A Call To RICO Climate Change Science Deniers 737
GregLaden writes: The argument could be made that the organized effort to disrupt climate change science and the development of effective policies to address climate change is criminal, costing life and property. The effort is known to be generally funded by various actors and there are people and organizations that certainly make money on this seemingly nefarious activity. A group of prominent scientists have written a letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren asking for this to be investigated under RICO laws, which were originally designed to address organized crime.
Science! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because arresting people is what science is about now.
Re:Science! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because arresting people is what science is about now.
So, you opposed the RICO investigation (1999-2006) of the so-called "science" which said that cigarettes are safe?
Re:Science! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. I'm opposed to arresting people and/or bullying people for thought crimes or speech crimes or for advancing "wrong" ideas. You're not?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hardly, as either example involves corporate interests telling bald-faced lies for financial gain.
Re:Science! (Score:4, Informative)
You mean, right-wing bald-faced lies about Mann. This zombie BS is no different from the deranged wingers insisting, to this day, that the Clinton's ordered dozens of people to be killed in Arkansas to protect their drug running empire. Repeating big Big Lies doesn't make them true, Fraggie, it just makes you a bigger and more pathetic liar for repeating them.
And reveals you haven't bothered to think about this for two nanoseconds, because anyone seeking to falsify results for money would be doing so for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry. The entire budget for the top five hippie environmentalist groups wouldn't take up half the penny jar of Exxon or Koch Industries. And if government-funding came with some kind of bias, it would also be for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry.
The entirety of George W. Obama's policy on the Global War of Terror is centered around the world's gas station, otherwise known as the Middle East. The United States has successfully overthrown the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Ukraine to support the production and movement of fossil fuels, and is trying to do the same in Venezuela and Syria.
So, again, if government-funded research was going to have a bias one way or the other, it would be against AGW. Deal with it.
Re:Science! (Score:5, Interesting)
Free speech is not black and white. There is a difference between lying/misleading for commercial gain and simply advocating controversial ideas. Global warming deniers at the corporate/scientific level (i.e. the fossil fuel industry and groups they fund) are basically committing fraud and should be prosecuted.
To put it another way, if you're opposed to arresting people for "speech crimes", would you be in favor of legalizing all fraud? After all, the primary basis of fraud is simply the "speech crime" of lying. By way of example:
Insurance fraud: a doctor lies about performing 100 heart surgeries and bills the insurance company accordingly.
Bank fraud: a person lies about their identity so that the bank gives them the balance of a savings account.
In each case, a "speech crime" was committed for commercial gain. And I think they should be arrested.
Re:Science! (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech is not black and white.
It's never black and white when you want to justify oppressing people. That's the nature of wanting to hurt people while still maintaining the idea that you're not evil.
Re:Science! (Score:4, Interesting)
You seem to think that condemning humanity to extinction isn't a form of "oppression".
If so, then go on advocating for climate denial as somehow equal in nature to recognizing the immediate necessity to start reducing fossil fuels so that something can quickly be done to avert human extinction. However, also prepare for both the extinction of Homo sapiens and for the hate that will be directed toward you by your advocating for human extinction.
Re:Science! (Score:4, Funny)
You seem to think that condemning humanity to extinction isn't a form of "oppression".
Sure I do. Which is why every single member and employee of every single environmentalist group that's opposed nuclear power since the 1979 National Academy of Science report on the greenhouse effect belongs in prison, for their complicity in preventing the replacement of coal power with nuclear, thus blocking the reduction in the use of fossil fuels necessary to prevent human extinction.
Re: (Score:3)
It's amazing that you appear to actually believe what you are saying. I suggest that if we criminalize thought that you do not like, we need to do the same for the brainwashed thought you are demonstrating.
First, there is absolutely no credible evidence, scientific or not, that humanity is or will be damned to extinction. Second, there is no credible evidence saying reducing fossil fuel use is the only cure for global warming or that adaptation is not a viable if not harsh alternative. You know, survival o
Re: (Score:3)
To clarify. It's fraud when people who disseminate false information know that it is false, but still do it because it results in personal gain for them. The only problem is that you have to very reliably prove that they have known it to be false. If this is something that requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of proof, then I suppose it would be a valid application.
Re:Science! (Score:4, Insightful)
No one is criminalizing wrong ideas, as much as you'd like to paint yourself as a victim. What's being criminalized is hurting people and lying about it. You'd have no problems with criminal proceedings if someone knowingly put toxic waste into your drinking water and covered it up. Same Thing, pretty much exactly.
Re:Science! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. I'm opposed to arresting people and/or bullying people for thought crimes or speech crimes or for advancing "wrong" ideas. You're not?
That depends on whether or not those 'wrong' ideas are causing damage to others or not. I, for example, do not give a hoot if Judeo-Crhristian priests/rabbis are advancing the idea that Jews are god's chosen people who are more beloved by god than other peoples of this earth even though god supposedly loves all his creations equally. Anybody who is dumb enough to believe that they are a lower form of human deserves their fate. If on the other hand some of these clowns are persuading their followers to marry off their 10 year old daughters to fully grown men I fully support arresting the perverted bastards and locking them up. The same pretty much goes for climate change. I would gladly let the idiots who actually believe that climate change is a left-environmentalist lie and part of a conspiracy to destroy world capitalism suffer the consequences of their stupidity were it not for the fact that in this instance it would harm an awful lot of innocent people. If millions of people are being rendered landless by climate change and rich industrialists are facilitating the process of aggravating climate change by convincing portions of the public who are too badly educated to recognise the idiocy of what these bastards are claiming then yes, I also support the idea of arresting the bastards and trying them and if RICO is what's required to achieve that then I'm fine with it.
Re:Science! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, then too. Wrong or "wrong" is subject to interpretation and sometimes future revision. Thoughts and speech and ideas should not be prosecuted. Period.
Re:Science! (Score:5, Interesting)
A scientist named Lamarck was once persecuted for suggesting if each generation exercised their right arms, eventually the trait would be passed on to future generations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
A scientist named tesla's story is more famous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Never trust orthodoxy without corroboration and reflection, not prosecution.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You keep saying that. So you admit that global warming is political, rather than scientific? Science doesn't "vote" on anything. As soon as you feel the need to get a bunch of yeas and nays, then you've eliminated science from the situation. Science comes up with theories and tests them. They can be tested repeatedly, and thought to be correct for decades, and then something else comes along and invalidates them completely. This has happened repeatedly, and no vote can counteract the truth.
No. He is right. Science today is very political. Do you honestly think that there's a ton of evidence that dinosaurs are 65 million years old or that they are birds. No, these opinions exist because of popularity and literal votes. Not because of any additional evidence. There is almost no additional evidence now than when they were first proposed. The ideas have just become popularized and repeated. When Jurassic Park 3 (2001 - only 14 years ago) came out, everyone thought the bird theory was cuck
Re: Science! (Score:2, Insightful)
Also Gore works more like someone RICO would be used on.
Re:Whoa! Consider the Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Challenge yes.
Wield weaponized bureaucracy against, no. Modern-day federal prosecution is indistinguishable in conduct and likely result from a witch hunt.
Re:Whoa! Consider the Law (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you assume that there is a 1 to 1 correlation of PUBLISHED studies to scientists?
Talk about bad logic...
Not every scientist publishes.
Re: (Score:3)
Climatologists are not statisticians and when one points out the flaws in their stats they just claim that they're "not climatologists". Not all scientists who can poke holes in a hypothesis are (or need be) in that field.
Re:Whoa! Consider the Law (Score:4, Insightful)
95% may agree that climate change is happening, sure. That's obvious. Climate change has been happening for millions of years, well before humans even came on the scene, forget about discovered fossil fuels.
The number who agree on human causes and extent is nowhere near that high, though.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Re: (Score:3)
In 1931 a book was published in Germany, Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein), a collection of criticisms of Einsteinâ(TM)s theory of relativity.
When asked about the book, Einstein retorted by saying âoeWhy 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!â
Percentages of anything are utterly irrelevant to the evaluation of scientific matters.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about a RICO investigation into the left, for using AGW (let us assume the claims are true, keep this in mind) as a political argument for a massive takeover of the economy, to slam the brakes on business, arguably killing far more than AGW will due to causing lagging technological advancement.
Any takers? Or is your itchy trigger finger to mod me down, a censorship in microcosm of that which pleases you to think about in this thread?
Re:Science! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you opposed the RICO investigation (1999-2006) of the so-called "science" which said that cigarettes are safe?
Yes. The way to counter speech that you disagree with, is not censorship, but MORE SPEECH. It is especially effective if you can back up your speech with data.
Re: (Score:3)
So, you opposed the RICO investigation (1999-2006) of the so-called "science" which said that cigarettes are safe?
Yes. The way to counter speech that you disagree with, is not censorship, but MORE SPEECH. It is especially effective if you can back up your speech with data.
Well if you are just talking about speech, then sure. But this isn't about speech. This is about organized attempts at burying scientific fact under piles of FUD so that certain companies can continue to profit while causing harm.
This isn't anything new. There is a very long history of companies doing this. Leaded gasoline, CFCs, smoking, acid rain. I've seen this movie many times. AGW just happens to be the latest target, and you can be certain that it won't be the last.
Re: Science! (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd have no problem putting someone in jail if they knowingly dumped toxic waste into the local water and lied about it for decades. Just because you fell for their BS about global warming not being real, doesn't make the danger any less dangerous, or that they lied about it for decades any less evil.
You'd think we'd have learned when they pulled this exact same shit with cigarettes, but apparently not...
Re: (Score:2)
Like fluoride?
Re: Science! (Score:5, Informative)
And nobody has shown in any way that taxing consumers Trillions of dollars to enrich the elites running the credit trading schemes will do anything to reducing warming (or whatever we are worried about today). We do know it will destroy economies.
Re: Science! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a bit skeptical of buying and selling pollution indulgences as a solution as well.
The carbon credits were a great idea, in theory. But once implemented by actual politicians, they were immediately corrupted into a special interest corporate entitlement scam. A simple flat carbon tax would be much more fair. If the carbon tax was used to reduce existing taxes on labor (the dumbest possible thing to tax) it would be a net positive.
Re: (Score:3)
1) Marketing to minors
2) Advertising "low-tar" cigarettes as safer (when they knew they weren't)
3) Manipulating nicotine levels to make cigarettes more addictive
Yes, misleading the public on scientific research was part of it, but by itself, I don't think they would have had success. Especially since by 1999, everyone knew cigarettes were dangerous. The government needed to prove that damage had
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
A majority of Americans also believe in a deity that will hook them up with a winning lottery ticket if they just pray hard enough.
I would say that when it comes to science, the opinions of scientists is a little bit more useful than the opinions of people who talk to pollsters.
Works both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
We know from emails that climate alarmists have fabricated data, and excluded scientists with heretical views from publication in scientific journals.
How does any of this behavior differ in any way from any other organized crime ring? Why are they immune from punishment for what amounts to an organized ring of terror, silencing all opposition for monetary or pelican gain?
Re:Works both ways (Score:4, Funny)
> How does any of this behavior differ in any way from any other organized crime ring?
It's not a crime to be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are they immune from punishment for what amounts to an organized ring of terror, silencing all opposition for monetary or pelican gain?
Mmmm. Delicious, tender pelican! I can practically taste it right now.
Re:Works both ways (Score:5, Interesting)
We know from emails that climate alarmists have fabricated data, and excluded scientists with heretical views from publication in scientific journals.
We know from emails that at least a few people on the other side have done the same. Who should "win" scientific debates? The side with the best data, or the side with the best lawyers?
Re:Works both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
Right now, it's being won by those with the best lobbyists.
pffffft (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
the Russian language often has a letter 'k' where English words would have a letter 'c'.
Specifically, Russian doesn't have the nonsense where the letter 'c' can sometimes make an 's' sound, and sometimes a 'k' sound.
In Russian, 'k' is always 'k' and 'c' is always 's'. Very consistent.
A better idea (Score:2)
Instead of suing people, shouldn't the global warming crowd be evacuating the areas of the country that will be underwater in the next 5 - 10 years?
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, sell it to Republicans. You get money and natural justice in one.
Re: (Score:2)
Please. Sell me your beach house at an "end of the world" discount. It's practically underwater already, but I like you, so I'm willing do you a favor and take it off your hands.
Re: (Score:2)
AlGore paid millions for an on-the-beach mansion, which is prima facie evidence that even HE doesn't really believe in "global warming".
Re: (Score:3)
No, because the Republicans will then demand billions spent to protect (as well as further develop) their investments. Everyone will be on the hook while they get subsidies on their purchases that should have never been purchased.
See reference: New Orleans
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, sell it to Republicans. You get money and natural justice in one.
Don't be silly, they'll never have to take responsibility. They'll just make the government (i.e. everyone else) bail them out when their property really does go under later.
Re: (Score:2)
Well hell, I'll buy it for the right price.
So long as the RICO goes both ways... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you chaps don't mind the environmental lobbying groups audited... and the financial paperwork of AL Gore's carbon trading schemes checked out... Pull the trigger.
Double dare you.
Re:So long as the RICO goes both ways... (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is, they'll need to show that someone was damaged. So far, there has been no damage that you can point to and say, "This was caused by global warming."
Re: (Score:3)
scamming the government out of grants or other assorted fraud would be viable in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
scamming the government out of grants
That seems unlikely, as long as they actually did the research they said they would do.
Re: (Score:3)
And why was the grant issued to researcher X instead of Y?
And why was amount M instead of L paid out for the grant?
There is plenty to audit in the grant system. You presume there is nothing to hide so you can't imagine finding anything.
If you do a RICO investigation then the investigators assume there is wrong doing. Understand... the investigators... not the courts. The courts are bound to presume innocence but when you conduct a criminal investigation you do not presume innocence. You presume wrong doing
Re: (Score:2)
Done! Let's do it. I'm so happy you proposed this. Let's start Let's put some sunshine into this whole mess!
Mind you, it's not like more data is going to convince you any time soon though, so what is the point again?
Re: (Score:2)
If you chaps don't mind the energy and oil companies audited... and the financial paperwork of Koch brothers political bribery and campaign contribution schemes checked out...
No one opposes that, and any large energy/oil company already gets audited.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean....like health care reform based around a mandate to buy for-profit insurance, which was the cornerstone of right wing health care plans for 25 years until y'all lost your shit the second it was proposed by a Democrat? [csmonitor.com]
Awww, did wiidle baby
Where did I hear this? (Score:2)
That quote is/was NOT aimed at AGW advocates or deniers, but something else altogether. But 'disagreement and debate' is part and parcel of free speech.
How far down the rabbit hole of silencing others do you want to go?
Not all signees are climate "scientists", exactly (Score:5, Interesting)
Edward Maibach [gmu.edu], for example, is the Director of Climate Change Communication, and holds a BA in social psychology from University of California at San Diego, an MPH in health promotion from San Diego State University, and a PhD in communication research from Stanford University. He teaches how to talk about climate, but he doesn't study it.
Re:Not all signees are climate "scientists", exact (Score:4, Interesting)
is the Director of Climate Change Communication,
I'm seriously questioning why a university feels the need to have a Director of Climate Change Communication.
A Clear Sign That AGW Is A Lie (Score:4, Insightful)
When you have to file lawsuits to silence your opposition, that's the clearest possible sign that you are not a scientist, and what you're doing is nothing CLOSE to being a "science".
Ya this is really bad (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think some people understand how much shit like this hurts their argument.This is the kind of thing that scammers and charlatans do. When someone challenges their view they do whatever they can to silence them, very often including trying to abuse the court system.
So when someone advocates using tactics like that, well it makes some people wonder: What do they have to hide? Why are they acting like scammers?
I mean you don't see this with evolution. You don't see people trying to sue creationists, no they just make fun of them and point out how wrong their arguments are.
This shit needs to stop.
Re: (Score:3)
They're trying to set a precedent. So, if they succeed, it doesn't matter who you are, what your data etc is, you're screwed. It's an attempted return to such as the Spanish Inquisition, Stalinist Russia or Maoist China.
Climate Change Deniers aren't stupid... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Climate Change Deniers aren't stupid... (Score:4, Interesting)
Complete bullshit. The IPCC report, which includes scientists from all over the world, concluded that there’s a 95% chance that humans are causing climate change.
I think you miss his point. The science that we are having an impact on the climate is clear. The science that it would all be rosy and merry if we didn't is not clear at all. We may very well be as clean as the dinosaurs who inhabited the world before us and still be facing global warming as there's evidence that it has happened in the past.
I for think the premise of global warming is a horrible reason to stop polluting. How about the dying of aquatic life due to ocean acidification, the rise in lung cancers, asthma, or even just the general smell. We should not stop polluting because of climate change, we should just stop polluting.
The entire debate is now framed with climate models, and what-if scenarios rather than looking out the window and seeing a morning smog.
Actors (Score:4, Funny)
The effort is known to be generally funded by various actors
Curse you Matt Damon!
dissent? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a hellacious difference (both moral and legal) between someone who genuinely has drawn a different conclusion from the data and someone who is being paid to confuse and obfuscate that data in the pursuit of profit.
Large Majority Believes Climate Change is Happen (Score:3)
A survey [blogspot.com] from 5 years ago found that a large majority of Americans (75%) believe in human caused warming of the atmosphere.
And
However
So Americans are in favor of tax incentives but are against tax increases to solve the problem. The debate needs to shift to dealing with solutions and promoting solutions now. The longer we wait the more the unpopular choices will be needed. We need to highlight to the politicians that the public is in favor of tax incentives and by opposing these measures they are in the minority and are less electable.
Fair enough, IF... (Score:4, Interesting)
Go ahead and RICO climate skeptics, so long as we get to RICO climate fans who try to stand in the way of the massive nuclear program it will take to go carbon free.
But "Hiding the Decline" is okay (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember "Hide the Decline"? That's when bona fide "scientists" came across an inconvenient truth. In a multi-variate graph of several measurements showing the temperature was rising, one recalcitrant measurement trended downward to contradict very accurate contemporary thermometers. Rater than show the data they had, these "scientists" used a hiccup in the data to make it disappear. It went into the pile of lines, but did not come out. If they had left it in there it would have been a red flag they would have to explain, so they "hid the decline." This was one of many revelations in the Climategate e-mails so many people have conveniently forgotten.
So what exactly was this recalcitrant measurement? It came from tree-ring data. Why is this somewhat important? Because tree-ring data was used as a proxy for thermometers to show the temperature thousands of years ago. Those tree-ring data "prove" the temperature is rising. But the modern graph of tree-ring data shows the temperature falling when everything else shows it rising. What's up with that.
Well, it's a lot easier to hide this uncomfortable issue than it is to explain it. That's how "science" "works."
How about applying RICO to that bunch?
Re: (Score:3)
I've linked to the "Basic" explanation, but there Intermediate and Advanced explanations that go into more detail.
In fact, your link exactly echoes what he said:
Basic: "The "decline" refers to a decline in northern tree-rings..."
What the GP brought up is that these tree rings are trusted as proxies for measuring historic temperature, but for a fact (a fact so strong that it must be 'hidden') modern tree ring growth does not correlate with modern temperature measurements..
This undermines almost all the AGW climate science because all the AGW climate scienc
If you can't put up with lies and bullshit... (Score:3)
Freedom of speech is all about listening to other peoples' lies and bullshit.
Tiresome... (Score:3)
If you can't produce the evidence you have to shut up the people who want to see it. That's the Democratic SOP. They are no longer capable of even attempting a rational argument, all they want to do it drown them out, shut them off, close them down, do whatever they have to do to "win" - whether they are right or not is something they never think about, or care about.
The evidence FOR warming has been years in the custody of true believers, most of whom have been caught fudging the data, all of whom have other agendas besides saving the planet from heat - these range from destroying capitalism, as the UN has admitted is its real target for GW alarmism, to just plain power and favors, like Obama doling out money to his backers, who then shutter their bogus solar power companies, take the money, and run - and they don't have to run far because Obama never allows them to be followed.
I'm tired of it. I'm tired of all the lying, I'm tired of the endless invective, the endless, aggressive pushing of "solutions" that will eat up trillions of dollars but which will budge the thermometer literally only HUNDRETHS of a degree IF THE GLOBAL WARMERS ARE RIGHT. Never mind the net effect if they aren't.
You want to find the culprit you follow the money, and the money is huge, it is vast, it is not being monitored and it's being spent like they can print it for free on paper. Which is just what they are doing. It's a shell game, played by liars, to rob the suckers - which is you, folks. All you. Oh, me, too. Maybe I should become a bundler for some socialist moron and get myself on the gravy train, too. Then I could join the choir and shout "the global warming is coming!" knowing the money we milk out of the idiot voters will end up in MY accounts.
But then I couldn't sleep at night. And I wonder how Democrats manage to do so, and do so in spite of the fact they apparently also sleep right through the daytime, too...
IF GOD HAD NOT MEANT VOTERS TO BE SHEARED HE WOULD NOT HAVE MADE THEM SHEEP. Calvera said something like that to Chris in the "Magnificent 7" and you know what? He was right. It didn't make him a nicer person.
RICO is bad law, and this would be a bad use of it (Score:3)
RICO is a bad law, tailor-made for prosecutorial overreach, and this would be a bad use of it.
I really dislike what the heavily funded "denialist" campaign has done to any chances of actually dealing usefully with this problem (not to mention what it has done rational discourse in this country), and if someone feels they can prove damages, more power to them if they sue everyone they can find behind the astro-turf, but please don't use this abominable law in the process.
It's all politics. (Score:3)
The thing I find most annoying about the global warming issue is that there's entirely too much politics and too little science. For instance, ask people the question "What greenhouse gas has the most influence on Earth's temperature?" and the vast majority will say "Carbon Dioxide."
Only problem with that answer is that it's wrong.
Water vapor accounts for about 95% of the total greenhouse effect on earth. Only about 5% is due to carbon dioxide. And the interesting thing is that most of that 5% is totally natural. Mankind only creates about 5% of that 5% giving about 0.27% of the total greenhouse effect that is contributed by mankind. Yes, just a smidge over one fourth of one percent.
Do I believe that global warming is real? Yes, I do.
Do I believe that global warming is due to mankind? No, I do not.
Some minor little details that the global warming crowd ignore that they really need to address.
1. Viking farms underneath the glaciers in Greenland. Archeologists have found these farms. Interesting thing. The existence of those farms indicate that Earth was warmer in the past than it currently is. Else those farms wouldn't be covered by glaciers. And given when those farms were made, mankind wasn't generating appreciable levels of carbon dioxide. That little detail right there makes their "global warming is due to mankind" argument more than a bit suspect.
2. Scientists have found a definite correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global temperature by analyzing ice core samples, tree growth rings, etc. It is a proven fact that higher global temperatures are associated with higher levels of carbon dioxide. Sounds like something good for the global warming crowd doesn't it? However, there is one slight problem. The correlation is skewed over time. It turns out that carbon dioxide level changes lag global temperature changes by approximately 40 to 50 years. That's right folks, when the temperature changes, the CO2 changes about 4 decades later. If you have a cause and effect relationship between two variables, I would expect the variable that changes first to be considered the cause, and the variable that changes later to be the effect. And the data doesn't look good for the "global warming is caused by mankind" crowd.
Why would CO2 levels change after a temperature change? One theory is that the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with increasing temperature and increases with decreasing temperature. And we have a very large body of water on this planet. The oceans can be acting as a huge CO2 repository and when they get warming, they release some of that CO2 and when they get colder, they absorb some of that CO2. That would definitely explain the lag.
Right now in my opinion, the global warming caused by mankind crowd are using CO2 as a means of demonizing the west. After all, it is a proven fact that burning fossil fuel does generate CO2. So those people can point to the west and say "See? They're harming the environment." They can't demonize plain old water vapor, even though water vapor is the biggest contributor to the green house effect. Are we having a significant effect on Earth's temperature? I wouldn't think so since we're only having about one fourth of one percent of the total effect.
First, they came for the climate change deniers... (Score:3)
...but I wasn't a climate change denier, so I kept silent
Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent (Score:5, Insightful)
This attempt to stifle dissent is going to backfire. The denialists are already claiming that they are victims of a left-wing anti-capitalist conspiracy, and this is just throwing gasoline on the flames.
Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent (Score:5, Insightful)
It also doesn't make a ton of sense from the left, at least if you're consistently on the left, since the tendency to over-criminalization through broad federal laws isn't exactly having great progressive effects on society.
Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent (Score:4, Insightful)
Hate to break it to you, but it's not the right wing which is pushing for trigger warnings, training against/punishing microaggressions & safe spaces.
Classical liberals have long been in support of free speech, unfortunately the progressives long ago hijacked the left and this kind of anti-free speech is just par for the course.
Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent (Score:4, Insightful)
A point that I think they're probably missing here, is that having a political opinion (which is essentially what denial is) is as an ironclad rule of sorts, protected by the first amendment. Simply saying you're against it is just speech, so I'm trying to figure out what they're going to RICO them for. Might that be voting in favor of their opinions?
I think hell would freeze over before that would ever fly.
Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent (Score:4, Insightful)
I assume that they would find some kind of crime, probably some sort of conspiracy, and charge them with that. Then by using RICO they can steal all their property and anything they could use to hire a lawyer before they even come to trial.
Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent (Score:5, Insightful)
Publicly lying for profit pretty much falls into the fraud category. So a News organisation by virtue of it's branding and marketing that purports to report the truth, when caught out being paid to tell lies should be penalised under fraud laws for doing so. Politicians knowingly telling lies should quite simply be prosecuted under electoral laws for attempting to be elected based upon lies.
Companies that market themselves as one thing say "Think Tanks" that claim to deal with facts and produce reports claim to be based on real facts, found to be releasing reports based not on facts but on presenting lies as truth, should be prosecuted for fraud.
This is no about idiots repeating dumb lies, this is specifically about groups conspiring to defraud the public for profit with a total lack of regard for the consequences of their actions. You publicly tell lies for profit and you should be prosecuted the greater the harm produced by the lies, the greater the penalty.
Who should be the arbiter of truth, obviously the courts, absolutely no different to the police accusing you of robbing a bank and you claiming you were at your mothers house at the time (more evidence is obtained and presented and based upon that a decision is made as to what is the truth and what is the lie)
Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent (Score:5, Interesting)
Simply saying you're against it is just speech, so I'm trying to figure out what they're going to RICO them for.
Fraud. The cigarette companies were damaging people by intentionally deceiving them (and advertising to kids). So, to get a settlement from this, you'll need to show that:
1) Oil companies (or whoever) intentionally lied about what their scientists told them, or told their scientists to produce studies with the 'correct' result. I've skimmed through some of the documents [ucsusa.org] provided by the link, and I'm not sure I see evidence of that.
2) They have to prove that someone was damaged. The cigarette companies didn't lose because they lied, they lost because their lies damaged people. The link [scienceblogs.com] says there are threats of future damage, but doesn't present evidence of any actual damage. That's something they will have to fix.
It's not illegal, unethical, or wrong to fund science. It's a good thing, even if oil companies do it. It's only unethical when they require a specific result, or otherwise pressure the scientist. The more funding we have for science, the better.
Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you just gave us the answer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unethical != criminal.
Or we would all be in jail.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
* The original moon landing was fake - (10 Tin foil hat)
* 911 was an inside job - (8 Tin foil baseball cap)
* Benghazi/Clinton emails - (6 - Tin foil beanie)
* Oil interestes pay politicians to downplay the dangers of climate change - (1 Regular hat)
Re: (Score:3)
But only when they are on the side that's wrong.
Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent (Score:4, Insightful)
I see this as a blatant heresy law. The Church of Global Warming wants to make it illegal to publically disagree with the Received Doctrine. Humanity has been there before, with state-mandated religions, and parts of there world are there now, and it's a dark and ugly place we should never again go.
Think the above is trolling, because global warming is so obviously correct? Remember, almost every religion in history has declared that it is obviously correct, and anyone disagreeing is obviously a political troublemaker out to subvert the legitimate authority of the church, or worse, to do the devil's work. Clearly no one intelligent could actually disagree with the Received Doctrine, right?
Even if you agree fully with the man-made global warming hypothesis, that's not the question here. The question is not who's right, the question is: do you respect the humanity of people who disagree with you on something you believe (and believe to be important)? Are you willing to compete in the marketplace of ideas to convince the non-believers? Or are you really willing to use force to squash all dissent? We know just how ugly that road gets, how it leads through some of humanity's most appalling history, and that road was walked by people who were also utterly convinced they were right!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More simple than that (Score:3, Insightful)
Should that really be legal in your opinion?
Or should it be legal if they do it "for the party", since it's fraud for the sake of politics?
The entire reason we've got all this shit is because of some donors setting the agenda and turning science denial into a political point of difference between two parties when both used to consider reality previously.
Do you deny science for The Party comrade? Papers please.
Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree in general, but the question must be asked, at what point does it go from genuine dissent into outright fraud for gain? I wouldn't say it's necessarily time to invoke RICO, but perhaps it's time to ask how far is too far.
Keep in mind, they are not talking about organizations simply saying things like "we are not satisfied that the data supports the conclusion" or "we believe there are flaws in your raw data". They are talking about very deliberately setting out to produce fraudulent data and calculations to confound the issue (good old fraud).
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree with ALL uses of RICO. But it might be time to prosecute them for fraud.
Re: (Score:3)
A good case could be made for fraud if it can be shown that data or analysis has been deliberately contorted to achieve a "conclusion".
Certainly the deniers were all for that when they thought they could convince enough people that there had been fraud on the AGW side.
Re: (Score:3)
Most climate-change models don't actually predict that all humans will be killed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most climate-change "models" are incapable of predicting anything. Given all the data up to last week, they cannot predict the weather today. The Old Farmer's Almanac has more accurate predictions.
Re:What law are they breaking? (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree. Charge and prosecute them for fraud. Probably with aggravating circumstances. (Can it be fraud if it's not for gain?)
And repeal RICO. RICO is a vile law that should never have been passed, and should have immediately been thrown out as blatantly unconstitutional. RICO has two purposes:
1) to let the enforcers steal your wealth without proving anything at all first, and
2) to prevent the accused from having any resources to hire a lawyer.
Perhaps there are other parts of the law, but those are the parts most frequently used.
Re: (Score:3)
Dead wrong. Prosecuting deniers will proceed under the same legal theory that makes shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater illegal. You can't shout "FIRE" in a theater and you can't shout "NO FIRE" in a burning theater. Both are speech acts which cost people their lives
Deniers are shouting "NO FIRE" when they :
1) know it's a lie or could reasonably be expected to know it was a lie
2) are shown to be unable to defend their junk science theories to duly qualified scientists, either through sheer incompetence