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.
Because arresting people is what science is about now.
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
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.
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
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
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".
Challenge yes.
Wield weaponized bureaucracy against, no. Modern-day federal prosecution is indistinguishable in conduct and likely result from a witch hunt.
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.
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
"Not to start a flame war, but there are tons of scientists on both sides of this argument, " - well that's a great start by saying there are tons of scientists on both sides - there are hardly any on the dissenting side. over 95% of climate change studies are in agreement that climate change is happening. When you find 95% of of climate change studies say there is no climate change, please post a link
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
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).
Simply saying you're against it is just speech, so I'm trying to figure out what they're going to RICO them for.
Fraud. The cigarette companies were damaging people by intentionally deceiving them (and advertising to kids). So, to get a settlement from this, you'll need to show that:
1) Oil companies (or whoever) intentionally lied about what their scientists told them, or told their scientists to produce studies with the 'correct' result. I've skimmed through some of the documents provided by the link, and I'm not sure I see evidence of that.
2) They have to prove that someone was damaged. The cigarette companies didn't lose because they lied, they lost because their lies damaged people. The link says there are threats of future damage, but doesn't present evidence of any actual damage. That's something they will have to fix.
It's not illegal, unethical, or wrong to fund science. It's a good thing, even if oil companies do it. It's only unethical when they require a specific result, or otherwise pressure the scientist. The more funding we have for science, the better.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
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