Scientists call for RICO prosecution of
climate deniers. This tactic helped end big tobacco's denial of
cancer.
The scientists point out that RICO
threats were critical to ending big tobacco's program of denying the
link between cancer and smoking.
Hide comments
+Hugh
Tauerner you wrote: "Climate science has become
religion."
Please elaborate to substantiate your claim. It appears to be blatantly false as stated. Be advised that I block trolls.
Please elaborate to substantiate your claim. It appears to be blatantly false as stated. Be advised that I block trolls.
Sep 28, 2015
When those who disagree with the
prevailing opinion (and science is not settled. Science is never
settled.) are persecuted -- not getting their research published if
it doesn't conform to the global warming mantra, not getting tenure
for the same reason, and now being threatened with prosecution for
not toeing the party line. That's no longer science. It's religion.
Sep 28, 2015
+Hugh
Tauerner sorry, you failed the troll test.
It's long overdue. The oil and coal
companies know their product is causing huge harm and are engaged in
fraud to hide that harm.
Prosecute.
Prosecute.
No, this would simply stop all
criticism of AGW/CC, fair or unfair, and put a chill on future
researchers who'll fear prosecution if their findings don't agree
with "accepted" science. Politically, it is also an
admission that the climate science establishment needs protection
from criticism because it can't stand up to it scientifically.
Oct 1, 2015
+
1
2
1
2
1
Rubbish +David
Strumfels. Large scale public campaigning is different from
publishing critical papers in scientific journals. You can publish
peer-reviewed papers to criticize mainstream views, but you must not
be allowed to run mass media propaganda campaigns based on fraudulent
claims. The public must be informed with the best available
science.
Oct 1, 2015
What large scale campaigns are you
talking about? I've never seen one and I keep a close eye on
this subject.
And what of Michael Mann, who publishes his wild "research" before peer review, for obvious political reasons -- like just before the Paris summit? Should he be prosecuted? Of course not.
What about researchers who undergo peer review and publishing, but take a few bucks from oil companies? Is this the large scale campaign you claim?
And what of Michael Mann, who publishes his wild "research" before peer review, for obvious political reasons -- like just before the Paris summit? Should he be prosecuted? Of course not.
What about researchers who undergo peer review and publishing, but take a few bucks from oil companies? Is this the large scale campaign you claim?
Oct 1, 2015
+
1
2
1
2
1
Clearly you did not read the article
+David
Strumfels. I give you this one warning that I block
trolls.
+Sakari
Maaranen
You avoided my question. As a matter of fact, I did read the article. It falsely equates climate skepticism with the cancer data fraudulent cover up by the tobacco companies. The equation is false because tobacco was hung by established factual studies (dead bodies) that demonstrated their product dangerous beyond doubt, and which their own scientific studies (which agreed) were shown to have been covered up. But there are no established facts of climate change causing catastrophic effects over the planet, only hypothetical connections, or at most events that have alternatives hypotheses.
Knowledge of greenhouses gasses and that industrial CO2 could cause warming has been around since the 19'th century, and competent 1970s/1980s climate scientists both knew and some were communicating about the subject openly. So we cannot prove in any court in the land that oil companies were covering up knowledge of the subject, when it was in fact open to every citizen interested in scientific knowledge.
I keep coming back to the same conclusion. The threat of RICO prosecution would of course frighten and silence many climate critics, particularly ones who may have received any amount of oil funding, even indirectly, to whatever degree or for whatever purpose. Needless to say, frightening critics is the only reasonable point.
Oh: don't ever call me a troll and/or threaten to block me again. Such cowardice could be hard to cover up.
You avoided my question. As a matter of fact, I did read the article. It falsely equates climate skepticism with the cancer data fraudulent cover up by the tobacco companies. The equation is false because tobacco was hung by established factual studies (dead bodies) that demonstrated their product dangerous beyond doubt, and which their own scientific studies (which agreed) were shown to have been covered up. But there are no established facts of climate change causing catastrophic effects over the planet, only hypothetical connections, or at most events that have alternatives hypotheses.
Knowledge of greenhouses gasses and that industrial CO2 could cause warming has been around since the 19'th century, and competent 1970s/1980s climate scientists both knew and some were communicating about the subject openly. So we cannot prove in any court in the land that oil companies were covering up knowledge of the subject, when it was in fact open to every citizen interested in scientific knowledge.
I keep coming back to the same conclusion. The threat of RICO prosecution would of course frighten and silence many climate critics, particularly ones who may have received any amount of oil funding, even indirectly, to whatever degree or for whatever purpose. Needless to say, frightening critics is the only reasonable point.
Oh: don't ever call me a troll and/or threaten to block me again. Such cowardice could be hard to cover up.
