Bill Nye, "Science Guy," Wants Jail Time for Climate Change Denial Fraudsters

[Toppy]

Well, not that I watched the original show or ever cared much for this guy, but whatever shred of respect I might've had is gone. This kind of thinking should be beyond a reasonably intelligent, scientific mind. One he supposedly should be in possession of if he goes by the moniker "The Science Guy."

This is modern day reverse witch hunting. It doesn't paint anyone in a good light.

So, fuck off, Bill Nye.

Interesting that you'd lose respect for someone over a lack of intelligence when you didnt even read the article and thus, are being blatantly ignorant.

[TZucchini]

I can argue that the DNC's policy on poverty and minorities has objectively hurt the black community and in turn, harmed the country.

Then do it. Argue it.

In fact, write a scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal. In fact, write tens of thousands of them. Also, feel free to gather a worldwide scientific consensus on the issue.

Once you do that, you'll be on par with the climate change model, and we can start arresting people that knowingly advocate for the DNC's policy on poverty and minorities.

[Schuetze]

Crazy.

Why should people be arrested for their opinions? Let them spew all that stuff when there's evidence that it's happening. They are in the end the ones that get ridiculed and shunned.

[jbombard]

Not really. We hit that point some 40 years ago. This isn't some hotly contested hypothetical.

Agreed. There is something like a 90+% consensus among climate scientists, and generally the ones that disagree are scientists with little to no expertise in climatology.

I don't think jail time should be for scientists who actually just disagree, but I do think it is appropriate for people who accepted money to twist numbers and make misleading statements to deliberately lead people astray.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Only a rank moron denies man is negatively impacting earth. Culling them is an acceptable loss to correct mistakes before they've gone too far

So you're in favour of jailing people for wrongthink?

[Toppy]

Crazy.

Why should people be arrested for their opinions? Let them spew all that stuff when there's evidence that it's happening. They are in the end the ones that get ridiculed and shunned.

He is not saying they should be arrested for their opinion, but rather if they are found to be purposely misleading others.

We have a moderator posting in this thread, why hasnt the OP been changed?

[Endus]

Agreed. There is something like a 90+% consensus among climate scientists, and generally the ones that disagree are scientists with little to no expertise in climatology.

I don't think jail time should be for scientists who actually just disagree, but I do think it is appropriate for people who accepted money to twist numbers and make misleading statements to deliberately lead people astray.

Right, and that's all Nye was saying. The people who deliberately and fraudulently misrepresent the data and the facts should be prosecuted for said fraud. Not just people who are honestly ignorant; those who are engaged in deliberate fraud.

[Schuetze]

Agreed. There is something like a 90+% consensus among climate scientists, and generally the ones that disagree are scientists with little to no expertise in climatology.

I don't think jail time should be for scientists who actually just disagree, but I do think it is appropriate for people who accepted money to twist numbers and make misleading statements to deliberately lead people astray.

What the guy wants is a form of scientific religion. There's the "sacred" dogma and anyone going against that is punished.

You can't have that in the scientific community, since people should be able to still have different opinions and try to prove those opinions right. That's how progress happens, not by circlejerking about an issue to the point where there can be no opposite research.

[Endus]

We have a moderator posting in this thread, why hasnt the OP been changed?

Because our job is not to fact-check everything. If we think something's way over the line and deliberately meant to troll people, that's where we'd step in. If it's just wrong, we expect discussion between users to bring that out, and I'd argue that it has, here.

[Bakis]

What a moron, much like the deniers. The planet would be a better place without any of them.

[Krigaren]

His answer wasn't very clear, in all fairness. That is, he didn't take a stance himself. He merely shrugged off the issue instead of condemning the idea or supporting it. It would have been better if he just openly condemned the idea of speech suppression.

There were plenty of "offensive" or "frowned upon" scientific concepts hundreds of years ago, which are now proven to be true. The idea of restricting speech in any manner simply because you disagree with it is unjust, and in fact will stifle scientific progress.

Speech that causes direct harm to society and people is not protected speech. Oil companies, cigarette companies, lead companies, the firearm industry, they all have a vested interest in spreading misinformation which helps their bottom line, even if it results in the deaths of tens, hundreds, or thousands of people. There is no "scientific progress" to be gained by denying climate change, only regression.

It's how we end up with the "power of prayer" healing, and anti-vaxxers. People who are responsible for the kinds of misinformation that leads to the deaths of people - especially children - should be held accountable and should be punished accordingly.

So no, Bill Nye has zero obligation to take a stance one way or another. He has every right to "shrug it off" and leave his response to the interpretation of the listener, because he's sure as hell not going to be supportive of the idea that people who spread lies and misinformation should have a free pass to do so.

[Endus]

What the guy wants is a form of scientific religion. There's the "sacred" dogma and anyone going against that is punished.

You can't have that in the scientific community, since people should be able to still have different opinions and try to prove those opinions right. That's how progress happens, not by circlejerking about an issue to the point where there can be no opposite research.

This is a blatant misrepresentation of what Nye said. It has nothing to do with any dogma being "sacred". It has to do with people deliberately lying about the facts.

[Heladys]

Good, lock up those deluded souls until they find some rationality.

[Kalis]

What the guy wants is a form of scientific religion. There's the "sacred" dogma and anyone going against that is punished.

You can't have that in the scientific community, since people should be able to still have different opinions and try to prove those opinions right. That's how progress happens, not by circlejerking about an issue to the point where there can be no opposite research.

No, what he wants is people punished if they are found to have misled the public and by misleading them caused harm - similar to how we prosecute those who contaminate rivers and cover up it up with falsified science reports.

[Kallisto]

Because our job is not to fact-check everything. If we think something's way over the line and deliberately meant to troll people, that's where we'd step in. If it's just wrong, we expect discussion between users to bring that out, and I'd argue that it has, here.

Well it was all nice and true but then in the next post.

What a moron, much like the deniers. The planet would be a better place without any of them.

We have someone whose obviously just looked at the topic name and not properly fact checked.

Since it is obvious the way Bill is saying is "If you know climate change is real and deliberately use false data to fraud the public you should face trial." which for the safety of humanity needs to be done. Moreso if it is anti vaxxers.

[Schuetze]

This is a blatant misrepresentation of what Nye said. It has nothing to do with any dogma being "sacred". It has to do with people deliberately lying about the facts.

Anything can be a fact.

They have their right of saying whatever they want about this issue, they can try to reinterpret the facts the way they want, since these facts keep being changed all the time. Remember when it used to be called global warming and before that it was global cooling? I still have books from that time, where the facts were different.

That's how new facts appear, by letting people try to challenge them.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Speech that causes direct harm to society and people is not protected speech. Oil companies, cigarette companies, lead companies, the firearm industry, they all have a vested interest in spreading misinformation which helps their bottom line, even if it results in the deaths of tens, hundreds, or thousands of people. There is no "scientific progress" to be gained by denying climate change, only regression.

Going after the scientists that are paid off for their researcher seems to be a futile effort; you're basically treating the symptoms and not the illness. The problem has to do with private interests - which you mention - having as much sway as they do over the political climate and being able to pay for misleading/skewed research results. Honestly, I think we should probably go after large corporations and backers of fraudulent papers, over the researcher, if there is reason to suspect they would have impacted the research negatively (ie: paid the researcher off, threatened them, etc.).

[Toppy]

Because our job is not to fact-check everything. If we think something's way over the line and deliberately meant to troll people, that's where we'd step in. If it's just wrong, we expect discussion between users to bring that out, and I'd argue that it has, here.

Cant have much discussion when the thread itself is blatantly misleading.

[Krigaren]

Because our job is not to fact-check everything. If we think something's way over the line and deliberately meant to troll people, that's where we'd step in. If it's just wrong, we expect discussion between users to bring that out, and I'd argue that it has, here.

Wouldn't a headline that's a deliberate misrepresentation - if not an outright lie, which is proven within the post itself - be considered one that is deliberately meant to troll people?

[Heladys]

Anything can be a fact.

Only the truth can be a fact.

You are entitled to your own opinions and your own point of view. You are not entitled to your own facts.