The weather for 2016

[shunyadragon]

jorge is wrong in his 'world domination conspiracy fears.

But he is right in that some are trying to find ways to use RICO laws in the US (and other approaches in other countries) to to quiet dissent over global warming.

This is a VERY bad idea.

You just can't legislate a scientific position, and you just can't silence contrary voices.

(1) the 1st amendment gives all of us the right to voice our disagreement with any political policy or idea.
(2) the instant you legislate which ideas are scientifically correct and which ones are not, science dies. From that moment forward, ALL science is suspect.
(3) if a scientific idea needs prosecution of dissent by the law to gain acceptance, it is not very good science to start with.

I hope most of you already understand these things. And I hope most of us will be opposed to those that want to try to force the silence of those that doubt AGW.

The only possible exception would be a conspiracy to knowingly lie and deceive the ignorant. PROVING that is the case would be exceptionally difficult, but that is no excuse for trying to bypass first amendment rights and the free expression of ideas to accomplish the goal of widespread UNDERSTANDING of the science that leads to the conclusion AGW is a reality.


Jim

I do not believe it is getting all that hard to demonstrate dishonesty in the case of global climate change as it is with evolution, and an earth and universe billions of years old. The selective use and misuse of climate data is overwhelmingly obvious. Read the following. The dishonesty is overwhelmingly blatant. This is only a partial list.

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/climate-denier-caucus-114th-congress/

as do many very credible scientists,

© Copyright Original Source

[klaus54]

How is this at the level of a crime?

[oxmixmudd]

I do not believe it is getting all that hard to demonstrate dishonesty in the case of global climate change as it is with evolution, and an earth and universe billions of years old. The selective use and misuse of climate data is overwhelmingly obvious. Read the following. The dishonesty is overwhelmingly blatant. This is only a partial list.

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/climate-denier-caucus-114th-congress/

as do many very credible scientists,

© Copyright Original Source

Ignorance about science is not a crime. Neither is disagreeing with a scientist, for whatever reason. Shunya, you can't prosecute someone for denying the Holocaust. You can't prosecute them for spreading false propaganda that says the Holocaust never happened. All of this is protected under free speach laws. It'll be a cold day in hell before I will say that anti-AGW propaganda deserves 10th mention against THAT. And if THAT is legal, then you should not be able to touch the folks that post articles that imply AGW might not be real. To even suggest limiting those kind of ideas while supporting the idea that (for example) holocaust deniers have a right to say what they do would be simple insanity.

In summary, there is so much wacknut, dangerous, and even just plain pure evil speech protected under free speech laws that I am simply floored that anyone would even suggest prosecution of AGW 'denialism' as a possible course of action ... let alone a senator or congressman!

The fact it HAS been proposed means Jorge is right to be a bit paranoid.

Jim

[shunyadragon]

How is this at the level of a crime?

I did not put this at the level of a crime. I consider it blatant dishonesty on the part of leadership in Congress.

[shunyadragon]

Ignorance about science is not a crime. Neither is disagreeing with a scientist, for whatever reason. Shunya, you can't prosecute someone for denying the Holocaust. You can't prosecute them for spreading false propaganda that says the Holocaust never happened. All of this is protected under free speech laws. It'll be a cold day in hell before I will say that anti-AGW propaganda deserves 10th mention against THAT. And if THAT is legal, then you should not be able to touch the folks that post articles that imply AGW might not be real. To even suggest limiting those kind of ideas while supporting the idea that (for example) holocaust deniers have a right to say what they do would be simple insanity.

In summary, there is so much wacknut, dangerous, and even just plain pure evil speech protected under free speech laws that I am simply floored that anyone would even suggest prosecution of AGW 'denialism' as a possible course of action ... let alone a senator or congressman!

The fact it HAS been proposed means Jorge is right to be a bit paranoid.

Jim

More pacyderms to follow

[Jorge]

jorge is wrong in his 'world domination conspiracy fears.

Jim

It is a very common trait of yours -- almost your signature -- that you call "wrong" whatever you either disagree with OR are totally clueless about. You need to learn the meaning of the word "wrong". It's not that hard a word, you know.

As for my "world domination conspiracy fears", I can only restate that you are c-l-u-e-l-e-s-s on the subject. Myself, I've been studying this area since the mid 1970's and so if you wish to turn the tables on me then you've got a snowball's chance in Hell. Of course, this isn't the place to talk of such things so ... 'nuff said.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I do not believe it is getting all that hard to demonstrate dishonesty in the case of global climate change ... The selective use and misuse of climate data is overwhelmingly obvious. Read the following. The dishonesty is overwhelmingly blatant.

Yay ... YAY !!! ... the Dragon finally got something right !!!

Congratulations, Dragon ... sincerely!

Jorge

[Jorge]

I do not consider it on the level of a crime, and Jorge paranoia does not have a basis in reality, nor is most of what Jorge believes remotely in touch with the real world.

I knew it ... I KNEW IT !!!

It was far too good to last ... Dragon is what he is.

Oh well ... spot and leopards ... stinging and scorpions ... and all similar analogies.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

More pacyderms to follow

Shuny,

The fact is many Americans are religious people. And there are a lot of irreligious people that put out the idea the science and reason render belief in God, especially Christian expressions of belief in God, foolish. The end result is there are a lot of religious people in America that simply do not trust what scientists have to say. This distrust keeps Ken ham well employed, and keeps anti-AGW sentiment alive and well.

Proposing legislation that would make anti-AGW comments illegal only SUPPORTS that distrust and feeds the fires of ignorance. And those that propose it are idiots and in fact enemies of the goal of an informed and rational public. As are people like Richard Dawkins who continue to belittle those of religious faith in the name of science.

If you want people to use reason and science fact to assess AGW, then start doing things that build trust between the religious, fiscal conservative, and scientific communities. As it is, most efforts seem aimed at silencing opposing voices with force rather than with reason.


Jim

[shunyadragon]

Shuny,

The fact is many Americans are religious people. And there are a lot of irreligious people that put out the idea the science and reason render belief in God, especially Christian expressions of belief in God, foolish. The end result is there are a lot of religious people in America that simply do not trust what scientists have to say. This distrust keeps Ken ham well employed, and keeps anti-AGW sentiment alive and well.

It is unreasonable to accuse a few vocal atheist scientists for the huge problems of religious people having and antagonists negative view of science whether evolution or climate change. Throughout the world the vast overwhelming majority of scientists, regardless of belief, the research, and publications are completely religious neutral concerning all subjects. The overwhelming problem with the believers rejecting science is their religious agenda, and not science, which they demonstrate a dishonest self imposed ignorance of basic high school level science and abundant easily read publications.

Proposing legislation that would make anti-AGW comments illegal only SUPPORTS that distrust and feeds the fires of ignorance. And those that propose it are idiots and in fact enemies of the goal of an informed and rational public. As are people like Richard Dawkins who continue to belittle those of religious faith in the name of science.

Anyone can propose in Congress, and many odd foolish proposals are made.The fact is that it will not go anywhere legislatively, and if you look at it objectively you would realize that. IT is a foolish smokescreen for the greater issue from the dishonest perspective of the paranoid rejection of science by religiously conservatives including many elected government religious conservatives. It is not a coincidence that the overwhelming rejection of global climate change is from the right religious conservatives.

If you want people to use reason and science fact to assess AGW, then start doing things that build trust between the religious, fiscal conservative, and scientific communities. As it is, most efforts seem aimed at silencing opposing voices with force rather than with reason.
Jim

As before, the problem is the opposition of the religious right dishonestly rejecting science, and not a few vocal atheists calling religion foolish. By far the majority of science research and publications are just simply science and nothing but science.

[Roy]

Oh well ... spot and leopards ... stinging and scorpions ... and all similar analogies.

Chicken castrati and clucking...

Paid that $150 yet, welcher?

[oxmixmudd]

It is a very common trait of yours -- almost your signature -- that you call "wrong" whatever you either disagree with OR are totally clueless about. You need to learn the meaning of the word "wrong". It's not that hard a word, you know.

As for my "world domination conspiracy fears", I can only restate that you are c-l-u-e-l-e-s-s on the subject. Myself, I've been studying this area since the mid 1970's and so if you wish to turn the tables on me then you've got a snowball's chance in Hell. Of course, this isn't the place to talk of such things so ... 'nuff said.

Jorge

Jorge - so have I. And the same timeframe. In all likelihood some of the same books. It's all a bunch of paranoid bunk designed to feed on basic human fears.

And you, of course, miss the part where I agree with you that those proposing the prosecution of AGW denial are idiots and give some credence to your fears. And that to do so would be a fundamental violation of 1st amendment rights.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

It is unreasonable to accuse a few vocal atheist scientists for the huge problems of religious people having and antagonists negative view of science whether evolution or climate change. Throughout the world the vast overwhelming majority of scientists, regardless of belief, the research, and publications are completely religious neutral concerning all subjects. The overwhelming problem with the believers rejecting science is their religious agenda, and not science, which they demonstrate a dishonest self imposed ignorance of basic high school level science and abundant easily read publications.

Not really. First, It's not just a few. I know of few Christians that attended college and studied the sciences that did not have an uncomfortable run-in with the inevitable PhD that suddenly saw a 15 point drop in one's IQ upon learning one was a Christian. I dealt with it in several cases, and that at schools in the 'Bible Belt'. And it's really annoying how after that little encounter what was once a decent, respectful student/professor relationship no longer is. Encounters like that fuel this thing generation to generation.

Anyone can propose in Congress, and many odd foolish proposals are made.The fact is that it will not go anywhere legislatively, and if you look at it objectively you would realize that.

I don't expect it to go anywhere. But those that proposed it are idiots - and just as much idiots as the ones you list below!

IT is a foolish smokescreen for the greater issue from the dishonest perspective of the paranoid rejection of science by religiously conservatives including many elected government religious conservatives. It is not a coincidence that the overwhelming rejection of global climate change is from the right religious conservatives.

And as long as you and others approach it that way, the problem will not ever get solved. You don't reconcile opposing point of view by both sides calling the other side stupid. Each side has to take the time to listen to the other and acknowledge the legitimate concerns held by each side. The lack of capacity to recognize any sort of legitimacy one side to the other that feeds the conflict, not to mention the fact that there are those on both sides that profit from the conflict and will do all they can to keep it alive (do you remember the conversation a few months ago and some AGW proponents where the mere fact I would even talk about the arguments used by the anti-AGW side meant I was also anti-AGW? Do you remember the hostility of that conversation?)

And although it may appear I'm blaming the irreligious side, that is an artifact of the one-sidedness of this particular thread of conversation. Both sides are terribly guilty in this in terms of preventing rational discourse. But the issue being discussed is the religious rights suspicion of science. There is a deep sense in religious circles that the scientists of the world are against what they stand for and that they must be very, very careful with what they are told by them. The Dawkins of the world only feed that.

Why would you trust a group of people whose, in appearance at least, top representatives are often people who would like to eliminate from the world the most significant element in your life?

Think about it.

The issue is not just 'ignorance'. It is a system that in many ways is hostile to their most deeply held beliefs.


Jim

[TheLurch]

[TheLurch]

As far as the original topic of this thread goes, 2016 is looking like a scorcher:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016...ling-new-high/