16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
http://www.news.com.au/world/breaki...d/news-story/ef2a64343b7c98ca769a45f5df73dd2d
A new study has poured cold water on the idea that moderate alcohol consumption is healthy.
Many people enjoy a glass of wine with dinner happily believing that they are reducing the risk of heart disease and helping themselves to live longer.
But now researchers have reassessed the science behind the claimed benefits of drinking within reasonable limits - and concluded that it's flawed.
Many of the 87 studies analysed were found to be poorly designed and biased, suggesting a positive effect when it was likely none existed.
A key issue was the way authors defined "abstainers" who provided the vital comparisons from which conclusions about the health effects of alcohol could be made.
Often, studies compared "moderate" drinkers who consumed up to two drinks per day with "current" abstainers.
However, the abstainer group could include people who had cut out alcohol because of poor health, it was claimed.
"A fundamental question is, who are these moderate drinkers being compared against?" said Dr Tim Stockwell, director of the University of Victoria's Centre for Addictions Research in British Columbia, Canada.
A new study has poured cold water on the idea that moderate alcohol consumption is healthy.
Many people enjoy a glass of wine with dinner happily believing that they are reducing the risk of heart disease and helping themselves to live longer.
But now researchers have reassessed the science behind the claimed benefits of drinking within reasonable limits - and concluded that it's flawed.
Many of the 87 studies analysed were found to be poorly designed and biased, suggesting a positive effect when it was likely none existed.
A key issue was the way authors defined "abstainers" who provided the vital comparisons from which conclusions about the health effects of alcohol could be made.
Often, studies compared "moderate" drinkers who consumed up to two drinks per day with "current" abstainers.
However, the abstainer group could include people who had cut out alcohol because of poor health, it was claimed.
"A fundamental question is, who are these moderate drinkers being compared against?" said Dr Tim Stockwell, director of the University of Victoria's Centre for Addictions Research in British Columbia, Canada.
Liberals just can't admit when they are wrong. Even if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why they are now using any means necessary to stifle debate on climate change. The tactics of personally attacking the messenger instead of the message hasn't worked. The tactic of manufacturing a phony consensus among scientists hasn't worked. The tactics of creating propaganda sites like skepticalscience.com and masquerading it as an objective source of information hasn't worked much. What has seemed to work pretty well though is their use of the public education curriculum as a tool to convince younger generations that man made climate change is an obvious scientific reality like Newton's universal laws of gravitation or Einsten's theory of general relativity.
It sorta reminds me of a Public Enemy song lyric that went something like "you suckers are spineless, as you sing your senseless songs to the mindless".
It sorta reminds me of a Public Enemy song lyric that went something like "you suckers are spineless, as you sing your senseless songs to the mindless".
Are you suggesting that claims that a) the environment isn't changing or b) that CO2 isn't playing a role have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
Seems conservatives have issues with it as well.
There have been dozens of studies about alcohol consumption and health. The one you linked disagreed. Are you now saying that they were all fraudulent?
The global warming hypothesis is based on predictions about the future. For example, what could happen if the Earth's temperature were to increase by (an ever-changing number) by the year 2100.
No one can have "proof" about what the year 2100 looks like. All we can do is speculate.
You might believe the basis for your speculation is solid and that the scientists you disagree with are wrong. In the 17th century, many leaders of the day believed Galileo was wrong.
But science is supposed to be unbiased. Prosecuting researchers who may uncover "inconvenient truths" is an attack on science.
From a tactical perspective, I think this will backfire big time.
It will force many people who believe in anthropogenic global warming to take the side of the skeptics. Because they will understand that freedom of expression is important and that scientific discoveries should be free of political bias and prosecution.
The ongoing legal tussle between pundit Mark Steyn and climate researcher Michael E. Mann is a telling example.
Many media organizations that don't share Steyn's skeptical views on this issue (eg., the Los Angeles Times) filed amicus briefs supporting Steyn. They recognized that it is critical that he should have the freedom to express his views, even if they don't agree with him.
http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-fra...oad-array-of-foes-in-suit-vs-national-review/
No one -- scientists, media, or others -- filed a brief supporting Mann.
This is the sort of unscientific nonsense the tobacco companies used to say about smoking, that nobody could predict who would get cancer, that it couldn't be proved. Trouble is their own researchers had ALREADY proven that smoking caused cancer and they were keeping those studies secret while publicly making claims they knew were false.
Now these oil companies are claiming that global warming isn't caused by their greenhouse gas emissions. If they are sitting on studies proving that in fact their emissions DO cause it, while publicly denying it, then they are in deep shit. Potentially criminal shit, and at very least a multi billion dollar lawsuit.
It all boils down to whether they are being honest about what they know. They are entitled to an opinion, but if internally they have concluded their own public statements are false, that's fraud.
You believe these researchers have absolute proof about what the world will look like in 2100?
That's insane.
Skepticism is at the heart of good science. Research that challenges conventional thinking and leads to new discoveries is also at the heart of good science.
Science isn't about following the dictates of politicians. This is a politically driven war on science.
Support the war on science, if you like. I oppose it.
the article talks about dozens of studies not just one
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...drinking-are-flawed-expert-warn-a6945476.html
Then why do you continually attack the work of the IPCC, NASA and the words of the AAAS?
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/
How can you claim to support science while attacking it at the same time?
The word "absolute" has no place in this discussion. Gravity hasn't been proven absolutely either. The question is whether the oil firms are making public claims their own research shows to be false.
I don't know that they do, but if these AG's pull up documents in discovery that show the CEO's of these firms believe global warming is caused by fossil fuels then they are going to be paying big settlements.
That's what sunk the tobacco industry. It wasn't "absolute proof", they had internal menus discussing their strategy in light of the evidence that cigarettes were lethal. They got caught making a conscious decision to mislead.
Sure it does. If they're being prosecuted, then the prosecutors have to make their case beyond any reasonable doubt.
And remember, they have to make the case that the accused knew -- beyond any reasonable doubt -- what the world will look like in the year 2100.
It's impossible. That's why this war on science is nothing more than a witch hunt.
No, they don't have to prove that at all.
What the present suits are about are claims that they knowingly spread disinformation. Like Exxon did. They did their own research that mirrored the findings of the IPCC, hid that research and then funded lobbyists to publish the bullshit that idiots like you copy and paste around the web. Its not criminal to be stupid, like FAST, but it may become criminal to out and out lie as you do repeatedly on this site. For instance when you post up charts from the Fyfe paper then out and out lie about the findings of the study. That may become criminal. Unless your defence is that your incredibly stupid and your Dunning-Kruger effect incompetence makes you totally unable to understand what you post.
Will that be your defence?
Check out the investigation at insideclimatenews to understand what criminal disinformation looks like.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...Heightened-Climate-Litigation-Its-Critics-Say
This is wrong on so many levels. Fortunately, for those of us who are not fans of Fascism, such prosecution will not survive the First Amendment. For a scientific hypothesis to get politicized to such an extent as to try to muzzle the counter point, even if right, it is against everything a free society stands for and an end to free scientific inquiry.
Proving fraud beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't require absolute proof. Again, what will be required to win in court will be emails and memos showing the firms believe fossil fuels cause global warming, based on their own internal research. If such a smoking gun internal email exists they ARE guilty of fraud.
If they pushed their profits on claiming gravity didn't exist because we still don't have a full understanding, they would be laughed out of the building.
Coming from you a classic quote.
Have you been able to find a scientific theory to better explain what is happening to global climate yet? And claiming that there is no change to explain while also arguing that there is "natural" change doesn't make sense.
That's a misrepresentation of the case. This has nothing to do with muzzling anything. This has to do with whether the executives at certain companies made public claims that they knew to be false. As in their own research data said X, there were internal company discussions about X being true, and then they went and publicly stated not X in order to obtain a financial, tax, or legislative benefit.
The anti-vaxers feel the same way as you. They also claim some kind of massive political/corporate conspiracy is trying to silence them.
