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

[Magical Mudcrab]

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

It's OK to challenge the validity of their claims. It's not OK to lie, misrepresent data, etc., in your research papers.

[Vyxn]

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.

and that consensus has been debunked after the findings was reviewed and published in a peer reviewed publication that John Cook the one that made that bogus claim was misrepresenting many scientist work

[TZucchini]

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

How are you not understanding this?

Knowingly and deliberating propagating misinformation that harms society IS DIFFERENT FROM trying to legitimately challenge scientific theories.

[Kalis]

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.

If you knowingly present false data and that is proven to cause harm why would you not be prosecuted for your actions?

Arguing they have a right to say what they want is a defence that you can never be prosecuted for deliberately misleading people, so if I sell you rat poison and claim it will cure a common cold, then I am off the hook when someone dies frm taking my "cold cure".

[Schuetze]

How are you not understanding this?

Knowingly and deliberating propagating misinformation that harms society IS DIFFERENT FROM trying to legitimately challenge scientific theories.

I don't see anything about that on that article.

[Fang7986]

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

except it doesn't negatively impact earth it impacts man

[Kalis]

I don't see anything about that on that article.

The actual video is in post #13, the article is misleading as it misses out some of the important parts.

[Endus]

I've tweaked the title slightly; can we keep things on-topic, folks?

Anything can be a fact.

That isn't how reality works, no.

and that consensus has been debunked after the findings was reviewed and published in a peer reviewed publication that John Cook the one that made that bogus claim was misrepresenting many scientist work

John Cook isn't the guy who came up with the consensus, and his paper on it was never "debunked". This has been demonstrated to you multiple times. Refusing to admit the truth isn't an argument. You are not the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, Vyxn. Refusing to see something doesn't make it not exist.

[TZucchini]

I don't see anything about that on that article.

Probably because of the source. It's already been pointed out that it's a blatant misrepresentation of what Nye said.

[Fang7986]

If you knowingly present false data and that is proven to cause harm why would you not be prosecuted for your actions?

Arguing they have a right to say what they want is a defence that you can never be prosecuted for deliberately misleading people, so if I sell you rat poison and claim it will cure a common cold, then I am off the hook when someone dies frm taking my "cold cure".

the problem is science isn't exact. This is about as far up there as the seismologists who were arrested and convicted of manslaughter because they didn't predict an earthquake

[Krigaren]

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.).

Oh, I completely agree that the real targets should be the private interests who pay "experts" in order to push a false agenda.

However, just as with journalism, there should be ethics reviews and a standard of integrity that is punishable by - at the least - fines, if not outright jail time, dependent on the scope of damage their lies or misinformation has caused. The problem with peer sanctions is that these paid-off scientists no longer need the support of the scientific community if they're making millions of dollars from private interests, and in reality, any form of monetary punishment can be easily mitigated as a "cost of business" by the industries they're paid to represent.

So really, the only answer we immediately have is to persecute these people as criminals, and take away their freedoms. Just like with the banking industry, if these people came to realize that there was an actual punishment that affects them and doesn't involve paying a fine, there might be significantly far less malfeasance or willingness to commit fraud if their own personal liberties were put in jeopardy.

[nextormento]

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

Then you can contest their lack of understanding.
These forums are not a tool to bring about the truth and police the lies. It's rather an open arena where furious keyboard smashing is encouraged. The non properly fact-checked posts are a service to that end.

[Schuetze]

The actual video is in post #13, the article is misleading as it misses out some of the important parts.

Even so, this is playing with fire.

I prefer to have people lie about this than to create a precedent where politics will influence science to the point where only the dogma is allowed to be researched. If 99% say it's happening and 1% lie about it, I pretty much doubt that they will be taken seriously.

I don't see how people can be in favor of jailing people for this reason. If they lie, they should lose their credibility, university degree or whatever happens to scientists that lie in their papers (it has happened many times and they suffered the consequences).

Now putting people in prison is madness and delusion.

[Orbitus]

and that consensus has been debunked after the findings was reviewed and published in a peer reviewed publication that John Cook the one that made that bogus claim was misrepresenting many scientist work

No they haven't. We already showed you this in your OWN FUCKING THREAD. But you are too scientifically illiterate to understand science.

[Schuetze]

Probably because of the source. It's already been pointed out that it's a blatant misrepresentation of what Nye said.

What he said is as delusional as the article.

You can't possibly be in favor of jailing people that lie in their papers, there are other ways that are already used to punish these scientists.

Remember those Hungarian or Bulgarian twins that also lied about their research? Were they put in jail? Nope, but they were punished to the point of not being able to join the scientific community anymore.

[Kalis]

the problem is science isn't exact. This is about as far up there as the seismologists who were arrested and convicted of manslaughter because they didn't predict an earthquake

Not really, they did not deliberately present false data in order to profit.

[Schuetze]

Not really, they did not deliberately present false data in order to profit.

So what? Let them present false data, be debunked and shunned by the scientific community. This already happens all the time, no need to put people in jail for this since it would be easily abused.

[Acidbaron]

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.

No, not anything can be a fact. You can't go "1+1=3, and it's a fact because i say so and i'm going to keep repeating it till enough people buy it!"

People are free to believe and say what they want, however when you intentionally mislead people for a paycheck and do so on such a large scale using media of all forms, you should be held accountable.

Yes it used to be called global warming Greenpeace made a big deal out of it decades ago and since then we found out the earth is warming up, there is a natural cycle of cooling and warming, the additional gasses we produce do have long term effect on this natural cycle in a negative way. So the theory was actually constantly build on, those that question it are people like Patrick Moore, people who used to be Green peace till he noticed Big oil pays better.

You're essentially saying it's okay to use false data to challenge something.The problem is not that these people want to question it, they go one step further they are so convinced that humanity and it's industries have no effect on it what so ever. That doesn't seem a very "scientific" stance to take.

[The Plague]

Very disheartening when I read it at first.

Conflicting views.

[Dsc]

Additionally, the guy's got a BS in Engineering; why does everyone act like he's God's gift to science?

He's not a scientist.

But he champions the Leftist/globalist cause on control and taxes.

He parrots bullshit so he's OK.