Should we muzzle them, then? Should we prosecute the 9/11 conspiracies, the Holocaust deniers, etc? Of course not. Just consider how difficult and complex the subject of climate happens to be and how many disciplines it runs across. Do we really want lawyers deciding the matter? What do you think it's going to happen to the scientific community in the face of inquisition? They will produce "legal" results-they have to eat, after all. Have we not learned anything from our history?
16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Again, you are misrepresenting the case. No one is being muzzled. On the contrary, the question is whether they are being honest about what they know.
It is not the science or the research that is the subject of this case, but what do oil executives know versus what they say in public.
It is not the science or the research that is the subject of this case, but what do oil executives know versus what they say in public.
Actually, I'm ignoring your "contributions", here. Mainly because you don't understand even simple concepts. Like the "chilling effect" on the First Amendment rights.
The "global warming controversy" is not so much about the scientific research, as it is about how masses of data should be interpreted. It's about whether one is justified in drawing Conclusion.C from data.D -- which is largely a matter, not of science, but of deciding what statistical levels have to be to be regarded as significant. That, and deciding how accurate a model has to be proved to be, before it can be trusted.
The freedom to continue those debates must be protected, even if it means letting some fraudsters go unpunished.
This isn't even about that, those debates aren't affected at all. This is about public statements made by companies, not about academic debates by scientists.
The question is simple: did companies say something when their own internal documents show they KNEW it was false.
Did you say the same thing when the tobacco industry was sued for lying about the harm of their products?
You can group the deniers into two camps.
1) fossil fuelled lobbyists paid to spread disinformation
2) anti-science types who soak up this disinformation
Once you start suing those who are paid to spread disinformation and who pay to spread disinformation then the anti-science types, like you, will either have to read the legit science or have to search for ever kookier, crazy wingnut types like Tim Ball (quoted on this site often) to find their 'research'. Then they can join the 9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, area 51 searchers and other wacko conspiracy types to their hearts content. What it means is that paid lobbyists won't risk being sued to spread disinformation on the MSM so you'll be stuck with wacko's like Tim Ball as your movement's spokesmen.
Scientists who have disputing theories about climate change will still be able to do their research and publish it, as they are now. People would be free to discuss and argue about the science. Nothing would change on that end, only on those who are being paid to spread disinformation.
From the original article:
These are the same people that went after Exxon after they were found to have done research that found that anthropogenic climate change is real then went and buried that research and started funding disinformation organizations like the Heartland Institute.
S
**Sophie**
Depends. If you think they are guilty of fabricating their numbers, or using invalid methodologies to analyze them, or some other case of actual scientific malfeasance, sure, investigate them for fraud, and the rest of the science community will help you. If the reason you want to investigate them for fraud is that they published results that disagree with your position on a political issue, or criticized the methodology of the studies you used to support your position, that is a very bad thing for science, and I would argue is far more dangerous.
The prosecution will have to show that they intended to mislead, not just disagree with their research. In other words, that their OWN research concluded that fossil fuels cause global warming but then they went out and claimed the opposite.
The only way the methods of a study would come into play was if there were emails clearly orchestrating the results, showing clear intent to create fake information, like an email from management instructing somebody to fudge the data.
That's not what the present court cases are about.
Exxon is being sued because they did their own research which found that the oil they sold causes climate change then they went and hid that research and hired lobbyists to spread disinformation.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...onsensus-in-1982-with-in-house-climate-models
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...-Science-for-Decades-by-Stressing-Uncertainty
That is why they are being sued.
The medical profession had verifiable, PAST results linking tobacco to cancer. There was a cause and effect- proven beyond any doubt. This is not the case with the global warming.
Exxon could make that argument had they not done their own research which found that their work caused climate change. Exxon in particular is screwed for that reason, other companies will probably try your argument, but the problem is that 97% of climatologist's and the very vast majority of scientist's research has found the science very solid. For instance, if you've got 97% of doctors telling you that cyanide is bad for your health you'd be an idiot to argue that cyanide should be a healthy part of your diet. Now you've got 97% supporting the claim that releasing CO2 is changing our climate and risking major changes to our way of life. How certain do you think you have to be before you are allowed to continue this damaging behaviour?
97% consensus is bs. Show me cause/effect with predictable results- we can then begin a conversation. Until then it's all wind and piss.
No, its not.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/
AAAS is the largest organization of scientists around, by the way. They know what they are talking about.
CO2 and greenhouse gases cause climate change.
Every time.
Really? Humans caused the climatic changes that collapsed the Akkadian empire? Or the Egyptian Kingdom? We know for certain that a rapid climatic change wiped out those entities. As with other rapid changes, we have only speculations. And now, they tell me that they have a definite answer to climatic anomalies of the present? Sorry, I'm too aware of history to buy this truck load of manure. Sell it to the stupid kids.
S
**Sophie**
A concensus? Hardly!!
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
It's worse than just the pitifully tiny number used to justify the "97%" claim.
When you look at the questions that were asked, they were only asked whether they thought human activity is a "significant contributing factor" to climate change. They were never specifically asked about the hypothesis that man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950.
Whenever researchers are asked questions that are better aligned with the hypothesis, the results are never anywhere near a consensus (one study in the U.S. got results that were barely over 50%).
We didn't know those studies existed until after the investigation of the Tobacco companies, which revealed THEY had that proof a decade before everybody else, and decided to suppress it.
Again, the question being investigated here is whether the oil companies are internally aware of evidence that contradicts their public statements.
Have you been reading links that moviefan sends you?
Because that's an incredibly wacko theory you got going.
I clicked on your link and the first sentence contains this claim:
I point that out because it really establishes the total lack of credibility of everything else in that opinion piece.
This is what they call a 'standstill':
This is what NASA says about the consensus, are you claiming they are lying?
Or are you trying to claim that the author of your opinion paper is smarter then the sum total knowledge of all of NASA and the AAAS?
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
