Slashdot Mirror
A Call To RICO Climate Change Science Deniers
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.
In Soviet Russia, decent criminalizes you!
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Because arresting people is what science is about now.
And about time?
The good old inquisition is back. I guess it was only a matter of time.
Can they use torture yet? Remember, if the Holy Truth is ever questioned, ALL MANKIND IS DOOMED TO ETERNAL PURGATORY. Again.
Sorry, we have this pesky thing called free speech ( at least in the USA ). You cant squelch those that do not believe you, and speak out about it.
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?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
RICO is more clearly an issue for the Climategate authors. Socialist nonsense and bulllying are reaching high tide in Amerika. Notice how many guns people are buying. Those aren't their best weapons either.
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?
In America we have the right to say what we want. We also have the right to pay a price if we knowing say false and reckless things that hurt others.
Unless there's a specific law they're violating, it's not criminal. Period.
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.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
“I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
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?
This will end any resistance to environmentalist dominance of all things. Yay!
What could possibly go wrong?
When a physicists model doesn't match reality, at least they admit they could be wrong.
Most climate-change models don't actually predict that all humans will be killed.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
... dark forces.
Oh dear! Hogwarts isn't safe!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And climatologist
Ann Coulter, Welcome to Slashdot!
Table-ized A.I.
Man made global warming is a farce, and is entirely funded (like the CIA NSA, Mainstream media) by the Rothschild banking family, who are estimated to have trillions of dollars in wealth
Enjoy your carbon footprint tax you mind controlled cock smoking teabaggers
Edward Maibach, 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.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
I described my own experience with a climate change science, very different from Greg's:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/28/open-thread-weekend-23/#comment-338257
http://whowhatwhy.org/2012/02/18/which-is-more-likely-a-conspiracy-of-millions-or-oil-companies-doing-what-they-do/
I know which I'm going with.
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".
A public opinion poll showed Americans' trust in science and scientists reached a record low, with a majority saying they had "little trust" or "no trust" in scientific institutions. It's a complete mystery why so many people are losing their ability to trust science. Researchers are baffled, but some have suggested more arrests of dissenters may be in order.
Silly Democrats, don't you know that never-ending open-ended investigations based on flimsy evidence is ONLY reserved for Benghazi?
Not to start a flame war, but there are tons of scientists on both sides of this argument, and the dissenting scientists are not all shills of the oil companies and big business.
Anyway, no matter what side of the fence any one of us falls, the notion that you (meaphotically) are free to throw out ideas, claims, and opinions is your right under 1st Amendment Law. Under that same First Amendment Law, I (metaphorically) am free to challenge your thinking no matter the number of claimers or deniers.
You sound like a religious zealot. There is no murder here. A couple degrees increase in average temp a couple decades ago didnt kill millions. The temp increase has stopped for over 14 years. Climate has changed and always will. Our challenge is to adapt with it. The earth is far more resilient than current models predict.
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.
It doesn't matter what random scientists believe. ExxonMobil's scientists in 1977 believed they would hurt the world. The executives hid this for 20+years and profited from it. Rico charges for covering up what they knew. Or just let other countries sue them into the ground.... Keep the money in the USA or let it out.
Climate change deniers are scientists too. The earth is not nor has it ever been outside of its normal range of possible temperatures -- we are still not even close to the "The Great Minoan Warm-up" -- and, the most polluted place on the planet -- Linfen, China has only raised 2 degrees F in 50 years. (You can confirm that with wolfram alpha if you like... You can chew Linfen's air -- that's how nasty it is... Anyway, our whole planet would have to look like Linfen to have this global impact and it just isn't going to happen since we don't actually live on most of the planet -- it's water. Does that mean we shouldn't control emissions? No, we definitely should -- there are health considerations to this, but it doesn't matter what we do... The planet will warm or cool as it pleases like it always has. Mostly, this is coming off to meas an NOAA funding scam -- because no one cares what the do so they have no money without a climate change media scare... And, consensus reality doesn't presume truth -- truth is from data and analysis.... These opinions are not congruent with the data... We're facing normal warming patterns so far -- we've had times in history where the Arctic ice completely melted off before -- this is nothing new. We are also in an El Nino pattern in the USA and historically that has lead to warmer wetter winters and cool summers -- they are projecting that it will last 2-5 years. Early in the 1900s and earlier the Arctic was experiencing and abnormally cold period and we're just going back to normal. In 2007 there was a "great rapid decline" that was probably climate related, but by the next year or so the ice had grown right back to where it was. We're not losing ice so much as the ice there is "new". Most of the melt is old ice -- that could be due to contaminates or just the fact that older ice reflects solar energy differently... either way it is still there... I have links.. But, I don't want to cream every related site with slashdotters... Mostly, I am not concerned that was should do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint -- I am concerned that we shouldn't emit chemicals for health considerations. The heat won't kill us quickly, but a floating airborne cancer soup will. Do _NOT_ trust the US media at all with these issues -- they have been telling lies about other things as well... Try to get data from overseas sources who aren't influenced from the corporate world.... The EPA for example used to have air quality charts for years in the past for most of the world -- they took them off their site. Search: "Iceland 10000 year climate study" "Arctic Ice Cap Growing" (it has since 2012!)
The effort is known to be generally funded by various actors
Curse you Matt Damon!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Or you have laws that put millions out of work. You make the world poorer due to higher energy costs. You make millions starve bases on those policies. You have conspiracy to get money from the government for Solyndra! That should be prosecuted.
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.
So the Progressives are not done with just calling those that do not agree with them racists and sexists. Not done with shunning anyone with a different opinion. They're so against any debate that they now want to prosecute those that have different opinions. Do we really want to be a totalitarian nation?
Would be a stupid thing to do, since there is no proof that Global warming is the cause of something men are doing. But since they can't prove it with science, they will turn to the courts to force their guesses on the people.
Going to get to a point where farting is a crime.
If you can't win by the science, just use courts and guys with guns to silence dissent. How "scientific" of you.
It's not decent, it's deceit.
That's because of large deposit Exxon puts in your bank account every quarter, right shill?
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.
A survey 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.
I realize Slashdck has gone full Leftard, but even they can see here where it ends.
If you have to criminalize dissent, that isn't science. That leftist totalitarian d0uchebaggery that likes of which Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Obama enjoy today. You stupid genocidal MFers. How hard is it for you to pull your head out of your @ss, I wonder? Or will you be like the Hitler Youth sniping from buildings. Nothing to do but to crush your skull with the butt of a rifle.
Grow up and understand History or you will fall on the side of evil. A war won't care how thoughtless and igt@rded you are. You'll just fking die. And you'll deserve it. Stupid fking Leftists. Your lives are a fantasyland built on top of the corpses of the hundreds of millions you've silenced over the last 100 years alone. So F you All. And remember this and many other moments like this in the years ahead. You are either for Life, Order, and Reason- or you are for Death, Chaos, and Insanity. Choose.
Anyone who would use lawyers to prove their point or silence opposition must be on very weak footing. Whomever came up with this idea (not to mention the ridiculously Unconstitutional nature of it) must be living in litigious California and have their head so far up each others asses that the methane and carbon they are smelling is not what they think it is.
The Elephant in the room is the First Amendment.
But it would be novel for the Fed to sue private citizens to stymie debate. Basically, Executive Government Extorts Judiciary Government to bring class action law suit against private citizens who are questioning Federally payed citizens (Federal employees, through grants from the National Science Foundation, DOE, et al. to private or university consultants ... ) about fraud and malfeasance (Obama 2008 stimulus package managed by NSF to dole out the payola to those listed in the letter (the authors) and now bankrupt solar companies like Solyndra et al. or even Tesla Motors).
Those who endorsed the letter have a very strange idea of how jurisprudence works in a democracy for sure.
You know that you're an idiot, don't you? _Climate_ models are not used to predict the _weather_.
Modern environmentalism is a bogey man ploy for progressives to have command and control of the economy.
Look up all the progressives that made a s load of cash manipulating the cap and trade markets especially in Europe.
Al Gore had an old house with a large carbon footprint
Liberals don't care about the environment this RICo nonsense will just try to silence detractors.
If global warming is so solid why was there a Time article about the next ice age in the 70's
Why the fabricate Penn State data in climategate if the science is so solid.
Follow the money.
Look at the companies that fund the research and think if they will profit from cap and trade and strict environmental controls.
Is mid east oil funding the U.S. environmental scare?
Why would the U.S. not use all the resources it is blessed with to the full potential to compete in the global economy
Follow the money before you are brought up on RICO charges
That's because of large deposit Exxon puts in your bank account every quarter, right shill?
If I'm a shill, then explain why I'm wrong. Prove the point clearly, then mock me with derision at my obvious lies, so no one respects me any more.
Merely accusing people of being a shill is so weak.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I find it funny that the climate change believers might blame the deniers for costing life and property, and so might climate change itself, ironic. Oh something is killing you and you blame something else, rather than the thing killing you (your ignorance). That reminds me of the Queen of England, create my own laws, and court system and find anybody who disagrees guilty. A female by definition can never be God. Females take before giving, males give then take. To create is to give. To kill is to take.
Science doesn't work through vocal assertion or denial of beliefs. It works through mathematical formulation of detailed models and hypotheses, followed by empirical testing of those hypotheses for the purpose of invalidating them.
We're not even close to having climate models of sufficient technical depth and breadth of coverage to allow our theories to be unquestionably conclusive in this area. All our GCMs take shortcuts and largely avoid those areas in which data is scarce, or theory is lacking, or the computation required would be too much. And there's been next to no serious attempt to invalidate hypotheses outside of simulation yet. These are very early days in climate science.
Nevertheless, work is progressing, and we'll achieve full understanding one day. In the meantime, both the AGW asserters and the deniers merely add noise, and neither of them is welcome in honest scientific circles because it's too early to know. Those who do welcome the opinion of one side over the other are simply not acting as honest scientists.
Of course this doesn't mean that we should continue to pollute our planet, that would be idiotic. But you don't need to pretend that science already has this nailed as a reason to stop shitting all over your one and only home.
My attitude at this point is "If you sit by the river long enough, you will see the body of your enemy float by". Only it will be all of us who die. Argue about it then. It is too late to stop it. There is no sense getting worked up about it one way or the other.
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Global Warming.
He's a center director. His title is actually "Director, Center for Climate Change Communication". You'd know this if you bothered to click the link. I take it you didn't attend a research university that had sponsored labs, centers and institutes operating on its campus?
He is an idiot, a puffed up troll who's got no hard science degree -
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/greg-laden/97/968/782
Where he is writing this letter to the president is his own blog and basically using environmental fear to keep from getting a real job.
Climate change has been happening long before man. It is amazing to me anyone who disagrees with the ideologues that it is man made climate change are cast as ignorant etc etc. Yet how many of these fake scientists have been caught falsifying data ? To many to list. In fact how many scientists believe climate change is man made yet openly admit they do not have the evidence to support it ? More then you would expect. I know I have bookmarked and do follow many of them. This is a left wing religion with nothing but conjecture to back it up. We have been told the Polar Bears will be extinct yet there population increases. We are told the ice caps will shrink yet they are expanding. We are told 10 years ago temperatures are rising yet they are cooling. Now this cooling is the prelude to the temperature rising. What I have witnessed from the left wing looney bin is conjecture over my lifetime. 40 years to be exact and guess what ? Nothing has changed except they have more predictions based on what they claim is science. Most here know the 3 main parts to a science project yet do these scientists work off of it ? No they modify and bastardize the scientific method only to claim its legit. This is what I know many of these so called environmentalists are nothing more then communists. Take a look at who these people are on a individual level and you will begin to understand what they are after. Its pretty obvious.
"If you don't follow the party line, we'll prosecute!"
Wow, libs, you've finally achieved the Soviet Russia-like state you've always wanted!
Then why do Climate Believers make claims of hot weather and hurricanes being caused by climate change?
You can't point to one and then justify the other. If it can't predict weather, it can't predict weather.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
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.
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?
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
That's how they roll. Shut up, don't think. That's leftwingwackoism.
..."solution" to climate change. So remember, right wing kids: when you're whining about Al Gore and carbon credits, you're really whining about capitalism.
However, we can not continue to live in a "democracy" where people permitted to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy to kill billions and cause the extinction of the human race, which is really what global warming denial is all about at this point in the "debate". The reality is that if our justice or political system are not soon able to uproot the fraud, then global warming will take care of the problem once and for all, at a cost to the lives of billions of innocents. You make the call. Its your life that is at stake here. Time is rapidly running out for a decision to be made.
One doesn't even have to wait to take your chances. That next super enlarged storm might just drop a tree branch on your head or burn you alive as should you be trapped in a firestorm during a drought, or perhaps just die of starvation as soil temperatures will have exceeded the capacity for food crops to grow, or other similar fate. As you feel the tree limb hitting your skull, or your flesh being seared off by the fire, or feel your body collapse from malnutrition into a final stupor, you can cry out against those fossil fuel executives and lobbyists were more than content to profit at your loss, but not concerned to see you go.
Or you be proactive. The choice is yours. There are lots of different choices, but denying the fraud won't be one of them.
Repeating right-wing Zombie Lies doesn't make them true, it just makes you a bigger and more pathetic liar for repeating them.
that mankind doing less is good.
Standard tree hugger (who like to drive home to the nice AC) fair.
Show me some robust models that predict what has happened so far.
That said, given the stakes, if Exxon etal. is X'ing useful data to further their agenda, then that may be criminal.
I'm just not sure what X is
Not publishing - seems fair that they only publish things in their favor
Fabricating - not nice, but the scientific method should sort that out, not RIco
Quashing - If they are threatening folks to keep the story in their favor, then Rico might make sense because of the threat, not because of the science.
For a group of scientists to call for DOJ instead of science is a pretty pathetic example of what PC can do.
The Chinese are a weapon of mass reproduction. China town here, china town there, before you know it the whole world will be made in china.
https://youtu.be/d-HXB0DQWFE
Everyday the Gaia mystics show their true totalitarian nature. The debate has never been about the science, it is about whether the hypothetical impact of any climate evolution on quality of life and economic prosperity would be so great that it would be preferable to the very substantial and immediate loss of prosperity and personal freedom, resulting from the "climate action" policies as they are being relentlessly pushed by the zealots. AFAIK no such argument has ever been proposed. So far it was always about "changing habits", lifestyle enforcement and "but... but... but... think of the children!".
Freedom of speech is all about listening to other peoples' lies and bullshit.
Free Speech is a right, and if any official even tempts to charge anybody because they deny climate change, it means instant civil war.
I have no doubt at all that a lot of American's would respond with military force. and they would probably go right after the politicians, judges, and corporate leaders.
Don't infringe on Constitutional rights, and everything will be fine.
And if you can't stand on the real facts quit trying to fight by using tricks and legal manuvers in order to grab control of every person's lives.
Now does it still look like such a noble idea?
And there is the fact that you could not get past the "My religion rejects the authority of science, as is my right under the constitution." type defence.
The far left is organized but does little to stop the WORST polluter of all, which is china. If we are going after right wingers for not acknowledging facts or fighting against solutions, then the same should occur to the far left.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Better yet, lets transport them all to summer camps in Basra, Iraq so they can get a bit of training as to what global warming is all about.
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.
Most climate change models only predict future temperatures. However, what biologists know about what will happen to organisms when those temperatures are reached is already very well known.
Animals and plants either face 2 choices in evading global warming. Either they relocate to cooler areas, or if those are no longer available, they die and populations and species go extinct. This is an extremely well known and well studied process. This is not a long process that will take thousands of years, rather it could take as little as one bad extended period of drought or too intense a storm.
The only difference is that this time, is that biologists are warning folks that they are talking about all of us as well all those other unfortunate species.
"The temp increase has stopped for over 14 years."
Another global warming denier bearing false witness.
Sadly the temperature increases have not stopped. 2015 will exceed 2014 as the the warmest year in recorded history. To somehow think that as global warming records continue to exceed previous records is of no consequence to human survival is not only irrational, it is plain stupid.
I've been trying to develop a theory about why there is so much distrust of climate science.
Here's what I've got so far:
There have been lots of cases where the "experts" are almost all totally incompetent. Economists who didn't see the crash of 2008 coming. Educational "leaders" who keep forcing new, ridiculous teaching methods on an unwilling public. Psychiatrists who prescribe drugs that are almost indistinguishable from placebos. And -- most relevantly here -- 1970s-era climate scientists who warned us that a new ice age was coming.
Pseudo-science tends to flourish whenever people study extremely complex systems, such as economy, learning, biology, and climate. Pseudo-science is the single most insidious thing that can infect the human mind. It is extremely difficult to detect in general; and a person becomes absolutely powerless to perceive it once they fall prey to it. Pseudo-science is like a drug that strips people of their cognitive ability to even recognize that they're under the influence of its intoxication. It's almost as if the human mind is specifically constructed to be blind to pseudo-science. I suspect that quick, shallow theory-making was so crucially important to our ancestors, that our brains evolved to favor shallow theory-making over rational logic, and to make sure that those theories are in firm control of our thinking and behavior. That trait might have helped us survive in the stone age, but it's hurting us badly in the modern era.
This is something that we, as a society, simply do not discuss much. That's not surprising. Our in-born blindness to pseudo-science is probably the very thing that inhibits us from being able to talk about it.
Plus, it's obviously not fun to talk about. No climate scientist wants to explain over and over why they personally believe that they are competent and not under the intoxicating spell of pseudo-science -- despite the fact that they practice in a profession that has a long history of perceived incompetence and pseudo-scientific culture. Here's an example of that culture: Remember a few years ago when they replaced the term "Global warming" with "Climate change"? That change in terminology was necessary because it replaced a more-precise term with a less-precise term, making it much more difficult to disprove. That was classic pseudo-scientific behavior. Now, of course, that doesn't prove climate science is a pseudo-science. But that terminology change has generated quite a bit of suspicion -- and it's the way that climate science is perceived that's of most interest to me here.
And now for my theory:
I suspect that many people have been subconsciously "keeping score" over the decades -- tallying up in their minds all the cases where the "experts" have proven themselves utterly incompetent. As a result, our culture has become increasingly cynical about the abilities of the "experts". In light of this cynicism, I think it might be quite natural for someone to ask: "Why should I believe climate scientists now, when they were so ridiculously wrong in the past?" Or perhaps they might ask: "Why should I believe anyone who studies extremely complex systems, when we know of so many cases where the 'experts' have demonstrated utter incompetency in understanding complex systems?"
And as for a way forward:
I think the top priority must be to stop the current approach of calling the skeptics of climate science "ignorant" or "unreasonable". That approach has resulted in a stalemate, and it has no possibility of advancing the discussion. Instead, I recommend that we develop theories that can explain how a reasonable person might feasibly become a skeptic of climate science. Once we have those theories, then they will help point us to a way forward. My theory might be right or wrong, but at least I'm trying to find a way around the current stalemate.
And who knows? Maybe the way to reduce the skepticism about climate science is to change the science so that it becomes more rigorous, transparent, accountable, and self-aware about its limitations. It may turn out that taking the skeptics seriously could actually end up improving climate science.
Ignorance will get you nowhere fast. Unfortunately, on a rapidly warming planet there soon won't be any place for ignorance at all.
As long as the input parameters are credible (ie fall within the range of the real parameter they propose to represent) the output of these models will be credible, even though they can not be used to predict every foreseen potential event.
Although we now know that with 75-100 years at the present rate of warming (not the accelerated one that we can more likely expect), wet bulb temperatures lethal to humans can be expected to occur commonly. We can't predict the precise number of heat stroke deaths, but we can predict within a known margin of error, what the number of deaths will likely be. ALL indications are they will likely be very high, as even now we are observing summer temperatures that are causing tens of thousands of deaths due to heat stroke and the rate of this cause of death is increasing.
It should be pointed out that these are not the early days of climate science. That increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will warm the planet has been known for over 150 years. The reality is that its not merely a issue of rising temperatures, but rather the ecological consequences of these rising temperatures. These are effects that are being studied now, not at some distant point in the future, when the last denier will be convinced. Biologists can tell you with near certainty what will happen to specific aspects of organismal behavior that will be affected by rising temperature and what the consequences for the organism will be. What we know is that a great many kind of organisms will cease to exist as viable populations very soon, on the order of years and decades in many cases, not thousands of years later.
In particular, marketing and communication jobs seem to be popular these days. Now I understand, universities have to market themselves like any other entity, but they take it to stupid extremes.
That's what's going on here, I'm sure. A mouthpeice for the university to talk about how good they are and what they are doing, etc, etc.
Go ahead and file RICO charges and rational people can do likewise and file RICO and other fraud charges against "so-called" client scientists.
I am sure there would be lots of people who would be eager to launch detailed discovery against East Anglia, Michael Mann and other other client change shysters. You progressive idiots will find these tools can be used against you with great effect, especially since it is progressives shysters who are actually guilty of fraud.
Go ahead, make my day!
The fact that there are people in power suggesting arrest and prosecution of people with dissenting views, and the even scarier fact that people here agree with it, is the main reason I began purchasing guns. Tyranny is not an overnight thing, it happens gradually with the support of dumb asses, as it's happening now. F all of you supporting such crazy ideas. Remember, your team will not always be the team in charge and running the show... and then you will regret opening this box of madness and supporting such things.
When you advocate using governments to use it's force and have half the population arrested and prosecuted for not agreeing with you, you can expect them to fight for their lives and point weapons back at you. Don't think your witch hunt will go unchallenged.
The majority of Americans believe there is an invisible man in the sky that gives them presents when they die as well.
Ergo, I place very little faith in my fellow Americans.
I'm pretty against this idea for free speech and inquiry reasons as I think most are.
However, to the extent one could justify it I think this would be the justification.
The fact that energy companies do spend funds to discredit climate change is fairly well established, though the extent of their funding and the degree to which they are responsible to driving the skeptical movement isn't really known.
So consider the scenario where energy companies are aware that climate change is real, they're aware that it will have huge and severe consequences, and they're involved in a large scale deliberate campaign to spread things they know to be lies in order to discredit the science and enable them to continue an activity they know to be harmful unabated.
If that scenario is true, that there's an actual conspiracy to knowingly spread harmful lies, then using legal means to expose it and even press charges because a bit more plausible.
I stole this Sig
Has it ever occurred to anyone that maybe what the climate-science skeptics are trying to do is to improve the science? That maybe their criticism is just their way of trying to make climate science more accountable, rigorous, transparent, and scientific?
Or maybe the criticism is a test. Perhaps the skeptics are testing climate scientists to see how they respond to charges of confirmation bias, cherry-picking data, pseudo-science, and so forth -- to get an understanding of how professional and disciplined the science really is. The charges might be pure speculation, of course -- but the reactions can provide valuable insight into the principles, attitudes, and culture of the scientists. It might also be useful to deliver the criticisms in a harsh, disruptive manner. Do the scientists respond in a defensive way? Are their responses vague or ambiguous? Does the disruptive nature of the criticism cause any friction between scientists? Does the stress cause them to make changes to their explanations, or changes to their terminology? All this can provide clues about the maturity (or immaturity) of the science.
It's kind of like when I yell at the Republicans. Even though it might sound like I hate them, ultimately, I am actually trying to make them a better political party. I criticize them because I sincerely care about improving them.
But I suppose my yelling and criticism could be construed as "disruption" or "obstruction", and thus I could be criminally charged under the RICO act. Given America's new-found love affair with authoritarianism, I would not be surprised at all if some day I found myself in prison for my outbursts.
For over 150 years it has been known to be true in a test tube , but the Earth is not a test tube, it is a much more complicated system of countless feedbacks that mitigate the simple greenhouse effect of CO2. The conclusive demonstration of that is in our existing data set --- at the end of the Ordovician period, the planet had 10 times as much CO2 as it has today and yet it was in the grip of the deepest glaciation it has ever experienced, which lasted millions of years. It is an over-simplistic assumption that CO2 would instead have made the planet toasty.
No scientist denies that greenhouse gases have a proportional warming effect in the confines of a test tube where other effects are not present, but that's merely the contributing knowledge of physics and chemistry, it is not climate science per se. It is not scientifically safe to turn that knowledge of a simple physical contribution into an unsubstantiated assumption about the resulting climate. Such an assumption would ignore the many other effects which are also present at the same time, and it would be bad science.
And that's why it's still early days in climate science. Even after 150 years of understanding the greenhouse effect, our scientific capability is still not reliably predictive in the context of the actual climate system. An honest scientist would have to prefix the warming claim with "if everything else remains the same", but we know full well that it doesn't remain the same. That's what makes this so complicated.
It's about fraud. Widespread organised fraud.
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.
Cue the usual conga line of outraged denialist morons, posting the same ridiculous and thoroughly debunked lies, and in desperation, resorting to the tried and true reds under the bed bullshit.
That so many supposedly intelligent posters don't accept the experts view, would be funny if it were not so tragically and dangerously stupid.
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.
Hmm. From some comments (and threats) I've seen levelled at those who do climate research, it's probably a good idea. Silly mistakes and such could have very nasty results.
Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
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.
Is that the ENTIRE argument is over cause, not effect.
Because, fundamentally, the people bemoaning "warming" say "we need to clean up our act" (at its most basic level) and those claiming "there's nothing wrong" say we need to do nothing.
Irrespective of which side is technically correct, isn't "make the world a significantly better place" a worthwhile goal?
The "but it's expensive" argument is 100% pure "but the industry where I made my billions will make less profit" and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MORE.
So STFU, cleanup everything, and IF that just happens to stave off a global catastrophe then that's BONUS.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
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.
So how many of the Doomsday predictions that Climate Scientists have predicted have come true? I can not think of one incident of losing coastlines, no massive deserts have formed, we still have ice caps, no massive land evacuations due to this, so again I ask have their predictions come true?
I don't deny that the climate changes all the time, I think we may be full of ourselves to think we have had as much effect on the world as predicted. We still know less about our oceans than we do about our moons and we trust people to tell us what the weather will be like in decades when they can not get day to day right half of the time.
I think we need people on both sides of this as if we all just accept this well we might as well say we know everything about everything and just quit living as the only way to save the planet is to quit driving our cars and farm vehicles right now and stop all industry then we may have a chance to survive, but if that happens we will not be able to feed the world as we will not be able to get the products off the fields in time before they spoil.
So what to do? Continue on this course and see the predictions continue to miss, or take the scientists for their word and let half the world starve as we plunge into darkness.
We do need to start cutting down on the power we use, recycle more, and quit wasting, that in itself will make a huge difference, but can we all do it? I doubt it.
That the AC cannot is exactly why the post was AC.
...so I might as well say something. I'm not a scientist, far from it in fact. And I'm not convinced that humans are responsible for everything going on in the world, climatologically. Something is definitely going on, but I'm not convinced that humans are the sole cause. I've read interesting things from both sides of the argument, often very interesting things, but none of them have convinced me one way or the other...I still feel there is a reasonable doubt. All this handwaving from one side, saying it's completely impossible, and all this handwaving from the other side, saying it's a foregone conclusion that I am too stupid to comprehend, has not affected me at all, except to make me more skeptical about both sides. The effects that we have seen are undeniable, but the cause is. Am I a racketeering corrupt organization now?
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
You make good points, but isn't the question here: Is there a organized business lobby here that is working to suppress accurate science for personal gain? Seems likely, but unless just plain old lying is a federal offense, it seem unlikely that this will actually stick. Is there any law that says mass media actually has to tell the truth?
I suspect that Global Warming will get very bad, very fast, when we cross some level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since nature is rarely a linear system. When it does, and we have a few massive crop failures (what happens to US wheat belt at +5 degrees? Nothing good I suspect), people will get serious pretty fast. When this happens, anyone who was a climate denier might find themselves on the wrong side of a starving mob.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Liberals want conservatives to shut up. Conservatives want liberals to keep talking.
Okay, so we have climate deniers investigated under RICO. Then what? If nothing illegal is found then not only do we have largely a status quo we also have made climate change deniers look like martyrs.
Suppose something illegal is found, where does this stop? After we lock up all the climate change deniers then who should we investigate in this witch hunt? Anyone that burns fossil fuels? We lock up all the people at the coal fired electric plant, then all the people at the aluminum plant, auto makers, butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers? After all those people are sitting in jail everyone should feel so proud as the lights so out, food spoils, and we stumble around in the dark looking for something to eat.
We don't solve this problem by (quite literally really) biting the hand that feeds us. We solve this problem by developing something better. The stone age didn't end because people ran out of rocks. It ended because people developed bronze. The age of fossil fuels will not end when we run out of oil. I say this because as oil becomes harder to get then we seem to find more creative ways to get more of it. The age of oil will end when we find something better. I believe we already have something better in nuclear power.
So, liberals, keep talking. You are all sounding like idiots.
If you want to see an environmental disaster then go ahead and tax oil until it's too expensive to burn. Then you will see people searching out for anything they can grab and ignite for heat, light, and cooking. After all the trees are cut down, all the books in the libraries burned, then we'll all be cooking rats over burning tires. Solar power won't save us and neither will windmills. Windmills need aluminum, and that means burning carbon, look it up. Solar power needs storage to keep things running at night. Batteries need lead, nickel, iron, lithium, and, would you look at that, ALUMINUM. While you're mining for all those heavy metals for your batteries you may as well separate out the uranium and thorium for nuclear power, you're going to need it sooner or later.
These tree huggers are going to get us all killed.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
In the form of Micheal Mann (of the discredited hockey stick) vs Mark Levin. Mann sued Levin (actually both the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute that Levin put forth his opinions via) for defamatory statements and fraud due to Levin calling Mann a fraud. Of course Mann put forward in his initial press release about the suit that he was awarded the Nobel peace prize along with Gore...a blatant lie. Levin countersued for $10m and now it's going through the courts. Since Levin is counter suing, all of Mann's work is subject to criticism.
Confirmed! Yes, you're an idiot. A five second googling would have gave you the answer to your question. Apparently, you're too stupid for that.
Let me put it in an analogy that might just be understandable to you. If you go to Las Vegas and play dice all night then you'll lose all of your money - that's a climate model. I don't need to forecast each dice throw (weather model) to know it.
Now where are my beer and chips - this is going to get entertaining.
The earth is a ship stranded in the vacuum of space, with only solar energy input to keep it alive, and numerous forces arrayed on the surface that could decimate life on earth and kill billions of people. I support kicking anyone off the ship that violates the primary commands to all shipmates: preserve diversity, reduce novel impacts, respect the science that guides us. I would be in favor of giving the climate change scientists guns, and a license to kill the deniers, without arrest or trial. just as a ship captain can throw off the ship anyone putting the ships survival at risk, i support our right to remove elements that threaten life on earth. climate change deniers have delayed necessary efforts (which of course may not work, but should at least be tried) to reverse climate change. this WILL result in loss of life, and loss of property, on a scale never seen by mankind, and possibly not seen since the chixulub impact. line them all up, shoot them, cut their heads off, put the heads on pikes outside the capitals of their respective nations, cover their bodies with quicklime, and when the heads dry up or rot burn them and scatter the ashes at sea without ceremony. Actually, I dont think this is severe enough, but I am at a loss as to what more can be done. This is not free speech. its survival of the ecosystem. its war, and war is hell. go to it, RICO people. its a good start.
I'm seriously questioning why a university feels the need to have a Director of Climate Change Communication.
Have you seen the amount of government research money that flows into universities' research centres from social fear of it? "Combatting climate change" is the magic phrase to make your expensive experiment on reducing the methane content of gnat farts a sure-fire winner...
I want nuclear power so that the USA doesn't have to burn Iran's oil, because burning Iran's oil means giving money to a known host of terrorism and increasing global warming. Iran doesn't want to burn Iran's oil, because they can make more money by selling it than burning it for electricity. What does Iran do so that it can get it's nuclear power plants? Well, they threatened to drop nuclear bombs on Israel.
So, I want to build a nuclear power plant. How do I go about doing that? Apparently if I threaten to drop nuclear bombs on Israel then the US federal government will let me get radioactive material and will give me piles of money to build my reactors.
The question that remains is this, if I am successful in building my nuclear reactors after I get all this stuff from the US government do I have to follow through on my threat and actually bomb Israel? I mean I don't want to actually bomb Israel but I do want to reduce my carbon footprint with a nuclear power reactor. Maybe I can build a dud bomb to drop. Then when there isn't an earth shattering "kaboom" I can just go to the US government for more radioactive material, more money, and build more reactors.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Because justice is making sure that society survives against those that would destroy it in their short sighted self interest and manias. Waiting until AFTER the event and then punishing them is revenge, not justice.
You're wrong because claiming you have a suspicion is not a claim, yet you are treating it as one.
Wow! I mean, Wow!
Just look at Japan and see what a disaster nuclear power is. All US plants are
beyond their operating time limit, and a serious disaster wanting to happen.
You can't fix radiation PERIOD.
There still is no safe disposal of spent fuel; it sits outside the facility exposed to whatever.
Nuclear power's long term cost is staggering and no one ever talks about "it."
There are better, cleaner solutions but fossil fuel is too entrenched in this society.
Remember Regan? Removed all of Carter's environmental work - if we had continued
on Carter's path we'd be in a much better energy situation today.
CAP = 'concern'
That most of the big evil companies funding skeptics are ALSO funding the AGW advocates (to cover all their bases politically). Companies like Exxon are spending more money per year on the "green" crap than on the anti-AGW efforts. If these companies should be prosecuted for giving a sliver of money to anti-AGW researchers, should they also be prosecuted for funding the pro-AGW people? ........ or are we back to the idea that people should be prosecuted for having a particular point of view and then putting some of their money into it?
yeah, I thought so.
the effectiveness of propaganda.
Any American who has graduated from a government-run High School within the past 25 years has been thoroughly propagandized in an openly organized and publicized (NOT some secret "foil hat" conspiracy) effort. Government and educators and activists have bragged about the effort to "educate" the young on "global warming"/"climate change". There have been years when every High School student in the US was shown Al Gore's film, even though that film is LOADED with errors.
In the 1930s, German kids were told all sorts of stuff about Jews in their schools ... and suprise! any polls of Germans in the 40's would have reflected some nasty views about Jews.
During WWII many Japanese were told the Americans would do some amazing atrocities to individuals they captured ..... and when Americans were winning on several islands Japanese civilians were seen killing their children and then themselves rather than surrender (further fueling the American view that an assault on the main island would be a bloodbath and therefore boosting the idea of winning with THE bomb).
History is FULL of examples. Propaganda WORKS. This is why governments use it to manipulate their populations. AGW propaganda in the schools is no different.
In many ways, this is not unlike religion: Any argument can be made true by having a string of seemingly logical arguments supporting that notion. So on the surface, the argument seems "self evident", while the entire chain of premises may or may not be true at all.
I'm all for progress, but I don't see progress when people are being herded based on faith instead of facts. However, being cautious and preventing unnecessary pollution is a good thing nonetheless. I don't have much sympathy for corporations that fund "science" in order to boost their currency-profits while harming the environment and public health either.
What is disappointing is the lack of real intelligent debate regarding a multi-dimensional and complex issue. People seem to believe being political correct is somehow superior to forming an individual opinion, while the former is a disaster for any system, especially democracies, while the latter seem to be suppressed in all human endeavour.
Captcha: towered
Then why do Climate Believers make claims of hot weather and hurricanes being caused by climate change?
You can't point to one and then justify the other. If it can't predict weather, it can't predict weather.
I can't predict the roll of a die 1-6, but I can tell you if you roll it 1000 times, you'll get a 6 about 1/6 of the time.
I can also predict that if you slightly bias the die toward 6, you'll increase that percentage.
I still can't tell you that the reason a single 6 was rolled was because of the bias, nor can I reliably predict a single roll.
Do you just not understand math or statistics?
(I also can't tell you that a single case of lung cancer is due to cigarette smoking, but I can say that smoking makes it more likely that you will get lung cancer. Or do you not believe that due to the concerted denial campaign either?)
For all the paranoid individuals out there, Cosmic Mafias do indeed exist.
1. The laws of physics. Don't be in the gas saving car in a collision, be in the gas guzzler. Google "Richard Wayne Ferraro".
2. The laws of economics. The attempt to change these invariably result in the deaths of tens of millions of people. Go ask anyone who had lived under that system thought of as "cool" and "wonderful" by your average college professor.
If they worked, they would be used to predict the long term average weather (aka climate).
Throwing RICO into the game is just nonsense. Whether AGW is the real deal or not I do not know, what i do know ( and this is where the rubber meets the road ) is that there has been no appreciable sea level rise anywhere. There is a much bigger problem the earth is facing right now and it is being pretty much ignored by the powers that be and the mainstream media - Fukushima radiation is poisoning the worlds oceans. 300-450 tonnes a DAY is still pouring into the Pacific from the nuclear facility. This radiation is in our food, and it took a schoolgirl from Alberta Canada to point it out to the world - http://www.collective-evolutio... . This is a known major threat to every person on the planet that gets no airtime, the facts are clear and anyone with a Geiger counter can prove it. Without the oceans we're Fuked!
Judging by the visceral reaction. It looks as if this idea really scares the Koch Brothers stooges, shills and cohort.
Climate Believers (your term) do not predict a hurricane. They predict *hurricanes*. An increase in strength and frequency of certain weather patterns. They predict a statistical outcome, not what day a hurricane will strike next week. Likewise, they don't predict that next Tuesday will be the hottest Tuesday on record. That's weather forecasting. They do predict that over the next few years we're likely to have more record-setting days than we've ever had in previous years.
Climatologists predict trends, not single events. I don't have to be able to predict the path of each individual air molecule in order to understand and describe accurately the phenomenon of wind or of pressure... yet these arguments (you can't predict next week's weather so climate change models are useless) are begging exactly that.
...you resort to name calling and litigation. This should "settle" the question of the foundation of misguided climate change alarmists: dogma, not science.
Some of us have been calling for the RICO prosecution of deniers for over a decade now.
People who like to pretend that they're arm chair theories about how climate works are somehow a match for the decades of research by scientists may be shocked at this notion, but RICO is the appropriate law to bring to bear.
The deliberate, bad faith denial of human caused climate change will be the worst crime in terms of numbers of deaths, political upheaval, cost and irreversibility of damages ever perpetrated by any group of criminals ever, including the internet's own favorite, The Third Reich.
Denier are terrorists. In the case of the Koch brothers, I believe they are systematically promoting and funding denialism as a way of creating a disaster so large, centralized governments won't be able to deal with it and will therefore collapse.
They KNOW it's true, their own studies which they commissioned to investigate human caused climate change TOLD them it was true. But these are people who tried in the 80s to run for President on a platform of abolishing the FBI, the CIA and all the rest of government. They are sworn enemies of the United States government, our government, my government, and they seek to destroy it *through any means necessary, including genocide via climate change*.
That's terrorism and they're terrorists as are the rest of the denial machinery.
What they think is we're going to stand around with our collective dick in our hands while they inch us closer to a disaster so big, it destroys the United States. What the reality is is the government has a duty to protect its citizens against all enemies foreign AND domestic and that's all the "go" justification they need. We don't need to vote on whether they're terrorists, we need to decide that they are and act. That's how this works.
The architects of climate denial need to be dealt with by any means necessary to stop them, no matter what. The question is not IF it should be done, the question is how can it best be done with the least disruption to the fabric of civil society.
Towards that goal absolutely everything is on the table without exception; techniques and exploits usually reserved for foreign nationals are completely within bounds given the nature of the threat and the proven intractibility of the enemy terrorists, who reside within this country and worse, are citizens and worse are well known, well funded, well organized and worse have assumed the camoflage of civil liberties organizations.
Get this, deniers. The United States government is not going to sit idly by while you destroy human civilization as we know it because you think you've found some Constitutional loophole - "you're citizens and you have the right to your free speech rights!" - big enough to drive the explosive laden truck called "climate change" through.
No, they're going to treat you like they treat all terrorists who seek to destroy our way of life. In this case it may mean "no fingerprints" but that's a purely technical matter.
Not only do RICO laws apply, but they extend to all the "civic organizations" and individuals without exception. The government has a right and a duty to neutralize and defund all terrorists. In this case I propose in addition to RICO "financial decimation" whereby all assets owned by these terrorists including those transferred at any point in time, past, present or future to any co-conspirator, associate, cohort, group, organization, family member or individual be confiscated along with those normally accessible by RICO. Seizing funds and assets this broadly them sends a clear signal: there is no way to benefit from attacking the United States and by doing so, everything you've ever done is voided without exception. That's the signal we need to send. Your business associates, your buddies, your familiy- none of them can safely accept your money. Terrorist money is not fungible- it is forever tainted. The cost to offset climate change is astronomical and the individuals, organizations
There were multiple inquiries. The outcomes are published.
Roughly half of all papers in the soft sciences (including medicine) have unwarranted and non reproducible results. Being incorrect whether from ignorance, oversight, error or even a conscious or sub-conscious desire for fame and fortune is not a crime. Neither is lying - unless one is under oath. So even though bogus scientific data can cause real harm to both individuals and society we do not live in a perfect world and imprisoning others for vague activities makes things less perfect.
It's really simple to jump to an extreme and say "fear mongering" and anti-science isn't it? The obvious problem is that you miss your own opinion and how it amounts to exactly anti-science and fear mongering.. But hell, once brain washed it is hard to see a different opinion.
You "believe" that fluoride should be dumped into the water without any choice for any consumer. A person wanting the option is not fear mongering, they want the choice. Fluoride does not work to decontaminate water or purify it, the health benefit is in dental care. Fluoride is a byproduct of industrial waste, whether you like that fact or not.
Where your claim of science comes up short is that you are measuring the amount of fluoride in the water compared to food but make no attempt to demonstrate cumulative effects of eating foods which contains fluoride naturally. You also assume incorrectly that all municipalities use the same content of fluoride. Fluoride is a metal and does not immediately leave the system, so you also have to consider what and when over saturation occurs.
If you were truly into science you would not hide half of the information because you _believe_ people should have better teeth. You would push the full science so that people could make intelligent choices.
Is adding fluoride to water the only option? Hell no! We have tooth paste, mouth wash, and dental treatments so that anyone who wants fluoride can get fluoride.
You and the retards that push every damn vaccine on the planet are quite disturbing. I realize that your science messiah said it was good to have vaccines, but face facts. Chicken Pox is not a life threatening disease or debilitating disease. When people are attempting to force the vaccine on people with lies and deception you should start to look at cui bono and mens ria.
known to be generally funded by various actors and there are people and organizations that certainly make money [from this research]
What research isn't?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
A gang of Federal employees, contractors or grant (NSF) holders to beg the President to use RICO in a class action suite against non-Federal private citizens is like using Title IX as a means to a gang rape to a Muslim boy in Texas by his pervert Gay English teacher and the english teachers pervert Gay friend the Police Chief.
It wasn't lost on me that the first six signatures listed on the letter were from GMU.
The GMU team name? The Patriots
Also of note, these folks are certainly continuing the George Mason tradition of hypocrisy...
Exhibit A: George Mason-attributed part of Virginia Declaration of Rights: "All men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
Exhibit B: Number of slaves owned by George Mason when he died: 36
I'd like to ask these George Mason folks to write a letter describing what parts of the first, second, fourth, and tenth amendments haven't been eviscerated in the last six or so years of leftist government... it would be shorter than their call for arrest and imprisonment of people that use free speech to disagree with them.
So let's investigate how much government funding has been defrauded by Karl et al. You know the group that said the 18+ year pause in temperature rise didn't exist by blatantly manipulating data and completely ignoring the 2 satellite data sets. First Karl et al admit that the ARGO bouy network readings are superior to the ship engine intake readings then the go and adjust the GOOD ARGO BOUY DATA UPWARDS TO MATCH THE BAD SHIP ENGINE INTAKE DATA.
Be careful what you ask for because that RICO knife cuts both ways!
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never? If never then enjoy your belief but don't call it science.
Both of the satellite datasets (RSS, UAH) show no warming for over 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 10%. That invalidates the hypotheses that CO2 controls the climate. It is a small part but that's it. That is what the data show.
Why do I use the 2 satellite measurements?
First they have the greatest coverage. RSS goes from 82.5N to 82.5 S and UAH, 85N to 85S.
Second they are the least adjusted. Unlike NOAA which makes completely unjustified adjustments by raising good data (ARGO bouy temps) to match what they themselves admit is bad, corrupted data (ship engine intake temps).
Lastly they are run by 2 scientists with good credentials (Dr Mears & Dr Spencer respectively) and despite looking at what is almost the same data come to different conclusions. Dr Mears thinks CO2 does control the climate and Dr Spencer does not. I like that. Not only does it keep them honest it makes me think and read both sides to see why they are so different in their conclusions despite almost identical data. So far I side with the position of Dr Spencer.
Oh, before you start in on the "consensus" and 97% nonsense please show me where in the scientific method "consensus" is. It isn't. In case you are unsure of what the scientific method is (and it would appear that most slashdot readers are ignorant of it) here is a 1 minute refresher for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBFZEYkzKXc
To be prosecuted by the Minitru
Let me just state that climate change is happening, yadda yadda so-on.
So let me get this straight...a group scientists that support the fact that climate change is happening now want to use -law- to arrest people who disagree with their arguments. You see, this is where I have an issue...this is effectively like a child who can't win an argument going to the teacher and saying that other child she was arguing with hit her.
This is utterly stupid, and opens the same Pandora's box that allows religions to persecute one another in present, and in the past.
And it could have the opposite effect; people might start wondering what the climate change scientists have to hide if they're having anyone who disagrees with them arrested.
Ricco the global warming n/k/a climate change people that got caught screwing around with the data.
Courts are good at establishing official truth. They are not so good at discovering actual truth.
If legislation gives the courts permission to rule on political matters, that may just be the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution. (I'm assuming here it's not completely, irretrievably dead already.)
Ain't no coming back from that.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
"organized effort to disrupt climate change science" Really? It's very difficult to disrupt real proven science, if possible at all!
If the science was as good as Mann and his bunch of lynch-mob fans have claimed, it would be indisputable. But as it is, the science is poor and in cases downright fraudulent and pathetic by any real scientific standard. So of course it will be disputed and so-called consensus science will be denied it place, since it's not how science works. No matter how much the lynch-mob hollers and howls, no matter how much they wave their green pitch forks and sticks, they can't fix the fact that the climate hypothesis has been proven wrong time and time again by it's failure to meet the expected outcome. Only because journalists and politicians have been dumbed down to the astounding level of scientific stupidity that they have, is the political agenda of the catastrophic climate change bandwagon still rolling, albeit slower and slower. Soon it will come to a halt and be relegated to the trash-can of history where other hysterical history movements lie in wait for it.
Perpetuating fraud for corporate profit (ehr, personal gain, since courts ruled corporations are sentient creatures) is not political abuse. Intentional fraud for profit is criminally prosecutable, and is marketing a defective product for consumption.
So in other words, throw the 1st Amendment, along with science that they disagree with, under the bus. I would caution that this sort of enthusiasm for a cause hurts it much more than it helps.
Once they're murdering a couple of billion people with free speech, it's debatable whether it's worth keeping speech free.
But that's not happening, hence we don't need to discard a fundamental right of our societies. There is no evidence for your position as other repliers have noted and the predicted consequences of global warming fall well short of that.
And note here that you are advocating for the gradual enslavement of your society, yet we don't need to silence your voice in order to protect basic rights - it'd be counterproductive and unnecessary. Instead, we merely ignore you.
The reason so-called climate deniers can't be ignored is because they're doing the homework that advocates of climate change mitigation can't be bothered to explain. For example, asking is the theory for real? Asking whether even if it is for real, is the advocated sacrifice worth the cost? Why do we need to act now? Etc.
Climate Change, as depicted by the Communists seeking to control the means of production, is a diversion from the insidious goal of depopulation. Ah yes, 2015 Eugenics is still alive and well under the moniker of Climate Change...
Global warming science has not only set climate science back decades; it's apparently set science itself back almost a century. Sieg Heil!
Climate Achange critics build a convincing case that climate scientists are manipulating environmental data in an organized manner to secure more federal grant money? Should they also be prosecuted under the RICO statute?
Ken
You can't fix radiation PERIOD.
There's three ways I know of fixing radiation. First, moving and storing it away from places or things where it causes problems. Second, half the problem goes away with each increment of half life in time. Third, some of this material, particular the used fuel rods which are one of the most dangerous radioactive parts, is valuable as nuclear fuel for breeder reactors.
There still is no safe disposal of spent fuel; it sits outside the facility exposed to whatever. Nuclear power's long term cost is staggering and no one ever talks about "it."
Unless we don't do that and do something safer instead.
Courts are good at establishing official truth. They are not so good at discovering actual truth.
If legislation gives the courts permission to rule on political matters, that may just be the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution. (I'm assuming here it's not completely, irretrievably dead already.)
Ain't no coming back from that.
The U.S constitution survived McCarthy and his Communist witch hunts, I doubt climate change deniers witch hunts would be enough to kill it.
...but I wasn't a climate change denier, so I kept silent
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
People who think the Constitution is doing OK probably should invest half an hour or 45 minutes reading the thing, and comparing it to how government actually operates.
Of the Bill of Rights, only the Third Amendment has survived intact.
Article I, Section 1 is violated every time the Congress creates an Executive Branch agency with the power to write laws, or empowers one to write a new category of laws.
And so on.
The procedural parts hold up the best. We still have elections to populate the White House and the Congress, on schedule. (Some candidates for those offices are "more equal than others", but that's just a quibble, right?)
Presidential appointees still get confirmed by the Senate before they take office. (Well, except for those interim, temporary, acting heads of agencies.)
Treaties are still ratified by the Senate, too. But negotiated agreements with other countries that aren't treaties go into effect by another route. (They aren't treaties, see?)
The definition of interstate commerce has been absurdly expanded to include acts that aren't commerce and that don't occur between states. (That a man raising corn to feed his family and his livestock was considered to be engaged in "interstate commerce" by doing so requires a level of dishonesty of Ponzian proportions.)
So, if the Constitution isn't dead, it sure is coughing up blood. Coughing up a lot of it.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Doesn't hold water. Ever heard of "render unto Caeser" and all that other stuff about religion not being everything? Then there's all the ancient Greek stuff - they were not so stupid as to dump everything in with religion, it takes modern idiots to make that mistake. So why are you pretending to be an idiot? Surely you know enough about religion or enough about science to not make the mistake for real?
It's not a political problem that will go away if a different "tribe" takes charge.
The problem here is PART of one "tribe" decided to use it to define a point of difference and attract donor money. Denial is the toxic waste of using money from Enron, Saudis etc to get into the White House - not just big oil but the fucking insane and amoral extreme of big oil.
By framing it as a political issue you are looking at it from a rather stupid angle, but a lot of money and a lot of effort was consumed to get the Party faithful to ignore reality and look at it in such artificial terms.
I suggest use your own reasoning skills instead of looking at it in such terms - you are going to be more use all around, even to the "tribe" that currently thinks ignoring reality is a nice little vote winning game, if you are prepared to look at issues of physical reality in physical terms instead of fantasy. Not even Nixon would have fallen for this shit. Thatcher, as conservative as Reagan, took the side of reality over the stupid denial game. She showed that you can be conservative without stupid tilting at windmills. I suggest you take that example and be something other than a person posting suggestions that we should just vote our way out of the problem and it will vanish by magic, such suggestions inspire only anger, pity, hilarity and despair that the education system has failed to provide a sufficient bullshit detector.
To head off the most stupid type of response, that of shooting the messenger - I'm no Democrat and don't give a shit about Al Gore - but as I wrote above thinking of this as a political issue is stupid.
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.
nuhun pisan min euy,,tos di avroved
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.
The University's identity is distinguished by its public affairs mission, which entails a campus-wide commitment to foster expertise and responsibility in ethical leadership, cultural competence and community engagement.
Crap, sorry. Somehow I lost the text in a quote mishap. My text that should have been above that community engagement sentence was basically:
Why question it? Many schools take public money, and feel obliged to give back to the community in various ways. One of those ways is educating the public. And lots of schools have mission statements that specifically mention community engagement.
Seems the host and main author of the RICO20 letter has been playing fast and loose with NSF grant money.
http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...