Global Warming Fever: Free Speech vs Oppression

In summary: You didn't miss much. Frank Furedi argues that suppressing dangerous ideas is actually more dangerous than allowing them to be expressed. The tension between suppressing and free speech is a difficult one to navigate, and can often lead to dangerous consequences.
  • #1
Andre
4,311
74
Now that the global warming fever has seriously infected the US, attempting to immunizing itself from the heresy deniers, itt may be an idea to observe the analyzis of sociologist Frank Furedi here about the tension between opressing *dangerous* ideas and free speech:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2792/
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Andre said:
Now that the global warming fever has seriously infected the US, attempting to immunizing itself from the heresy deniers, itt may be an idea to observe the analyzis of sociologist Frank Furedi here about the tension between opressing *dangerous* ideas and free speech:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2792/

It is true. The anti-warming position is much like that of church dogma; refusing to recognize the science. But at least they have quit stringing-up the tree huggers, so there is progress.
 
  • #3
There is no science there; only models fallacies and noble cause corruption (Hockeystick)

But the immediate example of that mechanism is highly appreciated
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Interesting point: 20-30 years ago, you were strung up in the U.S. for saying nuclear power was a viable alternative.

The US is now several decades behind just about every other developed country in that technology. Sure, we have great science, but the technological base to actually build and operate nuclear plants is hardly there at all. I just read a story recently about the problems of existing power plants, where all the staff is approaching retirement age. No one in their right mind has considered a career in nukes for decades now: it was seen as a rapidly declining industry.
 
  • #5
twisting_edge said:
Interesting point: 20-30 years ago, you were strung up in the U.S. for saying nuclear power was a viable alternative.
And there were still some of us crazy enough to go work in the industry. :biggrin:

The US is now several decades behind just about every other developed country in that technology.
We're not decades behind. Westinghouse has developed the AP600 and AP1000. GE has the ABWR ( two units at Kashiwazaki Kariwa (6,7) built in partnership with Hitachi and Toshiba and two units at Lungmen, Taiwan) and ESBWR.

Sure, we have great science, but the technological base to actually build and operate nuclear plants is hardly there at all.
We have the technological base to operate nuclear reactors (103 are operating in the US, with another about to come back on-line after being shutdown for more than 20 years). We certainly have lost the capability to forge large components. Such facilities are in France, Japan, S. Korea and China, and perhaps the skilled labor to construct the plants.

I just read a story recently about the problems of existing power plants, where all the staff is approaching retirement age.
The utilities have downsized to do more with less - bascially it means more money in the pockets of management - not necessarily stockholders. It does mean that institutional memory and experience is being lost. The stress can be incredible at times.

No one in their right mind has considered a career in nukes for decades now: it was seen as a rapidly declining industry.
:rofl: Business is good - best in years.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
You have to be careful in this these forums. You can give an opinion, even a well-considered opinion, but you will be met with the statements of an expert in the field who will say something like:

Astronuc said:
And there we still some of crazy to go work in the industry. :biggrin:

and you will be shamed by the brilliance of the light of truth!
 
Last edited:
  • #7
I'd still rather be doing nuclear propulsion systems for spacecraft to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and beyond.

But what I do is fun, interesting, fun, very challenging, fun, well-paying, and fun.
 
  • #8
I think Astronuc hasn't noticed the mistakes in his opening remark yet. :biggrin:
 
  • #9
Evo said:
I think Astronuc hasn't noticed the mistakes in his opening remark yet. :biggrin:
:blushing: Yeah - I noticed.
It would help if I could write coherently.

And there were still some of us crazy enough to go work in the industry.

I was changing thoughts in mid sentence, and typing to fast.
 
Last edited:

1. What is "Global Warming Fever"?

"Global Warming Fever" refers to the passionate and sometimes heated debate surrounding the issue of climate change and its potential impacts on the planet. It is often used to describe the urgency and sense of crisis that some people feel about addressing this issue.

2. What is the controversy surrounding "Global Warming Fever" and free speech?

The controversy arises when people who deny or downplay the severity of climate change claim that their free speech is being suppressed by those who advocate for action on this issue. They argue that their voices are being silenced and that they are being labeled as "deniers" or "oppressors" for expressing their opinions.

3. Is there any evidence to support the claim of oppression in the climate change debate?

There is no evidence to suggest that anyone's free speech is being actively suppressed in the climate change debate. While there may be instances of individuals being criticized or ostracized for their opinions, this does not constitute oppression. In fact, the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence supports the reality of human-caused climate change, and denying or downplaying it goes against the scientific consensus.

4. How can we have productive discussions about "Global Warming Fever" while still respecting free speech?

The key to having productive discussions about climate change is to approach the topic with an open mind and a willingness to listen to different perspectives. It is important to base arguments on scientific evidence rather than personal beliefs or political ideologies. In this way, free speech can be respected while also acknowledging the scientific reality of climate change.

5. What actions can we take to address "Global Warming Fever" and its potential effects?

The most important action we can take is to reduce our carbon footprint by making sustainable lifestyle choices and supporting policies and initiatives aimed at mitigating the effects of climate change. We can also educate ourselves and others about the issue and engage in respectful and productive discussions to raise awareness and promote action.

Back
Top