Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics.

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: M5xaz

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

Except if you happen to be a climate skeptic, seemingly.....

Where did he deny your right to "say it"? He did, in fact, encourage you to "say it".

Hello ?
When he supports a position to jail opponents, he clearly does not support any form of freedom of expression.

Clueless...

The distinction between being investigated under the suspicion of perpetrating fraud on a large scale and "jailing opponents" seems lost on you.

Abject ignorance of freedom required in science is lost on you.
You are not "guilty until proven innocent".
Science conducted under possible threat of prosecution WOULD die.

Clueless...

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

About the consensus, that is also true. But consensus still isn't quite settled ... it is more like a 'pause' until some new discovery could potentially turn the consensus upside down.

Well see, I think you still don't quite understand consensus. A consensus is reached in science on a topic when all the observed data are are satisfactorily explained. Joe says 'Hey look at this! What's happening?', Bill says 'Maybe the flux capacitor is reversed', John says, 'If that were so, then the widget wouldn't be flaming', it must be the whatzit is out of alignment'. Joe says 'OK lets realign the whatzit and see what happens'. Everybody says 'Yeah, that fixed it, cool'.

By the time consensus is reached on something like AGW, there is one heck of a lot of agreement from lots of disciplines. You don't just come up with something new that turn it upside down. You might well identify a new problem that has to be explained, or more detailed answers for some part of the big picture, but you are extremely unlikely to completely turn it around.

The theory of electricity is 'just a (scientific) theory' and our current understanding of it is the result of the same consensus process. Something new may well be found in electricity, but it won't turn everything upside down and cause TV's and washing machines to stop working.

Uncertainty in science, and looking for something better is the very nature of what science is. Science consensus says we have a good understanding that we know why the sun comes up in the morning, but no scientist worth his salt would tell you that that explanation will never be bettered. May it will and maybe it won't, but in either case it will not stop the sun from coming up.

I was not trying to argue vs your posts per se. Respect.

But I don't like any trend such as the OP has mentioned here to sanction someone for choosing not to go along with 'settled science'.

I don't see any such 'trend'. One data point does not make a trend, just as one weather observation doesn't make climate. Furthermore, I don't see a move to "sanction someone for choosing not to go along with 'settled science". I see an attempt to publicly "call out" the vested interests that are spending "a LOT" of money perpetrating lies on the people of the world. Lies that are having real world consequences, RIGHT NOW. People in the Pacific are dieing and losing their homes TODAY because of the perpetrators of these lies.

The tactics of these lies are demonstrated earlier in this thread when someone complained that renewable energy industry get 1.3 trillion dollars in government subsidies and this proves "they are just in it for the money". What then does the 5.8 trillion dollars in government subsidies that the fossil fuel industries get prove?

You still cannot know if the science is really settled, unless someone somewhere continues to have a skeptical view, even if they are continually disproven. Skeptics are good for the world. Skeptics are great for science.

You are correct again. However, Climate Change deniers are NOT skeptics. The enablers of the ongoing misinformation campaign are NOT skeptics. The lobbyists paid to lie about climate change are not skeptics. There are some scientists who may still be skeptical about some parts of the current consensus.

Just saying "No sir, Nuh uh" doesn't make you a skeptic.

I am going to quote the Brian Dunning discussion of "What is Skepticism?" from Skeptoid blog: because it is so perfectly on point.

What Is Skepticism?

To quote Dr. Shermer: Skepticism is not a position; it's a process.

The popular misconception is that skeptics, or critical thinkers, are people who disbelieve things. And indeed, the common usage of the word skeptical supports this: "He was skeptical of the numbers in the spreadsheet", meaning he doubted their validity. To be skeptical, therefore, is to be negative about things and doubt or disbelieve them.

The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.

It's thus inaccurate to say "Skeptics don't believe in ghosts." Some do. Many skeptics are deeply religious, and are satisfied with the reasoning process that led them there. Skeptics apply critical thinking to different aspects of their lives in their own individual way. Everyone is a skeptic to some degree.

Skepticism is, or should be, an extraordinarily powerful and positive influence on the world. Skepticism is not simply about "debunking" as is commonly charged. Skepticism is about redirecting attention, influence, and funding away from worthless superstitions and toward projects and ideas that are evidenced to be beneficial to humanity and to the world.

The scientific method is central to skepticism. The scientific method requires evidence, preferably derived from validated testing. Anecdotal evidence and personal testimonies generally don't meet the qualifications for scientific evidence, and thus won't often be accepted by a responsible skeptic; which often explains why skeptics get such a bad rap for being negative or disbelieving people. They're simply following the scientific method.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, particularly in claims that are far fetched or that violate physical laws. Skepticism is an essential, and meaningful, component of the search for truth.

Brian Dunning

A skeptic is not one who simply says "no it ain't". A skeptic is one who says "how can we be sure?".

Scientists are the ultimate skeptics and the scientific method is vital. Those who deny the efficacy of the scientific method are not skeptics. And maybe, people who continue to lobby with lies against the idea of taking reasonable steps to slow down the destruction of the only habitat humans have should be held accountable for their actions.

If you truely think you are skeptical, then you need to behave like a true skeptic and educate your self. You need to examine the issues. For example, if the deniers make a claim against the science, then you need to examine whether or not that claim has any merit. Who is right about that claim? And when you find the answer, you need to stop asserting the wrong answer.

Here's a great starting point for climate change skeptics: The “Climate change deceit” conspiracy theory and global warming .

It starts out with a list of claims against the science, then analyses them from a skeptics point of view. There are many other resources for you from there.

If you want to know where the scientists that proposed the 'RICO action' are 'coming from' in their letter, perhaps this book Merchants of Doubt would be a good study. There is also a film based on the book.

a reply to: M5xaz

No, RSS data is not "cherry picked"

It was your chosen starting point that was cherry picked. I am not arguing with the data in any way.

Why not start your argument with 1978? or 2000?

a reply to: M5xaz

Abject ignorance of freedom required in science is lost on you.
You are not "guilty until proven innocent".
Science conducted under possible threat of prosecution WOULD die.

Clueless...

Clueless is as clueless does.

The letter from the scientists is not proposing any limits on the freedom of scientists in any way shape or form.

It is not skeptical scientists that they are proposing investigating. It is the vested interests groups that are campaigning to propagate misinformation, blatant lies, hate speech against scientists, lobbying governments based on lies, and in general treating the public their industries are meant to be serving as fools and trained monkeys.

Now when that campaign subverts science by paying for papers with prespecified results, as they have been caught doing (not just the Tobacco Industry, but the fossil fuel industry very recently ), those scientists lose their reputation and livelihood, scientific fraud is perpetrated on the public, the economy suffers, health suffers, the damage cascades through out society.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: M5xaz

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

Except if you happen to be a climate skeptic, seemingly.....

Where did he deny your right to "say it"? He did, in fact, encourage you to "say it".

Hello ?
When he supports a position to jail opponents, he clearly does not support any form of freedom of expression.

Clueless...

The distinction between being investigated under the suspicion of perpetrating fraud on a large scale and "jailing opponents" seems lost on you.

Abject ignorance of freedom required in science is lost on you.
You are not "guilty until proven innocent".
Science conducted under possible threat of prosecution WOULD die.

Clueless...

Scientist are to follow the laws are they not? They are to be scrutinized and examined at every step of the way by peers and the people funding them. Scientist conduct experimentation under certain guidelines that include prosecution for malpractice and violations of rights. So they are already under threat of arrest all the time.

We need to treat scientist the way they treat everyone else As we have to prove ourselves to them all the time th e inverse should be true.

a reply to: yuppa

Scientist are to follow the laws are they not?

All citizens are to follow the law.

They are to be scrutinized and examined at every step of the way by peers and the people funding them.

Not really; generally they are not scrutinized or peer reviewed until the publication phase begins. Many experiments are abandoned without publication if, for example, a new pharmaceutical does not work.

Scientist conduct experimentation under certain guidelines that include prosecution for malpractice and violations of rights.

Er, no. There are ethical guidelines, but except for experimentation on humans, there are no actual laws governing experimental science. Some cities and states have begun to pass anti-cruelty laws governing animal experimentation, but what has that to do with climate science?

So they are already under threat of arrest all the time.

No more than any other citizen. What's your point?

We need to treat scientist the way they treat everyone else.

You mean finding ways to increase their knowledge and well being, the way scientists contribute to society?

As we have to prove ourselves to them all the time the inverse should be true.

This is nonsensical. Scientists do not ask you to prove yourself; on the other hand, if you are trying to make a claim that contradicts carefully gathered data, you are going to have to gather data of your own. If you are going to chllenge the consensus interpretation of data, you will need to make as thorough a case as the scientists have.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: M5xaz

Abject ignorance of freedom required in science is lost on you.
You are not "guilty until proven innocent".
Science conducted under possible threat of prosecution WOULD die.

Clueless...

Clueless is as clueless does.

The letter from the scientists is not proposing any limits on the freedom of scientists in any way shape or form.

It is not skeptical scientists that they are proposing investigating. It is the vested interests groups that are campaigning to propagate misinformation, blatant lies, hate speech against scientists, lobbying governments based on lies, and in general treating the public their industries are meant to be serving as fools and trained monkeys.

Now when that campaign subverts science by paying for papers with prespecified results, as they have been caught doing (not just the Tobacco Industry, but the fossil fuel industry very recently ), those scientists lose their reputation and livelihood, scientific fraud is perpetrated on the public, the economy suffers, health suffers, the damage cascades through out society.

Investigations will not stop, once you go down that road.
History shows that skeptical scientists will also be taken in, as well as any other opponent

At the very least, it will have a chilling effect into any type of skeptical inquiry

This becomes politics, not science

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: M5xaz

No, RSS data is not "cherry picked"

It was your chosen starting point that was cherry picked. I am not arguing with the data in any way.

Why not start your argument with 1978? or 2000?

For the past 18 years, you agree then that there has been no warming.

During these past 18 years, CO2 emissions have kept rising while temperatures have been flat.

Ergo, CO2 emissions, human activity, has ZERO correlation to global temperatures!

That is the point!

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: M5xaz

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

Except if you happen to be a climate skeptic, seemingly.....

Where did he deny your right to "say it"? He did, in fact, encourage you to "say it".

Hello ?
When he supports a position to jail opponents, he clearly does not support any form of freedom of expression.

Clueless...

The distinction between being investigated under the suspicion of perpetrating fraud on a large scale and "jailing opponents" seems lost on you.

Abject ignorance of freedom required in science is lost on you.
You are not "guilty until proven innocent".
Science conducted under possible threat of prosecution WOULD die.

Clueless...

Scientist are to follow the laws are they not? They are to be scrutinized and examined at every step of the way by peers and the people funding them. Scientist conduct experimentation under certain guidelines that include prosecution for malpractice and violations of rights. So they are already under threat of arrest all the time.

We need to treat scientist the way they treat everyone else As we have to prove ourselves to them all the time th e inverse should be true.

Scientific inquiry is NOT criminal activity, at least not yet decreed as such.
As you point out, through peer review,there is already a check and balance system

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: M5xaz

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

Except if you happen to be a climate skeptic, seemingly.....

Where did he deny your right to "say it"? He did, in fact, encourage you to "say it".

Hello ?
When he supports a position to jail opponents, he clearly does not support any form of freedom of expression.

Clueless...

The distinction between being investigated under the suspicion of perpetrating fraud on a large scale and "jailing opponents" seems lost on you.

Abject ignorance of freedom required in science is lost on you.
You are not "guilty until proven innocent".
Science conducted under possible threat of prosecution WOULD die.

Clueless...

Scientist are to follow the laws are they not? They are to be scrutinized and examined at every step of the way by peers and the people funding them. Scientist conduct experimentation under certain guidelines that include prosecution for malpractice and violations of rights. So they are already under threat of arrest all the time.

We need to treat scientist the way they treat everyone else As we have to prove ourselves to them all the time th e inverse should be true.

Scientific inquiry is NOT criminal activity, at least not yet decreed as such.
As you point out, through peer review,there is already a check and balance system

My point is lying on both sides should be punished equally and they should have to prove their cases beyond a reasobale doubt. The scientist have not made their case,and alot of us are the jury voting to hang it.

a reply to: rnaa

Thank you for your long reply.

Humility is an important thing for anyone to experience ... and I just got schooled.

Respect.

I will rest now

a reply to: M5xaz

For the past 18 years, you agree then that there has been no warming.

No, I do NOT and I'll thank you to stop trying to put words into my mouth.

What I said was that if you remove the 1997/98 data point, the trend line continues up. The store of energy in the Earths atmosphere and oceans continues to rise, and it continues to rise specifically because of the garbage man's activities are putting into the atmosphere.

This is the third time this link has been presented to you in this thread:

"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data

Please read it this time and stop asserting the patently false 'warming has stopped' line - and especially stop asserting that I agree with you in any way shape or form.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: M5xaz

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

Except if you happen to be a climate skeptic, seemingly.....

Where did he deny your right to "say it"? He did, in fact, encourage you to "say it".

Hello ?
When he supports a position to jail opponents, he clearly does not support any form of freedom of expression.

Clueless...

The distinction between being investigated under the suspicion of perpetrating fraud on a large scale and "jailing opponents" seems lost on you.

Abject ignorance of freedom required in science is lost on you.
You are not "guilty until proven innocent".
Science conducted under possible threat of prosecution WOULD die.

Clueless...

No one is talking about prosecuting scientists for doing science. The idea is to prosecute people who pay or accept bribes to muddy the waters to support their interests. But while you take me for a dolt, I'll not return the insult: I suspect you know all of this and are instead dishonestly misrepresenting the issue because you are so ideologically bent that truth is an acceptable casualty in your war.