Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Call To RICO Climate Change Science Deniers

Posted by timothy on from the well-that-escalated-quickly dept.

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.

36 of 737 comments (clear)

  1. How patriotic! Criminalizing decent by DaHat · · Score: 1, Insightful

    In Soviet Russia, decent criminalizes you!

    --
    Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    1. Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent by ShanghaiBill · · 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.

    2. Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent by Trepidity · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    3. Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent by lgw · · 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!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent by DaHat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It also doesn't make a ton of sense from the left

      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.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    5. Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, 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.

    6. Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent by sjames · · 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).

    7. Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent by HiThere · · Score: 3, 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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's only unethical when they require a specific result

      I think you just gave us the answer.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent by lgw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As soon as you have an authority who decides who is a liar, you no longer have a democracy in that area, you have an authoritarian government. That works out OK in, say, commercial fraud, because it's so objective and so easy to verify in a way that almost everyone in the democracy accepts is correct. It doesn't end well in areas where there's broad disagreement among the voters.

      Remember, any time you think "the voters aren't smart enough, we need a special person to impose the correct solution": that's authoritarian government, and no matter how justly it might begin it never ends well.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent by funwithBSD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unethical != criminal.

      Or we would all be in jail.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    11. Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent by chipschap · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you don't agree with me I'm going to make it illegal and lock you up!

      What does THAT sound like?

      North Korea, move over, you've got a new partner.

    12. Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent by sexconker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yup. I remember when everyone global warming dipshit was screaming "LOOK AT THE DATA!!!111" when Berkley threw up a big dump for public consensus.
      The majority of the data is fake, and the data sheets themselves state this. A whole fucking catalog of asterisks and their meaning, from adjusted data, estimated (guessed) data, thrown out data (because they didn't like it), etc.

      It's a fucking farce and if anyone with half a brain would LOOK AT THE NUMBERS they'd realize it.

      We simply do NOT have accurate, widespread, or normalized temperature measurements for any decent amount of time to be making ANY conclusions about climate.

    13. Re:How patriotic! Criminalizing decent by rtb61 · · 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)

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. Science! by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because arresting people is what science is about now.

    1. Re:Science! by RugRat · · 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?

    2. Re:Science! by Kohath · · 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?

    3. Re:Science! by ShanghaiBill · · 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.

    4. Re:Science! by Kohath · · Score: 3, 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.

    5. Re:Science! by whistlingtony · · 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.

    6. Re: Science! by whistlingtony · · 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...

    7. Re:Science! by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    8. Re: Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also Gore works more like someone RICO would be used on.

    9. Re:Science! by Kohath · · 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.

    10. Re:Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      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.

      Your whole proposal is perversely dangerous. The first presupposition is that those interested only in "commercial gain" are cynics who push their own interests even in the face of their own tacit acceptance of the idea that climate change is indeed due primarily or even mostly to human activity. In the general case, I do not find such cynicism.

      Now even if they are indeed behaving disingenuously, where is that a crime? Do not people of many disparate viewpoints work to influence the political process--even those positions which seek to advantage themselves? That happens all the time. Are you going to criminalize some because of their viewpoints--especially if their viewpoints are in the minority and struggle to gain acceptance?

      What is it you are afraid of? I sure don't see that side winning.

      Here is what I am afraid of: machinations like this use of the RICO statute to silence polictical speech. In the end we all lose if we contemplate establishing the Thought Police.

    11. Re: Science! by ShanghaiBill · · 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.

  3. Works both ways by SuperKendall · · 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?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Works both ways by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who should "win" scientific debates? The side with the best data, or the side with the best lawyers?

      Right now, it's being won by those with the best lobbyists.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. A Clear Sign That AGW Is A Lie by kenwd0elq · · 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".

  5. Re:Murder through policy decisions. by kenwd0elq · · Score: 2, 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.

  6. Re:Whoa! Consider the Law by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · 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.

  7. dissent? by david_bonn · · Score: 3, 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.

  8. Ya this is really bad by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, 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.

  9. Re:Whoa! Consider the Law by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  10. More simple than that by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Whoa! Consider the Law by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · 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?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.