It might be useful if you describe to what subset of data you believe in, what is your stance on climate change?
You’re up till now just arguing about possibilities of some subsets of data being incomplete but that’s just noise. Please go ahead and argue your beliefs.
5 Likes
dontpushyourluckdragon.gif
The interesting thing about this tactic is it kinda sorta seems like a distributed libel technique. It can’t actually be libel since it isn’t against a person, its falsehoods lobbed at public policy in the end. So besides RICO, would there be any alternatives?
It sure feels like “winning the hearts and minds” flew out of its cage long ago.
1 Like
yes, yes you do.
4 Likes
Speaking of lies, don’t you understand that you cannot stop lies. Science fights misinformation with science not censorship. As pointed out before, this RICO thing sends the wrong message.
1 Like
“Stop convincing people 2+2=π” is not censorship.
8 Likes
Then isnt’t this is a good thing?
After all, its scientists who are being censored in favor of political convenience isn’t it?
If you disprove lies, are you engaging in censorship?
11 Likes
Science?
At first, you argued that the RICO thing is suppressing dissenting opinions rather than outright lies.
Now you are changing your tune because it was pointed out that we are talking about outright lies and not just censoring differences of opinion.
Can you acknowledge that you were wrong? Can you civilly discuss the question under discussion without accusing everyone of censorship?
You also lied – you said people were attacking you and trying to censor you when this was clearly not true. Can you acknowledge that you lied? Can you explain why you made these lies up?
You seem to think it’s important not to censor different opinions, but you don’t seem to be very tolerant of the opinions you’re encountering here. Do you think it’s OK to censor someone’s opinion if you perceive it as a call for censorship? Try to remember that your perceptions aren’t always correct.
7 Likes
In this case it is very black and white. If your company’s internal communications acknowledge that AGW is happening while you fund propaganda efforts to deny that it’s happening, that’s a classic case for RICO. It’s no difference from a company that knows that its drug has bad side effects and denies it, or a company that knows its pesticides are toxic and denies it, et cetera.
12 Likes
So then we are in agreement. The science is settled and there are companies and individuals breaking the law. Cool.
16 Likes
A bigger threat to science is the monied speech that denies it and suppresses on a much larger scale. Again, your concern skews conveniently in only one direction and pretends that good science is its own protector. If only.
11 Likes
That’s not an answer. I wanted to know your opinion :-/
Misinformation such as:
-There is no consensus about global warming
The people who are bending politicians ears to block action are using arguments such as “there’s no consensus”, not peer-reviewed, evidence-backed alternative explanations.
However, I actually believe that many politicians won’t act no matter what evidence they’re presented with, simply because they’re owned by powerful donors. That’s why one day they can deny the evidence, the next they can sound like they accept it (a la Canada’s current PM), but they still don’t do anything about it. I think the biggest challenge with a RICO prosecution would be to showing that politicians actually cared about the evidence presented to them, regardless of its content.
5 Likes
My opinion is that censorship is bad and that science can and should counteract misinformation with science. That’s my opinion. I really can’t say it any clearer than that.
What do you mean by that? Is it “censorship” to prosecute polluters for lying about the effects of their pollution?
7 Likes
RICO is a handy tool for taking down Mafia like organizations, the organizations that those in power do not like. I still cant believe it has stood up to SCOTUS challenges but it is an insane law. I understand that expediency is nice for the cops, but a slippery slope catches many more than the intended victims.
There is a moral high ground, this knocks climate change off and officially enforced orthodoxy will cause the exact opposite reaction we need.
Build safe modern nuclear power as a stopgap along with renewables, lock up the carbon using the excess energy, move to jetpack and flying cars future ASAP; win by winning not by using laws our grandchildren will either see as the beginning of their imprisonment or will ridicule as medieval.
1 Like
Um, prosecuting polluters for polluting is the correct action. Lying under oath is also properly punishable. I’m not confused about the differences.
1 Like
Lying for commercial gain is also properly punishable. Big Tobacco lied about the link between smoking and cancer in order to rake in more money. So they got prosecuted. Chemical companies have lied about the effects of their products in order to rake in more money. Some, as a result, have been prosecuted.
So why is it “censorship” to do it?
5 Likes
Polluting isn’t actually against the law, so you can’t actually prosecute polluters for polluting.
Do you know why? Because when a law that outlaws pollution is debated on the floor of congress, lies about climate change have as much currency as peer-reviewed scientific results about climate change.
Why is this? Why doesn’t the actual scientific work have more traction? Doesn’t this contradict what you say about science speaking for itself?
Why should I believe that more science is the antidote to lies and propaganda when it’s obvious from just looking around or watching the news that this simply isn’t the case?
If you don’t mind, I’ll just reproduce some of the questions I asked above that you never got to:
-Why did you lie about people “attacking” and trying to “censor” you?
-Can you acknowledge that you were wrong with your first comment accusing people of trying to suppress alternate points of view?
3 Likes
I strongly disagree, no one dictates an approved version. Maybe you’re trying to cherry pick because you don’t like conclusions of the current models?
5 Likes
