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

[Paranoid Android]

I would go more for a "re-education" camp.

[Endus]

What exactly is your point, here? Has John Cook ever said that he was a scientist? Has John Cook ever published findings that he claims to be scientific research in the field of climate change?

No. He's exactly what you said: A blogger. A blogger who, like the rest of us, has eyes and the capacity to read the english language. He created his blog and aggregated abstracts and scientific papers, and published findings on how many of them agree or disagree with global warming. That's it. That's all he's done. You could do that - and in fact, you have started to in this very thread. Congratulations.

However, he's never claimed to be scientist. You're just throwing that out there in an attempt to discredit him.

There's a simple reason why Vyxn et al are so focused on Cook; he runs Skeptical Science, a website that covers the various tropes and errors repeated by deniers, with solid links to the science wherever possible.

The whole thing is an attempt to attack his character, in an attempt to ad hominem everything on his website by extension, despite such an attack being dishonest and irrational to begin with.

[Damajin]

You're not helping yourself with fighting this straw man over and over.

What was proposed was not prosecution because someone holds a different view. No matter how many times you repeat it, it will not be true.

Right, it's for 'fraud' sure sure. You didn't bother addressing that part of the question, so I'll just go off the idea that you don't have an answer to that.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Fraud of who exactly and under what premises and terms?

That would be determined in the course of the criminal investigation. You do understand what criminal investigation means right?

[Wyrt]

"We'll see what happens" isn't a condemnation. It's acquiescence.

In response to criminal investigations on people committing fraud. He never said people should be jailed for denying climate change.

[Damajin]

That would be determined in the course of the criminal investigation. You do understand what criminal investigation means right?

No, you have to have an idea of who has been defrauded BEFORE you start any investigation, otherwise it's nothing more than a witch hunt. You do know what witch hunt means right? If you can't answer the question of who exactly and under what premises and terms just say so.

[Forogil]

He also doesn't state anything about sending any climate change deniers to jail. All he talks about is that people want criminal investigations to be done. If there is no fraud, there is no jail time.

It's not that simple. He states that they should be punished because of a decrease of his quality of life; which covers a lot more than fraud. E.g. smoking is bad for the health; that's why we punish the tobacco companies - I also dislike the smell and find that it decreases my quality of life; but we shouldn't put them behind bars for that.

The start of the discussion is RFK Jr who wished there were additional laws against climate change deniers - and even sceptics:
https://youtu.be/41yJTxrPFhM

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

No, you have to have an idea of who has been defrauded BEFORE you start any investigation, otherwise it's nothing more than a witch hunt. You do know what witch hunt means right? If you can't answer the question of who exactly and under what premises and terms just say so.

Lets say it this way:

An accusation is made that someone deliberately falsified data to support an Anti-Climate change position. An investigation is launched. If no evidence is found...then no charges will be laid. However, if evidence is found...charges are pressed, a trial is held and if the defendant is found guilty...he will then be sentenced.

Does any of this confuse you?

[Sir Andy]

Let's just throw everyone in jail. Equality!

[wheresmywoft]

Right, it's for 'fraud' sure sure. You didn't bother addressing that part of the question, so I'll just go off the idea that you don't have an answer to that.

Uh, that is your straw man. He is calling for investigation. You know, the action that can determine whether or not it was fraud.

Jeez this is sad.

[Vyxn]

Peer-reviewed and published by Environmental Research Letters, a peer-reviewed journal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviro...search_Letters
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...9DB62EA7446.c3

So you really didn't even know who published the article you're taking issue with? You're really not helping your case, here.



This is a conspiracy-theorist nut climate denier blog, not a valid source for anything. You'd have more luck citing the Ancient Aliens dude as "proof" that aliens are real.



John Cook isn't a "blogger", and he's never claimed to be a scientist. And it's a pretty ridiculous argument to take when you insist on citing bloggers yourself.

Popular Technology.net is an impartial, highly cited website referenced by over 300 independent sources throughout more than 25 countries in books and scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major and regional news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, political institutions, on radio and by the technology community. The following is a sample of these references, which does not include the tens of thousands of ones made in comments on blogs, forums, news articles and social media throughout the Internet.



"Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook's asserted 97 percent." - James Taylor, Forbes


"Popular Technology.net features scientists ...who deny that their scientific papers affirm the man-made global warming hypothesis." - Dennis Prager, Jewish Journal


"Back in the 1970s, the media often promoted the idea that the globe would be freezing over, reports Popular Technology," - Sandy Fitzgerald, Newsmax


International coverage includes: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Puerto Rico, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay.

here is just the journals that used them

Journal Coverage:

Earth-Science Reviews - Anthropogenic CO2 warming challenged by 60-year cycle (April 2016) [Archive]
Earth System Dynamics - Comment on "'Agnotology: learning from mistakes' by R. E. Benestad, H. O. Hygen, R. van Dorland, J. Cook, and D. Nuccitelli" (July 2013) - (PDF) [Archive]
Energy & Environment - Fuel for Thought (July 2011) - [Archive]
Energy & Environment - On the Public's Perception of Global Warming: Not as 'Dumb' as Some Believe (July 2012) - [Archive]
Energy & Environment - Science Debates Must Continue (December 2012) - [Archive]
Energy & Environment - Fuel for Thought 24/5 Mid-April to Mid-June 2013 (September 2013) - [Archive]
Energy & Environment - Modern Environmentalism: A Longer Term Threat to Western Civilization (October 2013) - (PDF) [Archive]
Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (October 2014) - (PDF) [Archive]
International Journal of Modern Physics B - Tiny warming of residual anthropogenic CO2 (May 2014) - [Archive]
La Météorologie - Commentaire sur « Lu pour vous : L'Innocence du carbone » (August 2014) - (PDF) [Archive]
The Independent Review - Causes and Consequences of the Climate Science Boom (Fall 2015) - (PDF) [Archive]

Trade Journals:

Australian Nursing Journal - Climate change: evidence or opinion (February 2012) - [Archive]

E-print Journals:

The General Science Journal - Archibald Roy, the astronomers and the global warming (August, 2014) - [Archive]

Technical Reports:

Austrian Institute of Technology (Austria) - Publication Bias: Identification of the Internet Community (February 2013) - [Archive]
Maastricht School of Management (Netherlands) - How to Deal With the Dilemma of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the Natural Variability as Drivers for Climate Change (November 2011) - [Archive]
SINTEF (Norway) - Consensus and Controversy: The Debate on Man-Made Global Warming (April 2013) - [Archive]

Theses:

North Carolina State University - Climate of Doubt in North Carolina: Sea Level Rise, Economic Interests, and the Media (March 16, 2015) - [Archive]
http://www.populartechnology.net/201...nologynet.html

just like everything that proves you wrong you go to your default mode "it is a conspiracy"

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

It's not that simple. He states that they should be punished because of a decrease of his quality of life; which covers a lot more than fraud. E.g. smoking is bad for the health; that's why we punish the tobacco companies - I also dislike the smell and find that it decreases my quality of life; but we shouldn't put them behind bars for that.

The start of the discussion is RFK Jr who wished there were additional laws against climate change deniers - and even sceptics:
https://youtu.be/41yJTxrPFhM

That video is a statement someone else made...not Bill Nye. If you take what Nye says in actual context...you can see he's talking about people that knowingly lied about climate change...not simply people that disbelieve in it.

[Rhaide]

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

I kinda feel the same way about people with furry avatars.

[Talsar]

Punishing people for disagreeing with a consensus is wrong of course. However if it can be proved that they intentionally spread false information on behalf of Oil companies to cast doubt on global warming for commercial purposes then they should absolutely be punished.

[Endus]

here is just the journals that used them

just like everything that proves you wrong you go to your default mode "it is a conspiracy"

None of that's an argument that they aren't kooks. Every single argument you've tried to accuse Cook of is actually true of the guys behind that site. They aren't scientists; they're bloggers. Unlike Cook, they have no expertise in climate change science at all. Hell, they won't even post their full names. You're citing an article they wrote about themselves.

The only people citing them are other deniers, or people reporting on controversy, manufactured or not.

[Garnier Fructis]

Vyxn, you're citing Popular Technology's own description to prove that Popular Technology is legitimate.

I'm a respected, celebrated figure in 5 advanced fields of study. Why should you believe me? Because I say so. And because I can find 3 people/organizations of questionable integrity to support my claim. <-- They did this, and you fucking fell for it.

[Vyxn]

There's a simple reason why Vyxn et al are so focused on Cook; he runs Skeptical Science, a website that covers the various tropes and errors repeated by deniers, with solid links to the science wherever possible.

The whole thing is an attempt to attack his character, in an attempt to ad hominem everything on his website by extension, despite such an attack being dishonest and irrational to begin with.

has nothing to do with his character he could be a nice guy what the hell do I know
what it shows is he has and probably still does use sloppy, discredited, misrepresentations to come to many of his conclusions
he and his site so no credibility and anyone that still wants to continue with the repeating of the debunked 97% consensus claim is doing nothing but repeating a fraud, debunked junk science

[Forogil]

That video is a statement someone else made...not Bill Nye. If you take what Nye says in actual context...you can see he's talking about people that knowingly lied about climate change...not simply people that disbelieve in it.

Just to be clear: In the RFK Jr video the reporter also asks about sceptics - and is cut off; deniers and sceptics are all the same to RFK Jr; and he wished they were all tried as war criminals in Hague. (ehmm... war????)

That video is the actual context for the Bill Nye video, since the reporter explicitly asks about Nye's view on statements such as these by RFK Jr (don't know if exactly this video or a similar one).

So, clear your preconceptions and look through these videos in order:
https://youtu.be/41yJTxrPFhM
https://youtu.be/xlk4Lt__Sn0

[Krigaren]

has nothing to do with his character

what it shows is he has and probably still does use sloppy, discredited, misrepresentations to come to many of his conclusions

he and his site so no credibility

Nope, not attempting to attack his character with ad hominem at all.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The reporter also asks about sceptics - and is cut off; deniers and sceptics are all the same to RFK Jr; and he wished they were all tried as war criminals in Hague. (ehmm... war????)

And what you are missing is that Bill Nye is commenting on statements such as these by RFK Jr (don't know if exactly this video or a similar one).

So, clear your preconceptions and look through these videos in order:
https://youtu.be/41yJTxrPFhM
https://youtu.be/xlk4Lt__Sn0

He's commenting on the statements yes...but he never says "Send them all to jail"

What he says is "I understand why people want criminal investigations"

Criminal Investigations ≠ Send them all to jail.

In order for people to be sent to jail they would have to first be convicted of a crime. If no crime has been committed...there is no jail.

Now...how do we determine if a crime has been committed? Well...that answer is simple...We conduct a criminal investigation.