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

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

So what you're saying is that the person telling me I didn't read a post didn't read it either?

Pretty much.

[Eliseus]

The person you quote specifically said "spreading misinformation intentionally"...they keyword being "intentionally".

When you tell someone something that you feel to be true without 100% certainty are you not opening your self up for intentionally misinforming? Or does this only apply to "normal" people.

[Ripster42]

No, but by failing to provide a simple answer he is deliberately vague instead of actually trying to promote scientific curiosity or just a bad science educator.

One of the key things educators try to do is turn questions back on the questioner. To engage the questioner. In this case, Don't you think the people at enron (who committed fraud), the tobacco companies (who committed fraud) should be in jail? In other words, don't you think people who committed fraud should be in jail?

[Eliseus]

So what you're saying is that the person telling me I didn't read a post didn't read it either?

No, I did. He is just trying to find a loop hole because he didn't like the fact that I would ever claim that a scientists would misinform.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

When pro-climate data is inaccurate, it's just acceptable variances or just new findings. But, when these evil deniers have contradicting data, we MUST INVESTIGATE!

Why don't we just burn all books with data contradictory to what the Church of Climatology is preaching? Maybe public floggings and/or executions? I mean why stop with just investigations? If someone disagrees, they must be stopped, at all costs! Dissenting ideas are of da debil!

I'm going to iterate one more time in this thread that I believe anyone that falsifies scientific data for any reason should have to answer for it.

[Ripster42]

When you tell someone something that you feel to be true without 100% certainty are you not opening your self up for intentionally misinforming? Or does this only apply to "normal" people.

As bill nye is talking about people who know things they're saying aren't true and are saying them anyway, this isn't what we're talking about. Again, exxonmobile is currently under investigation for fraud because of this.

[Eliseus]

As bill nye is talking about people who know things they're saying aren't true and are saying them anyway, this isn't what we're talking about. Again, exxonmobile is currently under investigation for fraud because of this.

I get that, and I fully agree with what was being done. I am merely trying to portray a sarcastic tone from my initial response at people who view scientific theories like Global Warming being all because of man as unequivocally true. Hence why I mentioned super seeded scientific theories.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

No, I did. He is just trying to find a loop hole because he didn't like the fact that I would ever claim that a scientists would misinform.

I'm not the one looking for a loophole, friend. You said he was clearly implying that, and these are your own words:

Whenever a scientific theory is wrong, those scientists should be jailed.

When what he was actually was saying was:

Some laws should be in place that spreading misinformation intentionally means you can be held accountable

These are very different statements.

[Ripster42]

I get that, and I fully agree with what was being done. I am merely trying to portray a sarcastic tone from my initial response at people who view scientific theories like Global Warming as unequivocally true. Hence why I mentioned super seeded scientific theories.

You're not succeeding then. You're just coming off as scientifically illiterate.

[Hyve]

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not believe in it".
- Neil DeGrasse Tyson

The problem with that, and I think Bill Nye sees this, is that far too many people in positions of power don't "believe" it, and that directly leads to a huge issue when it comes to policy and funding of scientific research. You can make smart comments about it all you want, but the reality is that Global Warming is a huge issue and if we can do something to prevent it we should.

What's the worst that happens? We stop trashing our planet and in the process create a safer, cleaner and more environmentally conscious civilisation that cares about nature? Oh, my goodness, the HORROR...

You have to be pretty fucking stupid, ignorant and potentially inside out, back to front and then some, to be opposed to measures that may help the environment*.

*Let me be clear here. Genuine measures to help the environment. Not this Carbon Credits bullshit for example.

[Garnier Fructis]

skepticalscience, lmao!!!!! Are you new to the internet and accessing real data?

All they did was regurgitate results from other, reputable, sources. Yearly emissions from volcanoes are on the order of millions of tonnes. Human emissions are on the order of billions of tonnes. They're incomparable; humanity emits way more.

[Forogil]

One of the key things educators try to do is turn questions back on the questioner. To engage the questioner. In this case, Don't you think the people at enron (who committed fraud), the tobacco companies (who committed fraud) should be in jail? In other words, don't you think people who committed fraud should be in jail?

That is good when you are one-on-one, possibly ok in front of an audience, less good if you cannot see the audience, and stupid in front of someone who don't want to be educated as this interviewer. And, as you did, you can also drive home the message by repeatedly mentioning fraud - instead of missing it and then going to "quality-of-life as public citizen".

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

When you tell someone something that you feel to be true without 100% certainty are you not opening your self up for intentionally misinforming? Or does this only apply to "normal" people.

I think you're having a problem with understanding what the term "Spreading misinformation intentionally" means.

If you 100% believe it to be true...there is nothing intentional about the misinformation you are spreading.

It's intentionally spreading misinformation when you know what you are saying is false but are claiming it is true anyway.

[Ripster42]

That is good when you are one-on-one, possibly ok in front of an audience, less good if you cannot see the audience, and stupid in front of someone who don't want to be educated as this interviewer. And, as you did, you can also drive home the message by repeatedly mentioning fraud - instead of missing it and then going to "quality-of-life as public citizen".

He talks about people committing fraud. Then talks about the impacts that fraud is having and is going to have. What's the issue?

[Eliseus]

I'm not the one looking for a loophole, friend. You said he was clearly implying that, and these are your own words:



When what he was actually was saying was:



These are very different statements.

How is that, so a scientist spreading misinformation intentionally can fall back on the claims like "being wrong is a strength" etc.... But a mere mortal should be held accountable?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

How is that, so a scientist spreading misinformation intentionally can fall back on the claims like "being wrong is a strength" etc.... But a mere mortal should be held accountable?

Because there's a difference between "being wrong" and "lying"

Spreading misinformation intentionally means "lying"

[Eliseus]

I think you're having a problem with understanding what the term "Spreading misinformation intentionally" means.

If you 100% believe it to be true...there is nothing intentional about the misinformation you are spreading.

It's intentionally spreading misinformation when you know what you are saying is false but are claiming it is true anyway.

This makes no sense than why this thread was created to begin with. All anyone has to claim is they 100% believe.

[Ripster42]

How is that, so a scientist spreading misinformation intentionally can fall back on the claims like "being wrong is a strength" etc.... But a mere mortal should be held accountable?

In this case he's talking about conducting studies, getting the result that yes, AGCC is happening, and then funding lobbyists who say it's not happening. That's literally what exxon is under investigation for.

[Eliseus]

In this case he's talking about conducting studies, getting the result that yes, AGCC is happening, and then funding lobbyists who say it's not happening. That's literally what exxon is under investigation for.

Not true, they 100% believe this to be misinformation.

[Ripster42]

This makes no sense than why this thread was created to begin with. All anyone has to claim is they 100% believe.

Unless there are internal memos that discuss it. Like some that have been leaked and started the whole investigation.