Apparently 20 pro climate change scientists wrote a letter the President Obama urging him to use the RICO laws to fine and jail climate change skeptics. Do you think this ia an appropriate prosecution or is it violating free speech? Do you believe in free speech anymore? Is free speech obsolete? http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-alarmists-obama-use-rico-laws-jail-skeptics/
Should Obama prosecute climate change skeptics
- Thread starter tantalum
- Start date
I fully support a RICO investigation into the think tanks and other organizations and their very obvious donors and supporters.
I don't view this as a free speech issue. It is a criminal issue.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...-change-decades-ago-spent-30M-to-discredit-it
I don't view this as a free speech issue. It is a criminal issue.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...-change-decades-ago-spent-30M-to-discredit-it
Last edited:
Hilarious. People disagree with Junk Science and they should be arrested and SILENCED. George Orwell would be so proud. BTW, warming and cooling periods existed long before Exxon or even man existed on this planet. It's not a new phenomenon, but it's become a multi-Billion dollar industry.
The original computer models had the planet melting in ten years, trying to create as much panic as possible. Since then, those models have been revised down multiple times, since the projections were nowhere near reality. We've also had several investigations, where the GW crowd was falsifying data to support their position. Whatever happened to OBJECTIVE science, versus agenda driven science?
That isn't what is going on here. This is nearly identical to the investigation of the tobacco industry.
The rest of your post isn't worth addressing. We have tried doing this in the past but you insist on posting the same tripe over and over again.
Last edited:
I love the "warming and cooling existed before man was on this planet" as if that means anything in favor of not doing what we can to make sure we aren't helping things warm up given that we ARE on the planet now, and sea level rise and climate change are things that will affect billions of people on the planet now, regardless of whether or not some dinosaurs got warm or cold millions of years ago.
From a legal standpoint, not my area of expertise, is RICO the correct path?
I've read quite a bit on this topic. It seems the weak link is the RICO accusation.
Something needs to be done, is RICO the route?
I don't know RICO since that's not really a military thing. I think one could make the argument that corporations have misled the public about global warming, but the reality is one could make the argument that corporations have misled about a ton of things, and the government, and a whole host of institutions. I'm not sure you'd be able to put together a jury that would convict on something like this. I think the nicotine/tobacco thing was simpler and easier to process for folks than global warming is.
Read the report though. It is more damning than the tobacco issue.
We researched it. We know it is real. We spent $30 million + to make it go away.
If we are to have governments, prosecuting these folks seems like a no brainer.
http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken+
I know it is not your area of expertise. I run into the same thing. Just tossing around discussion.
How can you trust people that when they can't win an argument, they just want to prosecute the people that they disagree with? If the facts are so obvious why can't they just try to debate and win people's minds? People aren't buying the argument, because none of their predictions are ever right. It's obvious the agenda is on one side, and its not the people who are skeptical.
You can tell its not science because they can't answer 2 questions with any certainty.
1. Prove that its getting warmer? (It hasn't)
2. Prove that your proposed fix is going to solve the problem? (They have no clue)
The proposed solution, forcing less burning of fossil fuels, taxing evil corporations is their desired ends. That's the agenda.
Would you believe climate scientists at Exxon that climate change is real and fossil fuels have to be cut sooner than later?
If you would, read my links.
Of course there is also 50 years of research and enough publications to fill a warehouse.
This post is exactly why the denialist campaign needs to be addressed. Sad.
I didn't know he was a climate scientist. I think he's got bad info like a lot of people. I don't think he's IN on anything. It sounds really good if you say you care about the planet.
I'm not much on believing what anybody says, like good scientists, I'm always skeptical and do my own research and read both sides. Ive heard all arguments. Unlike most, I readily admit I don't exactly know if CO2 is causing catastrophic warming. But, there certainly isn't enough data pointing to it. All the predictions have been wrong, so i have that data point.
But, I'm sure you would like to throw me in jail because i dont believe something you can't prove. If there was something I wanted you to believe, I would keep trying to change your mind not punish you. Why can't you be more open-minded?
*sigh*
No one is going to be jailed for differing opinions, no matter how out of touch. Read up about what is going on. You will probably have to go to a source a little more reputable than Breitbart.
The rest of the conversation isn't worth having. It is just tackling right wing talking points that are the exact product of the disinformation campaign we are discussing.
And honestly, your comments show you haven't read any of the science. It isn't getting warmer, every prediction has been wrong, co2 isn't a greenhouse gas...I mean, we would starting at a middle school level.
If Bub or Qaz want to take a crack at, go ahead. I don't have the energy this afternoon. Maybe tonight when I can pour a drink as to dull the pain of the inevitable numerous facepalms.
It is also very difficult to have this conversation with some one who believes there are "sides". There is the data, the evidence. Internally there may be disagreements about specific mechanisms or processes, but there isn't a climate change is happening and a climate change isn't happening side. It is exactly like the evolution/creationism debate. Dawkins and Collins may disagree about punctuated equalibrium, that doesn't disprove evolution is occurring.
I've also found that denialists can never separate the science from the policy. Always a roadblock and one that you have already brought up.
Lastly, denialists around simply don't read what others post. Make wild claim. Response to wild claim explains the science behind the scenario. Make same wild claim next week. It happens every time.
Last edited:
*sigh* *smh* *sigh* *smh* You poor elitists, I wonder how rough it must be to get the poor unwashed masses to see how brilliant y'all are. I may not be up to date on all the new talking points, so i don'tknow how the talking points have changed i.e global cooling, nah global warming, nah climate change. All I know is if I thought the planet faced a global catastrophe, I would want to be very upgront and honest about things and have open debates and try to bring it to the attention of the world, honestly. That'snot what is being done. Why do none of these environmentalists ever want to debate? I'm talking primetime for everyone to see and make their minds up. Instead the warmers just say the debate is over. I must have missed it. I find that peculiar.
Also, show me were I said I was on one side or another, that's what you probably do. Why do you need someone else on your "side" to explain this to me? If your so positive and worried about the plight of our planet, you should be able to convince me. Afterall, I'm the only one honest enough to admit i don't know everything?
The climate has always changed for the history of this planet. Prove that a)man is doing it and b) that it is going to be catastrophic. Then prove your fix is going to be better than the status quo, which is living with it and dealing with it as it comes. As human beings, we adapt to change rather well.
History has shown that all people yelling apocalypse have been wrong. Unitl I see proof of the opposite, I will continue to believe human beings will thrive and adapt.
Well, in short I will say I am all for keeping the earth clean.
Now label them talking or puts or whatever you want, but here are my questions/points-
-Why has it changed from global warming, to man made global warming, to man made climate change, to climate change? It just seems as one label fell out of favor, the name was changed. Well, I do not think anyone really argues climate change so yay-a winner was found.
-All I have heard is how hurricanes were going to be real prevalent and more dangerous for the last few decades? All due to warm water due to man made climate change/global warming. Really? Been pretty quiet overall.
-The water level is rising. Fair point. One could also point to the fact that geologists/archaelogists also believe that Africa and South/Central America used to be connected. Is it really new that continents move, water lowers/rises etc?
-Brother in Law is in Denmark and he is one of the main researchers in concern with drilling ice in different parts of the world. He believes in man made climate change. He also states that the earth was definitely colder and warmer through periods in history? Ok, no one sees the hypocrisy in that? He also hates that politics and governments and money got involved because now the science and research becomes political and convoluted due to competetion for grants.
So explain how taxes, carbon credits, and fines are going to fix the issue? Like anything else, the cost will get passed down to the consumer, and consumers basic need is energy......
So great, the USA closes down coal plants and wants to put the industry out of business. Yet China and other 2nd/3rd world countries open several new plants a year. Last I checked, they were all part of the earth too. How is this supposed to work?
And yes all of this comes from someone who wants to keep the earth clean, and is looking to get off grid with solar and one of the batteries installed in an new home from Tesla or another manufacturer.
Now label them talking or puts or whatever you want, but here are my questions/points-
-Why has it changed from global warming, to man made global warming, to man made climate change, to climate change? It just seems as one label fell out of favor, the name was changed. Well, I do not think anyone really argues climate change so yay-a winner was found.
-All I have heard is how hurricanes were going to be real prevalent and more dangerous for the last few decades? All due to warm water due to man made climate change/global warming. Really? Been pretty quiet overall.
-The water level is rising. Fair point. One could also point to the fact that geologists/archaelogists also believe that Africa and South/Central America used to be connected. Is it really new that continents move, water lowers/rises etc?
-Brother in Law is in Denmark and he is one of the main researchers in concern with drilling ice in different parts of the world. He believes in man made climate change. He also states that the earth was definitely colder and warmer through periods in history? Ok, no one sees the hypocrisy in that? He also hates that politics and governments and money got involved because now the science and research becomes political and convoluted due to competetion for grants.
So explain how taxes, carbon credits, and fines are going to fix the issue? Like anything else, the cost will get passed down to the consumer, and consumers basic need is energy......
So great, the USA closes down coal plants and wants to put the industry out of business. Yet China and other 2nd/3rd world countries open several new plants a year. Last I checked, they were all part of the earth too. How is this supposed to work?
And yes all of this comes from someone who wants to keep the earth clean, and is looking to get off grid with solar and one of the batteries installed in an new home from Tesla or another manufacturer.
So, the answer is to prosecute those that disagree with OPINIONS? Stalinesque and Hitlerish comes to mind. I hope you were being facetious!
We can't even agree on whether MILK is good or bad. In the past 2 weeks I have read studies that are almost opposite OPINIONS-and that is supposed to be accepted science?
The terms are not synonymous!
Global warming refers to the accumulation of heat due to an energy imbalance. The imbalance is due to increasing levels of greenhouse gases, and the most important greenhouse gas is CO2 (longest atmospheric lifetime and most plentiful) from the burning of fossil fuels.
Climate Change refers to the climatic response to increased heat. Increased severity of droughts, floods, and heat waves are examples of climate change.
You fall into a sort of Atlantic-centric trap. The Northern Atlantic is but one basin where tropic cyclones occur, but there are basins throughout the Pacific and Indian oceans. Having said that, there is no indication of an increase in ACE (accumulated cyclonic energy) on a global scale.
There is also low confidence in the idea that increased oceanic heat content would lead to an increase in the frequency of tropical cyclones, as there are other factors required for the development of tropical cyclones (such as anti-cyclonic flow aloft). Some of the latest trends in modeling indicate an increase in intensity of the strongest cyclones, but a decrease in the frequency of cyclones.
Sea-level is rising due mostly to thermal expansion of water, melting of land ice, and subsidence. There are indications that ice-sheets, specifically Greenland and Western Antarctica, are far less stable than once thought. Greenland alone contains enough water to raise sea level by 21 feet if the entire sheet were to melt.
I fail to understand this argument. Yes, climate has changed over the course of the last 4.54B years, but what does that have to do with suggesting that humans can't be causing it now? Does the fact that lung cancer existed before cigarettes make it hypocritical to suggest that smoking tobacco leads to lung cancer? Forest fires existed long before humans, so is it hypocritical to suggest that a poorly buried camp fire led to a conflagration? If you would like to look into the paleoclimate research regarding climate change and CO2, Dr. Richard Alley provides both this, and this.
As far as policy required to address this issue, I prefer a carbon tax, but I'm open to various ideas as long as the objective of stopping the burning of fossil fuels is met.
If this week's weather in central Indiana is because of Global Warming or climate change...than I'm all for it !
The republican, tea party, Any Rand conservatives are becoming an actual problem. Vaccines. Climate change. I could go on...
Not all of humanity's problems can be reduced to an Any Rand novel. The free market isn't always the default solution. If you haven't learned this by now it is difficult to take your position seriously.
Not all of humanity's problems can be reduced to an Any Rand novel. The free market isn't always the default solution. If you haven't learned this by now it is difficult to take your position seriously.
Plant the seeeeed deeep!
Some of my students called the number and were rewarded with a 5+ minute message. John Oliver is one of the best journalists on television.
I read the link post by Ecouch. It seems to be saying that back in the 1970s/ 1980s Exxon wore a white hat and was a leader in climate research but after the oil glut of the late 1980s they put on a black hat and started funding climate change deniers. I am not sure if you are for charging Exxon as a company or the specific scientists that doing research denying climate change?
I would say that it is reasonable to make scientific fraud a crime (maybe it is) if actual fraud can be proved? If someone deliberately falsifies data and publishedsit and people act on it then the researcher should be liable. That would also apply to the IPCC scientists that have been shown to be not exactly the disinterested observers they claim to be. I think it is very dangerous to start prosecuting companies that fund research that the Justice department does not like.
I would also not that Exxon also believed in peak oil. That belief has decimated that company. They have been out there spending huge gobs of money on expensive off shore oil projects while the small independent oil companies have discovered how to extract oil from oil shale and created that lated oil boom.
I would say that it is reasonable to make scientific fraud a crime (maybe it is) if actual fraud can be proved? If someone deliberately falsifies data and publishedsit and people act on it then the researcher should be liable. That would also apply to the IPCC scientists that have been shown to be not exactly the disinterested observers they claim to be. I think it is very dangerous to start prosecuting companies that fund research that the Justice department does not like.
I would also not that Exxon also believed in peak oil. That belief has decimated that company. They have been out there spending huge gobs of money on expensive off shore oil projects while the small independent oil companies have discovered how to extract oil from oil shale and created that lated oil boom.
How is the Republican party, tea party and conservatives becoming a problem? None of them have had any power to do anything as this country slides into a shit hole. Get your head out of your ass! The free market is responsible for what is the greatest country ever in the history of this planet. If you dont like it take your whining, bithcing, moaning ass somewhere else. The problem is spoiled, whiny, chicken littles like you that want to control everything, and freak out about everything, but don't have a clue.
Does it ever get annoying having to make up this much BS to try and explain something that just won't happen like you want it to?
Beeaz, you have way more patience than I. It's like explaining quantum physics to a cat, yet you keep trying.
What's the matter qaz? Reality hurting your feelings again? Things just don't work out like they should for ya, do they? If only more disasters could happen to prove your theories, you'd probably be so much happier.
Yawn. I give it a 6. Needs more punch. You didn't use the word liberal once...I mean that's just baseline gotta do to get any points. I've seen much better.
Whatever. You and your brainiac little buddies need to get back to work on those theories. If you keep tweaking 'em, maybe one day you'll get something right. Need more forcing.
It's actually good practice for me, as I'm often presented with questions from people with little to no scientific background. 97 actually took the time to ask questions, and although those questions have likely been addressed on here in the past, I don't mind doing it again. I also found a lecture by Alley (paleoclimate) that I hadn't seen before, so I gained from that perspective as well.
I hear ya, the practice part I mean. But I highly doubt anyone on here asking questions about CC is doing so because they are truly open to hearing the answers and changing their minds. Once you reject the science behind it as invalid, then responding with more science simply does nothing to persuade.
Wow! Now that is eye opening! You mean liberals are in academia? I bet if the same poll asked "Is capitalism bad?" You would have very similar results. You guys love to try and prove there is consensus don't ya? As if that means anything. I suppose that helps you sleep better at night.
Funny how it hasn't actually warmed in almost 20 years ,yet most people still believe it's warming. Kind of throws the credibility of that thing out the window doesn't it?
Now this one has promise...gonna give it an 8.5. You've got liberals in there, scoffing at consensus, you even got a socialism dig in where most men would have a hard time linking it in there.
Are you trolling, misinformed, or simply making things up? 2014 was the warmest year on record (NASA concluded the same) and 2015 will almost certainly break that record.
Really, now on this one don't waste your time. He's an insipid, mentally challenged syncophant. He spouts off buzzwords he listened to on Rush, Breitbart, freerepublic or whatever other ultra conservative trash websites/radio broadcasts the kids are listening to these days.
Mocking derision or slience are the only two useful responses.
