Originally posted by shavixmirit is just a coincidence that many of the 3% of "scientists" that deny climate change for one reason or another just happen to have been on the payroll of major oil companies at some point.
Didn't I read somewhere that the 'there's no global warming' group was financed by big money from coal companies?
Sounds like criminal behaviour to me.
Paying to forge results to influence policy?
21 Sep 15
Originally posted by stevemccSteve what is the temperature now and what should it be ?
In your mind are the risks of 1) the destruction of property rights (that's a tad hysterical) the growth of govamint (sic) and the growth of corporations, and 2) the destruction of the planet, equivalent ?
If so, thank you very much, we don't need to talk anymore and, if not, your argument needs a lot of work.
I'd say there's a 99.9% chance that the Earth is warming and probably a 90% chance that human activities have had a substantial impact.
But the idea of prosecuting people for making even false political statements is reprehensible.
Thankfully, the signatories on that document are scientists, not politicians.
21 Sep 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76we can debate on that. one cannot be prosecuted for promising something on a political campaign. there are a multitude of variables that can't be all predicted so one's promises can in fact turn out to not be viable.
I'd say there's a 99.9% chance that the Earth is warming and probably a 90% chance that human activities have had a substantial impact.
But the idea of prosecuting people for making even false political statements is reprehensible.
Thankfully, the signatories on that document are scientists, not politicians.
hopefully these scientists are referring to people knowingly falsifying/hiding data in order to gain something (grant from oil company, campaign money, unicorn/t-rex rides, whatever). those can and should be prosecuted for fraud. many of them are under oath when giving their testimonies, that is another law they break
21 Sep 15
Originally posted by sh76http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html
I'd say there's a 99.9% chance that the Earth is warming and probably a 90% chance that human activities have had a substantial impact.
But the idea of prosecuting people for making even false political statements is reprehensible.
Thankfully, the signatories on that document are scientists, not politicians.
Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming
21 Sep 15
Originally posted by utherpendragonScience, the sequel: how op-ed pieces in the Telegraph replaced peer reviewed literature.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html
[b]Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming[/b]
21 Sep 15
Originally posted by sh76Human activity has very little to do with the earth warming. The main cause of the earth warming has always been the sun and the amount of cloud cover. Take my word for it, because I am . . .
I'd say there's a 99.9% chance that the Earth is warming and probably a 90% chance that human activities have had a substantial impact.
But the idea of prosecuting people for making even false political statements is reprehensible.
Thankfully, the signatories on that document are scientists, not politicians.
The Near Genius 😏
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe East Anglia people scientists changed the way they presented data to better support their viewpoint. Whether you think what they did was fraud or whether you think they were correct in doing so aside, that much is clear from their emails. To distinguish that from hiding data is hair-splitting. Yet nobody suggested the East Anglia scientists be prosecuted.
we can debate on that. one cannot be prosecuted for promising something on a political campaign. there are a multitude of variables that can't be all predicted so one's promises can in fact turn out to not be viable.
hopefully these scientists are referring to people knowingly falsifying/hiding data in order to gain something (grant from oil company, ca ...[text shortened]... fraud. many of them are under oath when giving their testimonies, that is another law they break
In a free society, the way to win a public debate is to present better arguments, not to have the other guy arrested.
- Joined
- 15 Oct 10
- Moves
- 98630
21 Sep 15
Originally posted by sh76I agree with this. But maybe we're not talking about a 'debate.'
In a free society, the way to win a public debate is to present better arguments, not to have the other guy arrested.[/b]
Should the tobacco executives have been prosecuted for perjury? Or is what they said legitimate free speech?
Originally posted by sh76in any society, presenting falsehoods as truths and profiting from this is fraud. it is and should be illegal.
The East Anglia people scientists changed the way they presented data to better support their viewpoint. Whether you think what they did was fraud or whether you think they were correct in doing so aside, that much is clear from their emails. To distinguish that from hiding data is hair-splitting. Yet nobody suggested the East Anglia scientists be prosecuted.
...[text shortened]... e way to win a public debate is to present better arguments, not to have the other guy arrested.
if a scientist willfully forges data and gets a grant/causes public panic/causes monetary loss he should be prosecuted. In some cases, he should be prosecuted even if he didn't willfully present false data.
What is the difference between a scientists who cooks his findings and an accountant who cooks his books?
Originally posted by stevemccfree speech doesn't allow you to commit slander. free speech doesn't allow you to commit perjury.
I agree with this. But maybe we're not talking about a 'debate.'
Should the tobacco executives have been prosecuted for perjury? Or is what they said legitimate free speech?
free speech ain't free.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi===in any society, presenting falsehoods as truths and profiting from this is fraud. it is and should be illegal.===
in any society, presenting falsehoods as truths and profiting from this is fraud. it is and should be illegal.
if a scientist willfully forges data and gets a grant/causes public panic/causes monetary loss he should be prosecuted. In some cases, he should be prosecuted even if he didn't willfully present false data.
What is the difference between a scientists who cooks his findings and an accountant who cooks his books?
Not in a society that values freedom of speech.
===What is the difference between a scientists who cooks his findings and an accountant who cooks his books?===
http://classroom.synonym.com/difference-between-political-speech-commercial-speech-9131.html
21 Sep 15
Originally posted by utherpendragonHahaha
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html
[b]Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming[/b]
You're quoting the Telegraph.
That's you off the opinion worth a dime pay-roll for at least a year.
Loser!
21 Sep 15
Originally posted by sh76So libel and laster are okay with you too?
===in any society, presenting falsehoods as truths and profiting from this is fraud. it is and should be illegal.===
Not in a society that values freedom of speech.
===What is the difference between a scientists who cooks his findings and an accountant who cooks his books?===
http://classroom.synonym.com/difference-between-political-speech-commercial-speech-9131.html