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

[madethisfor1post]

ITT: People who didn't read the quote or watch the video to get context and are lambasting Nye over the OP's blatant misrepresentation.

[Torgent]

people should be jailed for their beliefs.

Get rekt son

- - - Updated - - -

gotcha
/10

Damnit, you beat me. I should continue reading before I try to be clever.

[TZucchini]

Shush, go find another article behind a $32 paywall you obviously didn't read and found via a quick google search. Let the adults who have college degrees and high paying jobs participate.

Show me on the doll where the climatologist touched you....



- - - Updated - - -

gotcha
/10

lol. son of a.

[GennGreymane]

lol. son of a.

*does a jig*

[Ripster42]

Shush, go find another article behind a $32 paywall you obviously didn't read and found via a quick google search. Let the adults who have college degrees and high paying jobs participate.

You do realize most scientific journals require a subscription. And that as a student or professor you usually get free or reduced prices on them. If you've got a high paying job, $32 isn't worth much. It's worth less than the amount of time you've spent being obtuse in this thread.

[Acidbaron]

Shush, go find another article behind a $32 paywall you obviously didn't read and found via a quick google search. Let the adults who have college degrees and high paying jobs participate.

Don't think you can claim to be educated if you still have doubts about what climate change is, what it does and how it's caused in this day and age

[Krigaren]

Did Nye say that, no. Have members of this forum (Pre 9-11 being an example) said so, yes.

I'm not going to re-read all of the posts in this thread in order to prove you wrong. The burden of proof lies squarely on your shoulders to back up that claim.

However I will quote the only post by PRE 9-11 in this thread that conclusively says anything about his opinion that people should be jailed.

If certain individuals are knowingly propagating false information, which is in turn harming society, then yes, they should be jailed.

Emphasis mine.

It's pretty clear what his opinion is on who should be jailed and why, and contrary to your claim, it has nothing to do with a person's "beliefs".

[Stormspellz]

Eh no? Do we live in the Middle Ages?

I don't care if they are right or wrong, hasn't history taught us about no jailing people just because you think they are dumb or factually wrong. Doesn't really matter who is right or wrong. The whole "jail the naysayers" works (emphasized because its a horrible practice) until its used (which always happens) to jail people who simply don't agree with you.

War crimes? Is Nye insane? Does he need money or something?

they key word in this situation is fraud.

[Yarathir]

If certain individuals are knowingly propagating false information, which is in turn harming society, then yes, they should be jailed.

The First Amendment does not protect dangerous or harmful speech. So I see no issue.

I agree with this as well. Sorry, but knowingly propagating harmful false information and lulling people into a false sense security by buying some corrupt scientist to spread their is pretty damn horrible.

[Thimagryn]

Its not the right thats the threat for mass genocide, its the left. Before you start I was an anti-Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr and anti-war Democrat too.

How did this suddenly get to genocide discussion?

[wheresmywoft]

It seems that out of everyone that has posted, only a handful of people have actually read the article and what Bill Nye actually said.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

The reason isn't that they were wrong. The reason is that they were knowingly spreading false information. Are you unable to understand the difference between those two scenarios?

[Gheld]

Such a measure would only empower and solidify "Denial Fraudsters" and their followers. Just as similar measures have solidified Holocaust deniers and antisemitism.

For everyone else there is the peer review process.

EDIT: Oh and growing the fuck up and understanding that even though not every debate ends with anybody necessarily changing their minds about anything it is important for those debates to happen none the less. Especially if one side appears to be talking out their ass. That's important too.

[wheresmywoft]

Yes, I totally believe that it's okay to use false data.

Once they get found out, that's where the punishment begins. Every scientist that lies about stuff in their research, suffers the consequences of their stupidity. They are shunned from the scientific community, lose jobs, lose credibility and basically cannot even research anything else without being laughed at.

This has happened countless times already.

Now supporting that these people should be in jail is delusion. Since it would create a very dangerous precedent.

So the consequences of having intentionally caused harm should be ignored? You'll need to change the legal system if you truly believe that.

[Stone the Crow]

Saying he wants Climate change deniers to serve jail time is twisting his words considerably.

What he's saying is that people are looking into things to see if any crimes have been committed by the deniers (vis a vis falsifying data) ...and he is okay with that.

He is not saying "Throw all the Climate change deniers behind bars"

I'm completely okay with that as well. Anyone who is deliberately falsifying data on something this important should very much be punished, as what they're doing is potentially harming everyone on the planet. Doubly so since the only people who stand to gain from lying about it are those trying to save money, which makes it downright criminal. It's just a shame that even if that did come about, it would only be the sleazy scientists who were punished rather than the fat cats who bribed/intimidated them into doing so.

[Dsc]

I would support this in extreme cases, you can already be fined/imprisoned for intentionally doing major harm to the environment (I.E releasing lots of refrigerant gas, pouring chemicals into rivers) so I don't see why deliberately spreading misinformation with the knowledge it will likely cause harm to the environment shouldn't be punishable

This right here is an example of why people are anxiously awaiting collapse.

To drag litte worm Marxists into the street and shoot them in the face. To rid the US of the same types that brought about Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and Hitler.


Im not saying that I agree but this type of mindset grows the scary reaction.
.

[Gheld]

I'm completely okay with that as well. Anyone who is deliberately falsifying data on something this important should very much be punished, as what they're doing is potentially harming everyone on the planet. Doubly so since the only people who stand to gain from lying about it are those trying to save money, which makes it downright criminal. It's just a shame that even if that did come about, it would only be the sleazy scientists who were punished rather than the fat cats who bribed/intimidated them into doing so.

This is nothing that a modernized and publicly administered peer review process couldn't fix.

[wheresmywoft]

Such a measure would only empower and solidify "Denial Fraudsters" and their followers. Just as similar measures have solidified Holocaust deniers and antisemitism.

For everyone else there is the peer review process.

EDIT: Oh and growing the fuck up and understanding that even though not every debate ends with anybody necessarily changing their minds about anything it is important for those debates to happen none the less. Especially if one side appears to be talking out their ass. That's important too.

The thing is, these individuals value the payout rather than science, therefore the peer review process really doesn't matter to them.

The current holdout against climate change and vaccinations are a prime example where peer review process would not stop certain portions of the populace from believing false information.

[Forogil]

That is out of context, he is comparing it to those from the cigarette industry who deliberately lied and said smoking was safe when they knew it was not and asking if they should have been jailed when it was found out they had been lying.

Not entirely correct - he also suggested that people using "extreme doubt" should be jailed, because are they reducing the quality of life of public citizens. That suggests that the discomfort of hearing troubling things (like "we are destroying the environment") is in itself punishable.

It might be that he meant that the climate deniers (similarly as part tobacco lobby) should be jailed for (knowingly) spreading lies - but he didn't make that clear. If he meant that they should be charged because of the environmental effects indirectly caused by climate deniers he wouldn't have to state that he is a public citizen - because actual damage is a crime even if the victim isn't a citizen.

When I hear the words "extreme doubt" I don't think of climate-deniers, but of philosophers - like Cartesius and Socrates, and allegedly the latter caused discomfort among the public citizens by spreading doubt about the knowledge of others and was executed for that.

[Gheld]

The thing is, these individuals value the payout rather than science, therefore the peer review process really doesn't matter to them.

The current holdout against climate change and vaccinations are a prime example where peer review process would not stop certain portions of the populace from believing false information.

Because the peer review process is garbage. Anybody with an internet connection and a few hundred dollars to spare can create a certified online science journal and have their papers published.

I don't believe anything.
I don't believe in vaccination, or non vaccination.
I think climate change is neither real nor not real.
Because there's nothing to go on. It's all broken. It's all fucking broken. I have to pour through all kinds of boring papers and rely on my paltry high 130s IQ to be my guiding light if I want to believe anything.

The whole money in science argument is logically bunk and morally hollow though. There's money on the public end of science too. So if an oil company funds a research project that turns out in their favor it's no different morally than a scientist accepting a public grant to do research on combating climate change.

Again, it doesn't matter who the fuck funds a research project if there is an unbiased and unified world wide peer review process for it to undergo.

Here's a sample system that would work:

Paper submitted to international body for review. It is tagged based on relevant scientific discipline.
Professors in those disciplines must review X number of papers every year to keep credentials.
Paper receives up to 5 stars for getting thumbs up. (Dependent upon ratio of thumbs up)

Thus every scientific paper is rated out of 5.

So there you go. You have a big debate. "I have a 2 star paper that says This." "Oh yeah, well here's 3 five star papers that say otherwise".
Boom. You can add that up and quantify who has the best argument without even needing to listen to scientific crapola you don't understand.

[wheresmywoft]

Because the peer review process is garbage. Anybody with an internet connection and a few hundred dollars to spare can create a certified online science journal and have their papers published.

I don't believe anything.
I don't believe in vaccination, or non vaccination.
I think climate change is neither real nor not real.
Because there's nothing to go on. It's all broken. It's all fucking broken. I have to pour through all kinds of boring papers and rely on my paltry high 130s IQ to be my guiding light if I want to believe anything.

The whole money in science argument is logically bunk and morally hollow though. There's money on the public end of science too. So if an oil company funds a research project that turns out in their favor it's no different morally than a scientist accepting a public grant to do research on combating climate change.

Again, it doesn't matter who the fuck funds a research project if there is an unbiased and unified world wide peer review process for it to undergo.

Here's a sample system that would work:

Paper submitted to international body for review. It is tagged based on relevant scientific discipline.
Professors in those disciplines must review X number of papers every year to keep credentials.
Paper receives up to 5 stars for getting thumbs up. (Dependent upon ratio of thumbs up)

Thus every scientific paper is rated out of 5.

So there you go. You have a big debate. "I have a 2 star paper that says This." "Oh yeah, well here's 3 five star papers that say otherwise".
Boom. You can add that up and quantify who has the best argument without even needing to listen to scientific crapola you don't understand.

Are you serious in thinking that a published paper is a peer reviewed paper?

And no the pay outs that we've seen for these types of misinformation is in no way equivalent to a standard research grant...