Unfortunately there isn’t time to complete an investigation before the next Presidential elections.
I’m down with it. Whatever it takes.
Unfortunately, the difference here is that the people in charge of everything are at the heart of it. Hard to get a conviction when the judges and politicians are in bed with the defendants.
Yeah, the rhetoric would probably change, but public policy wouldn’t.
It’s probably too late to do anything about it and maybe we should just accept that this is our new normal and shift public policy to deal with the fallout. Get ready for rising oceans and big weather changes. The Earth was going to warm up anyway, but we decided to keep the gas pedal pinned to the floor and now we’re here early.
Free speech will be restored after the current crisis has passed!
You mean like the Canadian method? Rules bar government researchers from talking about their own work with journalists and even fellow researchers.
Following the money will tell you everything you need to know about climate deniers.
Might I suggest we use their bodies as sand bag flood defences when the time comes.
Yeah, science is all about suppressing “other viewpoints”. Go science!
One of my favorite Palin moments was when she accused Obama of being in bed with big oil… somehow missing that she had conceived many children from the loins of a manager at BP. Maybe it was a dogsled; it could have been in a drilling platform closet, there are lots of places that aren’t beds that could justify this in her mind.
The problem is that this deserves 100% outrage against the Republicans, and 100% outrage against the citizens who voted them in and aren’t outraged. Is it possible to be 200% outraged?
As the article plainly says, this is not about the vanishingly few scientists who simply happen to have a different opinion. It is about venal organizations that have been knowingly deceiving the American public, as has been extensively documented. Dishonesty is not a viewpoint, nor should free speech place all forms of it beyond investigation.
But sure, let’s pretend this is what it looks like to muzzle honest scientists – as renke points out, with the added bonus of ignoring who has actually been doing that. After all, dishonesty has worked so far!
People with no scientific background can feel like this. I remember this heartbreaking story guy who thought he could cure cancer with radio waves. He did, but didn’t understand the subtleties of what he was doing, nor why his control experiment was so flawed. I could totally see him feeling suppressed.
The solution? All I can think of is better science education for the general population.
The subject of Climate Change is not black and white, as much as some would like it to be so. Climate is very, very, VERY complex with many factors and influences. Scientists disagree on how much influence each of these factors have on the planet. Some put the human influence higher, some factor in the sun higher.
There is more disagreement than agreement on how to weigh all the factors even when there is general agreement on “Climate Change”.
So where do you draw the line on all the disagreement? Must we all agree on a specific scenario? Who decides what is acceptable disagreement?
Once someone starts dictating what is “correct” and punishing those who don’t adhere to the “approved” version, where does it stop?
Are you saying it is OK for “science” to simply suppress disagreement? Please explain.
I think somebody’s getting paid to be here. How are the benefits? Are they as good as drought and famine?
There aren’t actually any developed model where climate change is more driven by solar shifts than humans, but this is beside the point. The point is you’re trying to pretend this is about disagreement when it is very explicitly about documented lying, of the same type and often by the same groups as the tobacco-cancer deniers. I am not having this sophistry.
“Science suppresses disagreement” is just some fancy words fer “scientific method”.
