Ah, climate-change troofers.
3 Likes
Thatâs black and white thinking. There are a lot more models than the subset that you know of. There are a lot more viewpoints about Climate Change than the subset that you find acceptable. Thatâs totally fine to restrict your information to those subsets, thatâs your prerogative. But to suppress everything outside your âapprovedâ subsets is not very useful.
1 Like
I write to defend science and object to censorship and, in some illogical, mysterious way, you believe Iâm a âdenierâ? When did I ever say I disagreed with Climate Change?
This is about documented lying. Everything else you are making up, all this stuff about agreement and viewpoints, is off topic and I am going to start flagging it as such.
5 Likes
Yeah, RICO is âscientific methodâ. Good one!
1 Like
There is not disagreement in the scientific community from climate researchers in any meaningful way.
Using RICO to shut down documented deceivers is a good thing, especially if you disagree with anthropogenic climate change.
10 Likes
Itâs just implied by your whole song-and-dance routine.
âTeach the controversyâ, ey kid?
Try addressing what people here are actually saying instead of spewing your talking points. For example, your response to @chenille did not make sense in context. @chenille points out that the article in the OP is talking about organizations who engage in deliberate falsehoods regarding climate change. Do you have anything to say about that?
Or, if youâre going to insist on your current line, specifics would be nice. Could you point to a developed climate model in which climate change is more driven by solar shifts than humans? You say weâre being closed-minded, but so far you have not offered anything concrete for anyone to open up his or her mind to.
And ideally you will acknowledge that the article isnât about suppressing legitimate climate science that disagrees with the climatological consensus, but specifically about preventing organizations from engaging in deliberate falsehood. You can acknowledge that and admin that your first comment was too hasty, right?
13 Likes
Itâs a good thing that nobody at all has endorsed this then, and itâs questionable why you claim that anyone has.
Yeah, the Wedge strategy did come to mind with his shifty posts.
6 Likes
The problem is, while we can argue against folks like @arthurapplebee here, there is no way that this view isnât precisely how the public will view using RICO on climate-denying people and organizations. It doesnât matter if youâre catching people in deliberate falsehoods, people who are skeptical of the science already believe that scientists are guilty of suppressing contrary information, and this would only add fuel to that fire. It might well turn people who are on the fence into strong climate-change skeptics.
RICO may have worked against big tobacco in the past, but the issue was nowhere near as politicized as climate change is today. Big Tobacco may have been spewing deliberate falsehoods, but they didnât have millions of John Q Publics who all strongly felt that they were just as qualified to speak on cancer writing to newspapers to support smoking, and yet millions of uninformed people do feel that way about climate science now.
4 Likes
âImpliedâ. Not in my universe. All Iâm interested in here is pointing out that censorship is not science. The push to criminalize those who disagree with the approved view of Climate Change is more widespread than just the most recent RICO threat.
Quite a few comments right here have enthusiastically promoted even more harsh punishments for people who disagree (use them as âsandbagsâ?) - but, wow, nobody objected to those comments.
Yet I merely object to censorship and do not disagree, myself, with Climate Change, and I am attacked. Now, you want to censor my comments.
Science fights misinformation with science not censorship. Tell me you object to that.
1 Like
Iâll turn the question back to you - where do you draw the line on agreement? If all of the following organizations (national and sub-national) agree about the basics of global warming and its influence on current and future climate, can we say there is consensus?
Academia Brasiliera de CiĂȘncias (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
NASAâs Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If thatâs not consensus, please tell us what consensus or agreement as you put it would look like? (stick tap to http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-consensus/ for the list; itâs outdated so Iâm sure there are a few more organizations to add).
7 Likes
Are you sure that they didnât? The internet has given every Trump voter the idea that anyone cares about their opinion. But I have to imagine that the opinion pages back then were still filled with sincere idiots.
1 Like
Canât tell if concern troll or just plain regular troll.
12 Likes
These are good questions. Whatâs your opinion on these?
2 Likes
I donât care who disagrees or agrees about Climate Change. I only care about censorship where one or the other is suppressed. Science fights misinformation with science not censorship.
Mod note: Get on topic or I will feast.
8 Likes
So what are you doing to combat the widespread censorship of science in the US government among all agencies?
Or are we only concerned with the free-speech rights of astroturfers and corporations, as always.
6 Likes
I donât think we should draw lines where certain subjects are allowed and others censored.
We are not talking about people who disagree â we are talking about people who deliberately lie.
Will you please acknowledge this?
No one has attacked you or asked that your comments be censored. Why are you saying this is happening when itâs obvious to anyone reading that it is not?
5 Likes
I object to censorship.
1 Like
