? Since when did science become a method for establishing what “reality” is?

I’m pretty sure it’s a scientific reality that smoking causes cancer, no?

When you're finished laughing, here are some quotes that I lifted from the CDC (Center for Disease Control): First these numbers:

Current smoking has declined from nearly 21 of every 100 adults (20.9%) in 2005 to nearly 17 of every 100 adults (16.8%) in 2014.

And then these:

The rate of new lung cancer cases decreased among men and women in the United States from 2005 to 2009, according to a report in this week’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The study also found that lung cancer incidence rates went down 2.6 percent per year among men, from 87 to 78 cases per 100,000 men and 1.1 percent per year among women, from 57 to 54 cases per 100,000 women.

We'll normalize these numbers for 100,000 individuals, while adding 150% to the numbers of the 2005-2009 period. The numbers say---the government's own numbers---that between 2005 and 2014, 4,000 people stopped smoking (per 100,000) and 16 people got lung cancer (again, per 100,000). According to these numbers, is it a "scientific reality" that smoking causes lung cancer? BTW, I don't know that I've heard an interview with the "world's oldest person" that didn't include the fact that they smoked. PaV

F/N: On the original post, please read this including comment exchanges: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/22/what-did-exxonmobil-know-and-when-did-they-know-it-part-1/ KF kairosfocus

DFO, right now, our civilisation as a whole is under indictment by the ghosts of at least 800 million unborn children killed through abortion in the past 40 years, and going on at 50+ millions per year. We stand condemned, utterly and inexcusably guilty of the worst holocaust in history. Our bloodguilt easily explains how our thinking has become so utterly warped and incompetent. Let us have the good sense to repent and seek mercy for what we have done. KF kairosfocus

PPS: Since you mean to implicitly condemn by painting a lurid caricature and have targeted objective morality [the alternative is one form or another of will to power . . . ], it is appropriate to place on the table what I have actually argued about manifestly evident first principles of morality:

>> normally responsive people will at least grudgingly respect the following summary of core, conscience attested morality from the pen of Paul:

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong [NIV, "harm"] to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV]

Where, John Locke, in grounding modern liberty and what would become democratic self-government of a free people premised on upholding the civil peace of justice, in Ch 2 Sec. 5 of his second treatise on civil Government [c. 1690] cites "the judicious [Anglican canon, Richard] Hooker" from his classic Ecclesiastical Polity of 1594 on, as he explains how the principles of neighbour-love are inscribed in our hearts, becoming evident to the eye of common good sense and reasonableness:

. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8 and alluding to Justinian's synthesis of Roman Law in Corpus Juris Civilis that also brings these same thoughts to bear:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]

We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions. So also, it is not only possible to

(a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law.

For instance: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.

(This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)

2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity. 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. if a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.

(NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.)

12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________ * F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia.>>

I put it to you that principles like this are foundational to modern liberty and democracy, as say the US DoI 1776 directly states or implies. If you have a sound alternative, let us hear it: ___________ . Otherwise, your sharp words above are little more than an ill advised sneer meant to taint and dismiss. (And on the main topic it should be clear that the resort to lawfare in a party platform is a very dangerous sign indeed.) kairosfocus

SS, Nietzschean superman will to power lawlessness and integral nihilism are defining characteristics of the sort of political messianism involved in fascism. The man beyond law comes to the rescue in the face of the alleged unprecedented crisis, so the mass-group unifies around him in utter solidity and blind following, as fasces are tied in a bundle. The crisis justifies the lawlessness and subsuming one's will and individuality in the will of the superman, who is the focus of the all encompassing state. Do you think I spoke of political messianism and demonic idolatry lightly? KF PS: This is what the White Rose had to say about what I am speaking of:

WR, I: Nothing is so unworthy of a civilized nation as allowing itself to be governed without opposition by an irresponsible clique that has yielded to base instinct. It is certain that today every honest German is ashamed of his government. Who among us has any conception of the dimensions of shame that will befall us and our children when one day the veil has fallen from our eyes and the most horrible of crimes - crimes that infinitely outdistance every human measure - reach the light of day? If the German people are already so corrupted and spiritually crushed that they do not raise a hand, frivolously trusting in a questionable faith in lawful order of history; if they surrender man’s highest principle, that which raises him above all other God’s creatures, his free will; if they abandon the will to take decisive action and turn the wheel of history and thus subject it to their own rational decision; if they are so devoid of all individuality, have already gone so far along the road toward turning into a spiritless and cowardly mass - then, yes, they deserve their downfall. Goethe speaks of the Germans as a tragic people, like the Jews and the Greeks, but today it would appear rather that they are a spineless, will-less herd of hangers-on, who now - the marrow sucked out of their bones, robbed of their center of stability - are waiting to be hounded to their destruction. So it seems - but it is not so. Rather, by means of gradual, treacherous, systematic abuse, the system has put every man into a spiritual prison. Only now, finding himself lying in fetters, has he become aware of his fate. Only a few recognized the threat of ruin, and the reward for their heroic warning was death. We will have more to say about the fate of these persons. If everyone waits until the other man makes a start, the messengers of avenging Nemesis will come steadily closer; then even the last victim will have been cast senselessly into the maw of the insatiable demon. Therefore every individual, conscious of his responsibility as a member of Christian and Western civilization, must defend himself as best he can at this late hour, he must work against the scourges of mankind, against fascism and any similar system of totalitarianism. Offer passive resistance - resistance - wherever you may be, forestall the spread of this atheistic war machine before it is too late, before the last cities, like Cologne, have been reduced to rubble, and before the nation’s last young man has given his blood on some battlefield for the hubris of a sub-human. Do not forget that every people deserves the regime it is willing to endure! . . . . WR, II: Since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way . . . The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals . . . Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty! WR, IV: Every word that comes from Hitler's mouth is a lie. When he says peace, he means war, and when he blasphemously uses the name of the Almighty, he means the power of evil, the fallen angel, Satan. His mouth is the foul-smelling maw of Hell, and his might is at bottom accursed. True, we must conduct a struggle against the National Socialist terrorist state with rational means; but whoever today still doubts the reality, the existence of demonic powers, has failed by a wide margin to understand the metaphysical background of this war.

kairosfocus

KF @65; The tendency to lawlessness is too ubiquitous to define fascism with. Libertarians are particularly prone to it. I did discuss the superman canard; it’s telling that you didn’t notice or acknowledge that. Statism and socialism are also characteristics of too many ideologies to assign them to fascism. The more I read here, the more convinced I am that the term fascism is being used as an unthinking epithet disguised with post-hoc rationalizations

The ghosts of the White Rose martyrs have something to say to you.

I’m sure they would, they’ll encourage me continue to think independently; to continue resisting your ill-conceived, broad-brush stereotypes and to resist all those who pose as moralists while blanketing themselves in folly. sean s. sean samis

KF, I suppose in the context of this thread, it's enough for us to agree that it is known that smoking increases the risk of cancer. But if a particular person gets cancer, surely it's true that there were causes for this event, agreed? Not that we can determine them with certainty, but you must agree that no case of cancer is uncaused? daveS

DS, I spoke to causing enhanced risk in a probability distribution for incidence of cancer. Where cancer can happen without smoking being involved at all and where smoking does not inevitably cause cancer. A secondary causal effect -- increased risk -- is what fits those facts. KF kairosfocus

KF,

DS I spoke to smoking as a second order cause, of increased risk of cancer.

If by this you mean that smoking is a cause of a cause of cancer, then we are on the same page. daveS

SS, you set up and knocked over a strawman caricature -- e.g. leaving off the significance of tendency to lawlessness in the context of Nietzschean superman will to power as a material factor in Fascism, as well as suppressing the significance of statism and specific commitment to socialism -- and now hope to double down. The ghosts of the White Rose martyrs have something to say to you. KF kairosfocus

DS I spoke to smoking as a second order cause, of increased risk of cancer. In short, I have an underlying context of sufficient conditions for a probabilistic distribution to occur, and then for factors that increase or decrease risk within that distribution. A similar thing obtains for use of say condoms with STD's, reduced risk, which then can be affected by degree of exposure. (Simplistically if a protective factor is 90% effective, 10 cumulative exposures will imply the probability of being protected all ten times is only about 30% . Would you play Russian Roulette with two live rounds or even one?) Similarly, degree of exposure to smoking seems correlated with proportionately increased risk, but not certainty of outcome. So we see a second order effect. KF kairosfocus

It's an antioncogene, a gene that encodes a protein involved in controlling cellular growth; inactivation of this type of gene leads to deregulated cellular proliferation, as in cancer. rhampton7

rhampton

How does smoke cause some cancers? G to T transversions in p53 mutations:

Since P53 induces apoptosis and not cell division its mutation is not directly causing cancer (excess cell division of undifferentiated cells) but teamed with low blood vitamin d levels it can certainly contribute by not inducing cell death when excess cell division occurs. bill cole

How does smoke cause some cancers? G to T transversions in p53 mutations: The mutational pattern for the TP53 tumour suppressor gene in lung tumours differs to other cancer types by having a higher frequency of G:C>T:A transversions. The aetiology of this differing mutation pattern is still unknown. Benzo[a]pyrene,diol epoxide (BPDE) is a potent cigarette smoke carcinogen that forms guanine adducts at TP53 CpG mutation hotspot sites including codons 157, 158, 245, 248 and 273. We performed molecular modelling of BPDE-adducted TP53 duplex sequences to determine the degree of local distortion caused by adducts which could influence the ability of nucleotide excision repair. We show that BPDE adducted codon 157 has greater structural distortion than other TP53 G:C>T:A hotspot sites and that sequence context more distal to adjacent bases must influence local distortion. Using TP53 trinucleotide mutation signatures for lung cancer in smokers and non-smokers we further show that codons 157 and 273 have the highest mutation probability in smokers. Combining this information with adduct structural data we predict that G:C>T:A mutations at codon 157 in lung tumours of smokers are predominantly caused by BPDE. Our results provide insight into how different DNA sequence contexts show variability in DNA distortion at mutagen adduct sites that could compromise DNA repair at well characterized cancer related mutation hotspots. http://m.nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/09/22/nar.gkv910.full rhampton7

This reminds of the pre-1980 widely held medical view that bad diet and stress caused ulcers. Now we know better. Yet, if this discussion was held in the 1970's, the question could as easily be one of whether or not we would agree that bad diet and stress were "two of the causes" of ulcers. Sloppy language = sloppy arguments. William J Murray

KF daveS Low levels of vitamin d in your blood causes cancer. Vitamin d down regulates the beta catenin protein that causes cells to divide. bill cole

Re #42:

What you left off ... is telling. KF

It is telling; I plead guilty to separating the wheat from the chaff. It is telling; I endeavor to ignore irrelevancies and focus on what matters. It is telling that you do not. It is telling that you get so lost in your own prose that you miss obvious contradictions. It is telling indeed. sean s. sean samis

FYI: smoking is not just a factor, but sometimes a cause: What Causes Lung Cancer Anyone can get lung cancer. Lung cancer occurs when cells in the lung mutate or change. Various factors can cause this mutation to happen. Most often, this change in lung cells happens when people breathe in dangerous, toxic substances. Even if you were exposed to these substances many years ago, you are still at risk for lung cancer. Talk to your doctor if you have ever been exposed to any of the substances listed below. http://www.lung.org/lung-health-and-diseases/lung-disease-lookup/lung-cancer/symptoms-causes-and-risk-factors/what-causes-lung-cancer.html rhampton7

KF,

DS, I have spoken of various kinds and degrees of causal influence. Obviously, independent of cigarette smoking, people can and do get cancers including lung cancer. Such smoking seems to heighten risk, where that heightening of risk would be an effect, as distinct from absent smoking no cancer [necessary factor] or present smoking then inevitably cancer [sufficient factor]. I trust this further extension of what was already said will help. KF

Hm, I don't see any extension in this post. As I stated above, to the best of my knowledge, smoking is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause cancer. It's trivially not necessary, of course. We are in agreement on that. But it seems you are unwilling to affirm that any factor is a cause for cancer. If that's the case, I would think there's no chance of you determining whether changes in climate are caused (in part) by human activity. daveS

DS, I have spoken of various kinds and degrees of causal influence. Obviously, independent of cigarette smoking, people can and do get cancers including lung cancer. Such smoking seems to heighten risk, where that heightening of risk would be an effect, as distinct from absent smoking no cancer [necessary factor] or present smoking then inevitably cancer [sufficient factor]. I trust this further extension of what was already said will help. KF kairosfocus

VS, by pronouncing "reality" over a scientific controversy and going after funders under RICO or the like, we are dealing with closure of science and intent to resort to lawfare. Where, given that law enforcement is backed up by the sword, such clearly crosses into the territory of using means of force to advance policy and political/ideological ends, a sobering development. When, too, there is in fact diversity of serious scientific view and of linked phil of sci/ epistemology issues; not to more than mention that computer models/ simulations are not to be equated to empirical reality, and that there are significant concerns on limitations of observations and proxies -- for just one instance ponder the warming "pause" since the late 1990s question. I also mention that the shifts in a moving average are one thing, predominant attribution to human cause is quite another. For relevant instance, sea level rise trends of several inches per century [not the up to 10 m I recall as popularly suggested in past years] need to be matched against 19 year Saros and other similar cycles that affect sea level, tides and the like. As well, we need to speak of how for land slopes 1 in 1,000 -- very flat -- say 15 cm shift (about 100 years worth) moves shoreline 15,000 cm, i.e. 150 m. Sounds like a lot. However this scale is comparable in magnitude to several other factors -- ice age rebound of land, subsidence/ emergence, erosion and deposit etc, at work -- factors, that are not portrayed as catastrophic. And, many coast forms are dynamic, they would adapt to such shifts, as they do around the sun-moon-earth system 19 year tidal forces cycle without our even particularly noticing. I just pick one simple instance that happens to have been raised in the connexion of Exxon. Such resort to lawfare as we are seeing and the like are very serious matches to be playing with, and I am not at all confident that it is safe or prudent to be raising issues of prosecution under laws on fraud and the like. I strongly suggest a major calming down of the intensity, tone and polarisation of the debates and policy moves. KF kairosfocus

velikovskys asks:

At what level does risk enhancing factors become causative? 100% ?

Considering that 1 in 10 smokers get lung cancer, I'd say the threshold for claiming causation should be closer to 100% than 10%. Perhaps a more accurate claim would be that smoking significantly increases one's risk of getting lung cancer.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Surely you agree that when trillions of dollars in worldwide monies including salaries, funding, subsidies, research, carbon offsets, etc. are directly tied to the premise that not only does human activity significantly impact climate change, but that we can significantly predict the results of that impact, this motto equally applies to the other side of the argument?

Not exactly, the plank does not close scientific inquiry, it merely requires corporate fiduciary responsibility to owners of the corporation.

Corporations are already lawfully prevented from defrauding shareholders; why make this particular "fraud" a plank, then, of the Democratic platform? Why refer to the "scientific reality" of climate change, if not to evoke a certain view as "settle science', and thus imply that any characterizations of climate that devaite from the "scientific reality" would be criminally fraudulent? William J Murray

KF,

DS, there are influence factors of broadly causal nature that may amplify risks or promote or amplify or accelerate or broadly contribute to an effect, but are neither necessary [on/off enabling] nor sufficient [once a given cluster is present the effect always follows]. Not all smokers or even heavy smokers get cancer. It is possible for non smokers to get cancer. But smoking is reasonably strongly correlated with increased risks, likely in connexion with other factors [such as heredity, general condition, one’s immune system etc, perhaps unknown ones] leading to a case of the final straw breaking the camel’s back. KF

This again seems quite reasonable. Smoking is neither necessary nor sufficient factor for cancer. Yet you seem reluctant to affirm that smoking is a cause for cancer. Is there any factor X such that X is a cause for cancer? I assume you would have to say yes, based on our discussion of the PSR. If someone develops a case of lung cancer, there must have been a (or most likely several) cause(s) right? Out of all the people who developed lung cancer worldwide in 2015, for some, smoking was indeed a cause, correct? daveS

KF: VS, climate is a moving avg of weather (33 years was the classic number) and will thus always change. It is the mean and variations of all the quantities which characterize weather. The issue is a thesis regarding anthropogenic domination of the change, and the further matter is closing the science and imposing a policy frame Not exactly, the plank does not close scientific inquiry, it merely requires corporate fiduciary responsibility to owners of the corporation. with questions here of the inherent limits of science methods and trend analysis as well as observations and proxies. And that is question,whether the correlation of a trend of increasing levels of carbon is causative to the increasing rate of increase in the mean temperature of the climate The posing of a platform plank that clearly proposes resort to lawfare is a development of grave concern in that light Only if one assumes that the science is unpersuasive and that corporations which profit from the release of carbon are honest brokers of the science to their shareholders. Without that assumption, to do otherwise would be a grave concern. . I would suggest that were the evidence as conclusive as is suggested by those who wish to close the science, an expose of the claims by AGW doubters matched to the decisive evidence should be decisive. KF "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” PS: On smoking, the issue is risk-enhancing factors as opposed to sufficient clusters that force an outcome. At what level does risk enhancing factors become causative? 100% ? velikovskys

PS: Relevant reading: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/18/is-attorneys-general-mischief-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/24/activists-admit-at-forum-theyve-been-working-with-ny-ag-on-climate-rico-campaign-for-over-a-year/ --> Also, cf concerns from the skeptical side regarding agendas at work: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/26/the-tangled-web-of-global-warming-activism/ PPS: Since there seems to be a push on sea level rise this too will be relevant: https://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/current-sea-level-rise/ Note this as a beginning (observe the claim 7"/ century overall): https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/history-falsifies-climate-alarmist-sea-level-claims/ --> illustrating the atmosphere relevant specifically to Exxon: http://energyindepth.org/national/massachusetts-ag-admits-to-preconceived-verdict-prior-to-launching-rico-climate-investigation/ kairosfocus

The rate of sea level rise is not constant, and exxon's research indicated that fossil fuel emissions were a factor in the changing climate. So if Exxon used its climate research to determine an increase that would effect planned oil platforms, and thought that risk significant enough to finance a change to its platforms, then you have a tacit admission of inherent financial risk and increased costs to its operations. On the other end, Exxon appears to have funded a campaign to deny the very thing being planned for. That strongly suggests Exxon withheld information from its shareholders, and may have actively tried to disinform them. This is all alleged, but as I said before, the evidence appears to be strong enough to warrant an investigation. rhampton7

RH7, sea levels have been rising since the last Ice age. If you scroll up you will see that climate is inherently a moving avg, the issue is the drivers and relative impacts, further conditioned by limitations of observations, proxies, simulations and projections. The closing of science now joined to threats of lawfare mark very serious escalations that should give reasonable people sobering pause. Especially in a highly ideologised and polarised atmosphere. In such an atmosphere, as has been pointed out already, in too many minds the case has been predetermined by loaded assumptions, foreclosing of issues that either science inherently cannot answer or the present and foreseeable state of the art cannot resolve, and projection of grave accusations. This is a road that we need to turn back from before we set off a conflagration. And, that is why I have pointed out that a lot more than science is going on here. KF kairosfocus

The politics on both sides is disgusting, however there is a valid question of fraud; "ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, there’s nothing wrong with advocating for your own company. What you’re not allowed to do is commit fraud. You’re not allowed to have the best climate change science that you’re using to build — in your planning of offshore oil towers in the Arctic, where you have to take into account rising sea levels and the melting of the permafrost and things like that. If you’re using that internally, but what you’re putting out to the world, directly and through these climate denial organizations, is completely in conflict with that, that’s not OK." So if Exxon used its climate science research to account for rising sea levels when planning offshore oil towers and then denied climate change was occurring, then I think it's reasonable to conclude that Exxon withheld the financial risks to investors (gov. regulations, public pressure to diversify energy portfolio, competitive pressure from alternative energy companies, etc) if they were to publicly accept the reality of climate change (prior to 2006) I don't assume Exxon is guilty just because they are a corporation, nor do I assume they innocent because they are on the wrong side of the AG group. I'm only interested if actual fraud was committed. And it seems to me that there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation. rhampton7

DS, there are influence factors of broadly causal nature that may amplify risks or promote or amplify or accelerate or broadly contribute to an effect, but are neither necessary [on/off enabling] nor sufficient [once a given cluster is present the effect always follows]. Not all smokers or even heavy smokers get cancer. It is possible for non smokers to get cancer. But smoking is reasonably strongly correlated with increased risks, likely in connexion with other factors [such as heredity, general condition, one's immune system etc, perhaps unknown ones] leading to a case of the final straw breaking the camel's back. KF kairosfocus

KF, That doesn't sound unreasonable to me as far as it goes, but do you accept that smoking is a cause of cancer? You're not explicitly saying "yes", so I presume no? daveS

DS, I suggest smoking is an influence factor that amplifies risks but is neither sufficient nor necessary. KF kairosfocus

SS, What you left off the better to wrench and project, is telling. KF PS: I clip with some emphasis:

Fascism can be reasonably defined (beyond its deserved bad reputation), as is hinted at above. It is a statist — thus socialist-leftist [cf Mussolini on the all-encompassing state and note, National Socialist German Labour Party] — form of political messianism that holds up a Ni[e]tzschean superman figure as rescuer of a perceived mass-based identity group in “unprecedented” crisis that calls for strong state power based measures of rescue that typically go beyond the rule of law. [--> spell that, Will to power] There may be designated enemies and scapegoats highlighted as a focus of resentment and rage. Often, fascists are smart enough to spot that entrenched institutions and businesses will be willing to strike deals that take the threat of harsh state action off their back, so that state control substitutes subtly for confiscation . . . where control is in fact implicit ownership.

Contrast your cite:

a statist — thus socialist-leftist [--> note patently deliberate, suppressed exclusion of material information here] — form of political messianism that holds up a Nitzschean superman figure as rescuer of a perceived mass-based identity group in “unprecedented” crisis that calls for strong state power based measures of rescue that typically go beyond the rule of law.[--> next omission is noted by ellipsis but is again material, scapegoating of targetted enemies, a key to the hostile mindset being cultivated] … Often, fascists are smart enough to spot that entrenched institutions and businesses will be willing to strike deals that take the threat of harsh state action off their back [--> again clipped without notice omitting material information on just how corporations are co-opted and reduced to subtle state ownership by domineering control]

kairosfocus

In # 29, Dean_from_Ohio wrote;

I guess I didn’t think I had to spell it out, but my definition of Progressivism is my definition of fascism.

Sorry, Dean, but you’ll always have to spell out personal, idiosyncratic positions. If progressivism is fascism, why do you use both terms? Only to emphasize your disapproval? I still suspect you’re just using fascism as a meaningless expletive. #29, 30, and 31, Dean and KF piled on, “defining” fascism as

“... idolatrous, statist, anti-human, anti-reality ...” “a statist — thus socialist-leftist — form of political messianism that holds up a Nitzschean superman figure as rescuer of a perceived mass-based identity group in “unprecedented” crisis that calls for strong state power based measures of rescue that typically go beyond the rule of law. ... Often, fascists are smart enough to spot that entrenched institutions and businesses will be willing to strike deals that take the threat of harsh state action off their back,” “fascism sought [totalitarian] control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. ... fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. ... fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.” “Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. ... Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.”

Since we’re into quoting Musselini (which is appropriate) why leave out what Musselini said fascism is: the marriage of the State and the Corporation. Good lord, this sounds like the platform of the GOP, but without the weasel words. All this is very different from the progressivism I am acquainted with. Where is this progressive “superman/messiah”? or progressives colluding with corporations? I’m not aware of any progressive who is really “idolatrous”, “anti-human”, or “anti-reality”. That also sounds more like the GOP; whose idols are money and guns. (Not that there’s anything wrong with money or guns; they just should not be worshipped or valued more that lives.) And then there is this from #31:

“Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.”

This clearly distinguishes progressivism from fascism. Progressivism is about interventionism and a regulated mixed economy. I’m glad some thought has now been given to what fascism means, but it strikes me that progressivism and fascism are shown to be quite different. sean s. sean samis

KF, As we were discussing causation recently, do you hold that it is incorrect to say that smoking is a cause of cancer? daveS

I can't help but chuckle at the average Atheist mindset. "We are insignificant on every level except for our power to destroy a planet." Sometimes I wonder if they have a mind at all. Andre

VS, really, now. The evidence is that the defining cases of fascism were self consciously socialistic in mindset and in behaviour -- and were seen as such by other socialists etc [e.g. I chose a 1930's rendering, "Labour" party for NSDAP], though specific variant approaches to say Lenin or Stalin were adopted: control the economy, don't confiscate it, striking deals with the cartels. Fascism is a type of socialism, tracing to a time when even conservatives thought in terms of the inexorable triumph of socialism and viewed themselves as standing against the tide. But we do not need to go off further and further on a definitionitis tangent. KF PS: The horses speaking . . . MUSSOLINI, 1928 Autobiography: >>The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (Mussolini, Benito. My Autobiography. New York: Scribner’s, 1928., p. 280)>> HITLER, per citation: >>The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai, Avraham. Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy. Trans. Ruth Hadass-Vashitz. Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd., 1990., pp. 26–27)>> kairosfocus

"word climate means change" Exactly, Andre. Not only does Climate Science fail to produce any evidence, it has basic conceptual problems. Andrew asauber

Of course there is ample evidence of climate change the very word climate means change... Who is arguing about climate change? Andre

VS, climate is a moving avg of weather (33 years was the classic number) and will thus always change. The issue is a thesis regarding anthropogenic domination of the change, and the further matter is closing the science and imposing a policy frame, with questions here of the inherent limits of science methods and trend analysis as well as observations and proxies. The posing of a platform plank that clearly proposes resort to lawfare is a development of grave concern in that light. I would suggest that were the evidence as conclusive as is suggested by those who wish to close the science, an expose of the claims by AGW doubters matched to the decisive evidence should be decisive. KF PS: On smoking, the issue is risk-enhancing factors as opposed to sufficient clusters that force an outcome. PPS: Again, from the mouths of the horses: MUSSOLINI, 1928 Autobiography: >>The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (Mussolini, Benito. My Autobiography. New York: Scribner’s, 1928., p. 280)>> HITLER, per citation: >>The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai, Avraham. Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy. Trans. Ruth Hadass-Vashitz. Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd., 1990., pp. 26–27)>> kairosfocus

KF: , it is quite reasonable to argue that there is strong evidence that Fascism and National Socialism were in fact socialistic. Sure you could but then logically neither Hilter or Mussolini were fascists.What counts is what you do,not how you frame your actions. velikovskys

velikovskys, Yer proggy friend said: "I’m pretty sure it’s a scientific reality that smoking causes cancer" Evidence says not always true. His point needs to be restated for accuracy. Andrew asauber

Andrew: Only progressives could turn a OP about the politicization of climate science into questions about my parents. Sorry ,Andrew but you brought up your parent's health as some sort of evidence. I was just examining your evidence.Isn't that what conservatives are doing when they challenge the scientific consensus politically? That’s how desperate people like you are to defend stupidity. Can’t relate, man. Not desperate at all, personally I think the plank is a quixotic gesture as many planks in platforms are. Oh, and my next door neighbor has been a smoker all his life, is currently a smoker, and doesn’t have cancer. I am glad for him, but just because the hammer falls on an empty chamber doesn't mean playing Russian roulette is not dangerous. "Smoking is estimated to increase the risk— For coronary heart disease by 2 to 4 times For stroke by 2 to 4 times Of men developing lung cancer by 25 times Of women developing lung cancer by 25.7 times " There is plenty of evidence that is the scientific reality, just as there is an ever increasing amount of evidence of climate change. velikovskys

PS: Just to give a little back-up, Sheldon Richman in Concise Enc of Econ and Liberty adds: >>Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions. Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics. Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism. Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely. To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production . . . >> Richman also cites Mussolini and Hitler: MUSSOLINI, 1928 Autobiography: >>The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (Mussolini, Benito. My Autobiography. New York: Scribner’s, 1928., p. 280)>> HITLER, per citation: >>The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai, Avraham. Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy. Trans. Ruth Hadass-Vashitz. Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd., 1990., pp. 26–27)>> So, it is quite reasonable to argue that there is strong evidence that Fascism and National Socialism were in fact socialistic. kairosfocus

SS, The definitionitis game is old hat. Fascism can be reasonably defined (beyond its deserved bad reputation), as is hinted at above. It is a statist -- thus socialist-leftist [cf Mussolini on the all-encompassing state and note, National Socialist German Labour Party] -- form of political messianism that holds up a Nitzschean superman figure as rescuer of a perceived mass-based identity group in "unprecedented" crisis that calls for strong state power based measures of rescue that typically go beyond the rule of law. There may be designated enemies and scapegoats highlighted as a focus of resentment and rage. Often, fascists are smart enough to spot that entrenched institutions and businesses will be willing to strike deals that take the threat of harsh state action off their back, so that state control substitutes subtly for confiscation . . . where control is in fact implicit ownership. Of course, political messianism is a form of idolatry, demands the conscience and like all idolatries ultimately ends in ruin. KF kairosfocus

This thread is defective from the start; nowhere is there any attempt to define ‘fascist’ as anything other than a euphemism for “bad person”. An actual waste of virtual ink. sean s. sean samis

velikovskys, Only progressives could turn a OP about the politicization of climate science into questions about my parents. That's how desperate people like you are to defend stupidity. Can't relate, man. Oh, and my next door neighbor has been a smoker all his life, is currently a smoker, and doesn't have cancer. Andrew asauber

Andrew: My parents were smokers and neither has cancer. Were smokers? Why did they quit? velikovskys

"I’m pretty sure it’s a scientific reality that smoking causes cancer" My parents were smokers and neither has cancer. This is what we are up against. People like WD40 who can't see any reality beyond their political memes. Andrew asauber

What is it about this topic that makes people lose their minds so readily. The question for any investigaton would amount "did directors have evidence for the likely impacts of fossil fuels on climate, which they knowingly witheld". It's not about wether director though climate change was not real. I did have to laugh at this though

Furthermore, what does it mean to claim something is a “scientific reality”? Aren’t all scientific models provisional in nature? Since when did science become a method for establishing what “reality” is?

I'm pretty sure it's a scientific reality that smoking causes cancer, no? wd400

Can the same charge of "fraud" be leveled against all those who warn of catastrophic outcomes only to see the predicted apocalypse never come to pass? Quite obviously, it isn't fraudulent to be wrong about scientific claims. At least not if you are on the politically correct side of the argument in any case. Phinehas

"when Russia, China, the US and EU actually agree on something" ...isn't science. It's something you'd say when you are trying to convince somebody, but have no evidence to present. Andrew asauber

wd400 said:

The investigations they are taking about follow the model used by the US against Tobacco companies. To succeed they’d need to show the fossil fuel companies knew very well that emissions would lead to climate change, but deceived shareholders and the public by not sharing this information.

What do you think this means in any practical sense, we400? The plank asserts that "climate change" is a <strong.scientific reality, and that to misinform (ie, disagree with that "scientific reality") shareholders is fraud. Therefore, to disagree and to tell your shareholders that you disagree that human activity significantly affects the climate is to commit fraud. What else can it mean? Do you think it means that you can disagree, tell your shareholders that you disagree, as long as you admit to them that what you disagree with is a scientific reality? How silly would that be? Furthermore, what does it mean to claim something is a "scientific reality"? Aren't all scientific models provisional in nature? Since when did science become a method for establishing what "reality" is? William J Murray

rvb8 @17: When I first started contributing to online forums and blogs I would make a lot of assertions that I knew nothing of any consequence about. After a couple of particularly embarrassing exchanges where something I said was clearly demonstrated to be untrue, I realized I needed to only make arguments about things I actually knew something about and to educate myself about what constituted a sound logical argument. I'm not a climatologist nor do I have the scientific background necessary to evaluate any evidence for or against the assertion that humans are contributing significantly to any supposed change in climate. I would imagine you are in the same boat. Your argument seems to be that if there appears to be a consensus about the validity of a claim, then to take a position in opposition to that claim makes one a "denier" or "unhinged" or "irrational". This makes virtually every current accepted scientific theory or fact the result of the persistence of what was, at the time, irrational, unhinged deniers. Arguments which are appeals to popularity or authority, made without any real capacity to judge the merits of a proposition, logically amount to nothing more than rhetorical pleading on behalf of one's ideology/worldview. William J Murray

I'm largely a conservative when it comes to liberals demanding laws against things which it would be better to have open discussions about. Climate change denialism is fine, we simply need to have better evidence, and more evidence for it (which is rapidly accumulating). So much evidence already exists that the 'deniars' are already looking some what unhinged. When every insurance company bills for it in their premiums, when the US Navy is designing its future aircraft carriers with thicker hulls to travel through the shattered North Pole, when Russia, China, the US and EU actually agree on something, to deny that thing makes you look like you are at least on the fringe of rationality. rvb8

Seversky, I suggest that the commonly encountered pretence that science has become closed, that there is thus no legitimate dissent or onward discussion and debate and more is highly questionable. Inherently so given limitations of scientific methods, monitoring, proxies and simulations -- especially involving a deep unobservable past (there are no time machines) and the even more unobservable future; we construct a model of the remote past and project a forecast for the future, neither of which can be equated to actual reality . . . no matter how much we try to get the best picture we can. In that context, the implied assumption of large scale corporately funded fraud sufficient to seek to put something in a party platform becomes suspiciously like projection of a scapegoat that opens the way for lawfare and the process is the punishment. I think we need to ponder very carefully indeed the matches we are playing with and the conflagration they may ignite. And yes, this is a sustainability issue . . . the trends and precedents we inject into government policies and law can have sobering consequences so our behaviour must be principled and extremely cautious. KF kairosfocus

Seversky @ 14: Are you suggesting that dissenting from a scientific conclusion is fraud? Yes, I understand that you progressives believe everyone who disagrees with you is, in Dawkin's words, "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked," and ought to be put in jail, or worse. That's what makes you fascists. Thanks for making my point. Barry Arrington

Are you suggesting that if corporations have been behaving fraudulently, nothing should be done about it? Seversky

RH7, in a too often polarised, hysterical climate, fraud accusations can be very damaging and place one in the dilemma where the costs and effort of trying to defend oneself are both the punishment and the source of a huge chilling effect against politically unwelcome speech. Indirect censorship and message domination by intimidation. KF kairosfocus

The important word is fraud. There must be evidence of a crime, not a mere disagreement. Corporations may not defraud their investors. From Corporate/Shareholder Fraud "Corporations have an interest in maintaining a successful front in the eyes of shareholders and securities analysts because investors buy shares of companies that are healthy and growing. Corporate fraud, also known as shareholder fraud, occurs when, to maintain this front, corporations deliberately conceal or skew information." Incidentally, "To prevent corporate fraud, President George W. Bush instated a “Ten-Point Plan to Improve Corporate Responsibility and Protect America’s Shareholders.” This plan was proposed in March of 2002 and has been implemented since by the SEC." rhampton7

H'mm: If [anthropogenic] climate change is deemed scientifically established [and closed] "reality" then by political or rhetorical inference only the ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked can differ. So, the putting up of fraud investigations for corporations led and staffed by those who almost by definition do not fit into ignorant or stupid categories has just one possibility left on the table. Problem is, no significant scientific finding of any complexity may be properly deemed closed. The logical and epistemological limitations of scientific methods inherently preclude that. Further to this, computer simulations and relatively sparse observations augmented by a lot of proxies, do not constitute a direct construction of reality. The trend seen in recent days begins to raise questions of pre-determined conclusion show trials. We need to think again on what matches we are playing with. KF kairosfocus

I don't agree with the word fascist. Fascist just also did suppress truth and speech etc. (so did my parents. (as i saw it) I think its a great thing because a opposition can point to it as tyrannical, unamerican, illegal. Banning conclusions or musings is absurd to americans(some canadians). Its truly laughable. LET THEM DO IT. It shows a general philosophy of speech control which we all complain about. Welcome this blunder . just it against them. Don't desire their speech control policies to be reasonable. Remember TRUTH is the natural right. Speech freedom is only a tool for this. So its a natural and government right. Robert Byers

What is "the scientific reality of climate change"? Andrew asauber

That's not it at all, William. The investigations they are taking about follow the model used by the US against Tobacco companies. To succeed they'd need to show the fossil fuel companies knew very well that emissions would lead to climate change, but deceived shareholders and the public by not sharing this information. wd400

wd400 has the right of it. "Investigat[ing] alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies" does not equal "criminal prosecution of anyone who dissent’s [sic]." Arrington has misrepresented what the document actually says in a way that makes it sound much broader than it actually is. Lied, in other words. FierceRoller

This is less surprising once you get straight that the real Fascists were Leftists. The Left Wing is composed of people who want to consolidate political power (and all that goes with it) in the hands of the national government. Originally, the Left Wing was monarchist. The Right Wing is composed of people who want to retain political power as close to home as possible. The Right Wing defends individual choice and private property (and was originally the untitled businessmen and lesser nobles). Executing citizens for their personal opinions (rather than merely their religious preferences) began during the French Revolution, and throughout the 19th century there were always wacko Leftists (which may be redundant) who admitted publicly that as soon as they had control of the government they would begin executing people who disagreed with them. Read "Fire in the Minds of Men" by Billington. mahuna

wd400 said:

Predictably, the link does not say this. The policy is about investigating whether companies committed fraud by knowingly misleading people about climate science.

Not exactly. The quote from the summary:

Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent.

This means that any fossil fuel company that reports to its shareholders any position or research on climate change other than agreement with its "reality" as per supposed consensus is subject to charges of fraud. You get that? You either agree with what the supposed consensus has decreed is reality on climate change when you report to shareholders, or you are committing fraud. William J Murray

A plank calling for criminal prosecution of anyone who dissent’s from “the scientific reality of climate change”

Predictably, the link does not say this. The policy is about investigating whether companies committed fraud by knowingly misleading people about climate science. wd400