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

[Garnier Fructis]

So you admit you are illiterate and jump to unfounded conclusions?


Sure you did just like you read the two sentence paragraph introducing the article. What a joke.

I admit I misread. Because I'm not afraid to admit I was wrong. Now can you please stop gloating over my good faith and answer my actual comment?

[TheAbomb]

Jailing someone for their beliefs is the dumbest thing ever. If someone doesn't buy the theory of man made climate change I find that perfectly fine.

[Ishayu]

So you want to allow companies to tell you that climate change isn't happening, while it is happening? And that they have known it has been happening for 40 years? Yet they continue to line the pockets of scientists and politicians that will lie for them? You buy that bullshit?

No, you're quoting me out of context.

What worries me is that people think it is fair and just to lock people up because they disagree with a majority of scientists. In other words, people think scientists should be arbiters of free speech.

- - - Updated - - -

That's the point, though. We're not putting society at any risk when we act a bit smarter. Germany is about to shut down nuclear energy production. They've boosted renewable energy sources for over a decade by now. It's possible if you just do it. But if you waste your energy blasting against a vast majority of scientists arguing for climate change only to sell your "So, climate change is bullshit, and that's why I'm going to ignore the environment and endorse the oil industry, because those guys really have a lot of oil to burn!" you're an idiot.

Not you you. But them you. You know what I mean.

Look, I'm all for sustainability - but I am for sustainability on the merit of sustainability itself.

Why is it smart to use less power in a mobile device, for instance? Because you sustain the battery longer.
Why is it smart to optimize energy usage of an industrial process? Because you use less energy and therefore get lower bills, making your business more profitable.

And so on and so forth.

I frankly don't think we should take the current climate science seriously at all because it is bad science; but that doesn't mean we should be deliberately wasteful! Optimize where you can; it's good business sense in general. Recycling, likewise, is a good investment for companies to make as well.

Believe you me, if it is economically sound for a company to preserve the environment, then it will. No political motivators required.

[Slant]

No, you're quoting me out of context.

What worries me is that people think it is fair and just to lock people up because they disagree with a majority of scientists. In other words, people think scientists should be arbiters of free speech.

- - - Updated - - -

Look, I'm all for sustainability - but I am for sustainability on the merit of sustainability itself.

Why is it smart to use less power in a mobile device, for instance? Because you sustain the battery longer.
Why is it smart to optimize energy usage of an industrial process? Because you use less energy and therefore get lower bills, making your business more profitable.

And so on and so forth.

I frankly don't think we should take the current climate science seriously at all because it is bad science; but that doesn't mean we should be deliberately wasteful! Optimize where you can; it's good business sense in general. Recycling, likewise, is a good investment for companies to make as well.

Believe you me, if it is economically sound for a company to preserve the environment, then it will. No political motivators required.

Bad science? No matter, as long as you are on board it doesn't matter that you, some random forum poster, have deemed what PhDs and actual scientists do as "bad science". Sheesh...

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Jailing someone for their beliefs is the dumbest thing ever. If someone doesn't buy the theory of man made climate change I find that perfectly fine.

As has been stated several dozen times in this thread already...Bill Nye never said anything about jailing anyone for their beliefs.

[Ishayu]

Bad science? No matter, as long as you are on board it doesn't matter that you, some random forum poster, have deemed what PhDs and actual scientists do as "bad science". Sheesh...

I have a PhD myself, as I wrote in an earlier post.

PhD's do lots and lots of bad science. They also do lots and lots of good science, though. It's just rare that a lot of bad science congregates and rolls into a snowball like it has here, but it can happen; particularly in politically motivated and social sciences.

Climate science is politically motivated in its current form. When we were just trying to predict the weather or the seasons for convenience, then that wasn't the case, but now it very much is. The funding of the climate research institutions depend on the political will, which is why they have a very real motivation to push as far as they reasonably can towards making the situation sound dire and in need of more funding and societal changes.

This isn't really surprising. A mathematical institution will also argue at length why mathematics are valid, critical and useful. Of course, that cannot be in doubt at all. It's a field as old as humanity itself and it has repeatedly proven consistent and useful. For climate change science? Not so much the case there.

If you want a VERY obvious example of how bad political science can get, look at gender studies. I'm not saying climate science is anywhere near that bad, but it's pretty bad. I mean for fucks sake, Marxism is a science (apparently).

But hey, if you're going to dismiss my opinion based on what you perceive me to be rather than what I say, then I guess our conversation is up. I cba to deal with people that close-minded.

[Slant]

Climate change science? Last I checked, there wasn't even such a field. But go ahead, pretend there is one...

[Themessiah]

What worries me is that people think it is fair and just to lock people up because they disagree with a majority of scientists. In other words, people think scientists should be arbiters of free speech.

This is indeed the primary issue with the proposal under discussion. As for whether or not there is reason against accepting climate change, or man-made climate change, there's more to consider than the evidence concerning climate change. For instance, there are issues concerning how much trust or faith should be placed in scientific inquiry, and current scientific opinion. Below is a quote from a thread on evolution, posted a few months ago. It strikes me as relevant.

There's a few interesting and related points that some may wish to bear in mind when considering what to believe. One point is that very few people have the time, energy and resources to devote to intellectual inquiry. People have children, jobs, hobbies and many other things to spend those resources on. Frequently people will defer to those they believe to have some kind or degree of intellectual authority. That could be a lecturer, someone they know who is particularly well read, or indeed a public intellectual. People may also believe something for non-intellectual reasons as well; they may just have a practical reason to believe something. Such practical reasons could be that their life is just easier when they believe Q. For instance, by having confidence that I am going to pass an exam, I may actually perform better in the exam, even when that confidence isn't intellectually well founded.

This is important because while those ‘of faith’ are often criticised, deference to those with some kind of intellectual authority can often be described as an act of faith. I have faith, for instance, that the people employed to study certain phenomenon are reliable, honest, accurate, practically objective, and so on and so forth. I have neither the time, patience, nor inclination to go and study certain biological phenomena myself. As such, I take it on faith, for both practical (I cba) and intellectual reasons that those scientists and researchers do well what they are supposed to do.

A second point certainly worth mentioning is that researchers from all over the world and certainly throughout history have routinely been incorrect. Historically, the vast majority of positions found in science, philosophy, and research more generally have been incorrect. Many have advanced the thinking of mankind, have been useful, and have moved humanity closer to the truth, across disciplines. However, even the most rudimentary trend analysis indicates that any given new position believed by scientists or researchers right now is likely to be false. Not guaranteed, but likely to be false.

To tie this back in to the first two paragraphs, the history of science and research can be aptly described as a history of error. The act of deference to experts is little more in many cases than an act of faith. I do not know whether any particular version of the theory of evolution is correct, but what I do know is that there is some sense in being reluctant to defer to experts, placing faith the people, methods and processes which, historically, have led to falsehoods.

[Vynny]

There are a lot of cuts in that excerpt and no clarification on what he means is worth investigation. The examples he brings up are about cases of fraud, so it's likely that he means that he would support investigations into institutions and public figures denying climate change for the sake of their own personal gain or profit, or if you didn't learn anything from "The Center for Medical Progress" doctoring and cutting the planned parenthood footage in order to misrepresent them then you can believe that Bill Nye wants to jail people for thought crimes, your pick really.

[wheresmywoft]

Fair enough, I didn't actually check the video because I don't like Bill Nye in the first place, but whether he says this or not doesn't really matter very much to me. The fact that anyone, including many in this comments section, think that statement is right is what worries me.

If there's one kind of thing I can't tolerate, it's intolerance towards free discourse. ;p

But that's just it, if you followed the discussions that has happened so far. People are not supporting the clickbait argument. But for what Bill actually said. If you didn't watch the video, you are still fighting the clickbait and not reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Round of applause for Garnier and Endus for thoroughly destroying Vyxn's buddy

It's probably just Vyxn.

- - - Updated - - -

This is indeed the primary issue with the proposal under discussion. As for whether or not there is reason against accepting climate change, or man-made climate change, there's more to consider than the evidence concerning climate change. For instance, there are issues concerning how much trust or faith should be placed in scientific inquiry, and current scientific opinion. Below is a quote from a thread on evolution, posted a few months ago. It strikes me as relevant.

Not sure why you need to confound scientific process with faith. Your complaints from the thread on evolution itself is self correcting through scientific inquiry.

[Forogil]

There are a lot of cuts in that excerpt and no clarification on what he means is worth investigation. The examples he brings up are about cases of fraud, so it's likely that he means that he would support investigations into institutions and public figures denying climate change for the sake of their own personal gain or profit, or if you didn't learn anything from "The Center for Medical Progress" doctoring and cutting the planned parenthood footage in order to misrepresent them then you can believe that Bill Nye wants to jail people for thought crimes, your pick really.

There is a major difference:
"The Center for Medical Progress" used secret cameras - whereas Nye willingly (as far as I know) sat down for an interview with someone he has called climate denier, and during this interview he used the term "extreme doubter" instead; which just muddies the water.

What did Nye expect the outcome of the interview would be? Or is Nye happy with clickbait with "Nye The Science Guy" regardless of contents?

And just to be clear: I don't say that Nye want jail for thought crimes - just that he isn't clearly distancing himself from that viewpoint and that he doesn't have to agree with an interview with everyone.

If you deny that the current shift in climate is anthropogenic, you're a climate-change denier and a conspiracy theorist. That's what "climate change denial" means; refusing to acknowledge anthropogenic climate change; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

The problem is the consensus is not that simple - which especially makes the legal case unclear:

"The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it..."

Denying the warming is then wrong, but what about humans causing most of it. Is the consensus that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt?

For comparison:
What if you prove that there is chance that you killed someone by poisoning - is that enough to send you to jail? Some say 95% chance is enough for that, others require more. What if the statement was made in 2007 when IPCC only had the chance (for something slightly different) at 90%? Is it right to jail an innocent man to not let 10 guilty free?

(On the other hand, if there is 95% chance that you are poisoned - would you take anti-dotes or would you rather gamble? I believe most would take the anti-dote and not only for 95% chance, but for 50%, 10%, and even 1%. But what if the poison might kill you in 30 years, and you don't have to take the anti-dote now?)

One could argue that IPCC is too conservative, or that the probabilities are meaningless (both of which is likely true). But that isn't the "consensus".

Obviously there can be fraud regardless - similarly as you can be sentenced for giving false alibi, even for an innocent man.


However, the linked wiki-page also states "Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but divert their attention to less difficult topics rather than take action." I found distasteful, such a broad sweeping statement means that someone could be charged with "climate change denial" if they try to cure world poverty, study for an economics degree, or post on gaming forums instead of working against climate change. (Or even worse actually work contrary to this: e.g. by reducing SO2 emissions from power plants to improve air quality.)

Some climate "skeptics" argued almost two decades ago that it was better to wait with many actions - and that renewables would be cheap enough that we would naturally switch to them in a few decades. Was that right, or did we just follow that by accident?

The problem is that those discussions are complicated and we need people with scientific literacy for that - and instead of giving bad sound-bites Nye could start by updating the contents on his web-page.

[Endus]

The problem is the consensus is not that simple - which especially makes the legal case unclear:

"The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it..."

Denying the warming is then wrong, but what about humans causing most of it. Is the consensus that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt?

In short, yes. That's what that high a confidence level on the causality means. That the Earth is warming isn't up for debate, really; if you know how to read a thermometer, then you can see that the Earth is warming. That's straight data, no analysis necessary. When we start asking why the Earth is warming, scientists always leave wiggle room for the unknown. If you asked a scientist why a ball falls towards the ground when you throw it, if they're being thorough and accurate, they'll say something like "I can say with 99% confidence that it's probably due to gravity". That 1% is for elements like "sudden localised downburst of wind" or "the ball has an iron core and there are magnets" or the like; highly unlikely but possible, given what data he has. In the case on anthropogenic climate change, the high confidence comes because scientists have evaluated every other possibility that they've come up with, and none of them have shifted in a way that would lead to this kind of warming trend. Except human emissions, of gasses that we know have a greenhouse effect.

They still leave that wiggle room, just in case it turns out that something completely beyond current science is at fault, but that's highly unlikely. Both because anthropogenic factors adequately explain observed conditions, making such unnecessary, and because we've tested everything anyone can think of without finding anything else that's a major contributor.

For comparison:
What if you prove that there is chance that you killed someone by poisoning - is that enough to send you to jail? Some say 95% chance is enough for that, others require more. What if the statement was made in 2007 when IPCC only had the chance (for something slightly different) at 90%? Is it right to jail an innocent man to not let 10 guilty free?

If we're back to talking about Nye's statements, he was talking about fraud, not just people who are wrong. If you know better, and still mislead the public, that's fraud, and you can identify harm caused, meaning it should be punishable. If you're just wrong, then that wouldn't be illegal. It's not the kind of thing a random person who denies climate change would be charged with; it's the kind of thing the fraudsters paid by the oil companies to generate misleading papers would be charged with. People who did the equivalent of Wakefield, in the anti-vaxxer nonsense, not the Jenny McCarthys who were duped by him.

[Deleted]

Considering that lot of americans think that earth is flat and 20% think that moon landing is fake, i say go ahead.

[Forogil]

In short, yes. That's what that high a confidence level on the causality means. That the Earth is warming isn't up for debate, really; if you know how to read a thermometer, then you can see that the Earth is warming. That's straight data, no analysis necessary. When we start asking why the Earth is warming, scientists always leave wiggle room for the unknown. If you asked a scientist why a ball falls towards the ground when you throw it, if they're being thorough and accurate, they'll say something like "I can say with 99% confidence that it's probably due to gravity".

No. They would say that it is gravity if they can examine the experiment - and not just 99% certain.

E.g. the possible Higgs was announced when it was 99.9997% certain that it was an actual particle; not 90%, not 99% - not 99.9% (and not 100% at that time).

That 1% is for elements like "sudden localised downburst of wind" or "the ball has an iron core and there are magnets"

There is no way to estimate the probability of someone throwing around helium-filled balls in downbursts of wind just to fool you.

If we're back to talking about Nye's statements, he was talking about fraud, not just people who are wrong. If you know better, and still mislead the public, that's fraud, and you can identify harm caused, meaning it should be punishable. If you're just wrong, then that wouldn't be illegal.

The problem is that you are stating that - not Nye. When asked about the rhetoric possibly getting out of hand - does Nye admit that, or just say that he doesn't know every rhetoric from "his side"? Or, does he do the scientific thing and ask for more information - or investigate himself?

[Endus]

No. They would say that it is gravity if they can examine the experiment - and not just 99% certain.

In this case, "the experiment" is literally the entire planet Earth, including all outside impacts upon that Earth (like solar radiation and tidal influences). At this point, you're essentially blaming scientists for not literally being omniscient.

[Forogil]

In this case, "the experiment" is literally the entire planet Earth, including all outside impacts upon that Earth (like solar radiation and tidal influences). At this point, you're essentially blaming scientists for not literally being omniscient.

No, we can measure solar radiation - as well as tidal influences thus the "experiment" is good enough.

What I am stating is that IPPC using "95% or more" are giving so much wiggle room that climate deniers cannot reliably be found "guilty" beyond reasonable doubt; and also that Nye is bad at communicating science - and should focus on improving on his own material instead of giving his opponents sound-bites.

- - - Updated - - -

Considering that lot of americans think that earth is flat and 20% think that moon landing is fake, i say go ahead.

Well, at least the majority believe the official story - compare with JFK where the people who believe the official story are in minority.

[Poptech]

See what I mean? This is just straight-up incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...fic-consensus/

You have just demonstrated that you are incapable of determining what is a reliable source by citing Wikipedia.

I've already presented more than enough evidence to make the argument through scientific reasoning. That evidence is what my position rests on.

Skeptics have presented an extensive amount of evidence to make their arguments through scientific reasoning as well:

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (PDF) (993 pgs)
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts (PDF) (1062 pgs)

Scientific consensus is brought up to demonstrate that there are no other valid competing theories in the field. All other proposals have been tried, tested, and been found wanting, leaving a single body of theory, on which there is consensus.

This report rejects the notion of "scientific consensus" on the causes and consequences of climate change:

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus (PDF) (106 pgs)

If you have a half-dozen sources that all refer to the same academic paper, then that's one source. What you're doing is finding a bevy of secondary sources that all refer to a handful of primary sources, but that doesn't actually expand your base of evidence in any way whatsoever.

You appear to not be following the conversation and I do not know what you are referring to as I was discussing the hundreds of sources referencing Popular Technology.net.

If you deny that the current shift in climate is anthropogenic, you're a climate-change denier and a conspiracy theorist. That's what "climate change denial" means; refusing to acknowledge anthropogenic climate change; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

As I already stated repeatedly, I do not deny that the climate changes. Again you reference a worthless source.

And it's a conspiracy theory, since you're arguing that nearly the entire global community of climate scientists are all colluding to perpetrate that supposed fraud. Tens of thousands of scientists, all manipulating the entire world. The Illuminati is a more sensible theory.

It is not possible for me to be arguing your strawman argument.

What's your alternative? You're refusing to acknowledge the work of nearly the entire global community of climate scientists.

The size of the entire global community of climate scientists has never been determined so it is not possible to acknowledge any such thing.

So why post the article at all? The media's often wrong about a great many things.

So history does not repeat itself. I am well aware the media is often wrong about climate change.

It doesn't say a darned thing about what scientific theory was at the time. Which was global warming, the whole time. [...]

Which was never the consensus at the time. The consensus was always warming. So don't try and point at where you said "the media"; your goal is to slander the work of scientists. You just did it, right there.

There were clearly multiple scientific theories relating to climate change at that time as there are now. No poll of the entire scientific community was ever taken during the 1970s so any such "consensus" is unknown.

And right there, you present exactly that claim; that because the media wasn't doing a proper job of reporting the actual state of climate science, the "scientists" were "wrong" about 1970s cooling.

Strawman argument, I said "scientists" (as in some) were "wrong" but made no mention of the "actual state of climate science" since I believe it was unknown at the time.

Oh and please don't present the idiotic Connolley paper as evidence of anything.

[Orbitus]

You have just demonstrated that you are incapable of determining what is a reliable source by citing Wikipedia.


Skeptics have presented an extensive amount of evidence to make their arguments through scientific reasoning as well:

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (PDF) (993 pgs)
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts (PDF) (1062 pgs)


This report rejects the notion of "scientific consensus" on the causes and consequences of climate change:

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus (PDF) (106 pgs)


You appear to not be following the conversation and I do not know what you are referring to as I was discussing the hundreds of sources referencing Popular Technology.net.


As I already stated repeatedly, I do not deny that the climate changes. Again you reference a worthless source.


It is not possible for me to be arguing your strawman argument.


The size of the entire global community of climate scientists has never been determined so it is not possible to acknowledge any such thing.


So history does not repeat itself. I am well aware the media is often wrong about climate change.


There were clearly multiple scientific theories relating to climate change at that time as there are now. No poll of the entire scientific community was ever taken during the 1970s so any such "consensus" is unknown.


Strawman argument, I said "scientists" (as in some) were "wrong" but made no mention of the "actual state of climate science" since I believe it was unknown at the time.

Oh and please don't present the idiotic Connolley paper as evidence of anything.

Umm, you are using sources from the HEARTLAND INSTITUTE. An institute that is funded primarily by the fucking OIL COMPANIES. This is why NO ONE is taking you fucking seriously. Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.

[Poptech]

Umm, you are using sources from the HEARTLAND INSTITUTE. An institute that is funded primarily by the fucking OIL COMPANIES. This is why NO ONE is taking you fucking seriously. Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.

Another genius who does not know how to do research. Reply to Our Critics

"The Heartland Institute has not received any funding from ExxonMobil (either the corporation or its foundation) since 2006. Most of our work on climate change (other than reporting on the debate in Environment & Climate News) started in 2008, after ExxonMobil stopped funding us. Heartland received a single donation from the Charles G. Koch Foundation — and none from any other foundation or corporation affiliated with either Charles or David Koch — in the last decade: $25,000 in 2012 for our work on health care policy, not climate or energy policy. Funding from fossil fuel and tobacco companies has never amounted to more than 5 percent of Heartland’s annual income."

"There have been numerous false and malicious claims that The Heartland Institute is a front for the energy industry and is funded by 'the Koch brothers.' These statements are often made with full knowledge they are untrue; in some cases they are made without such knowledge. With this notice, the reader is informed he/she will have no defense of "innocent mistake" made because of lack of knowledge and may have legal liability for defamation." — Legal Counsel, The Heartland Institute, June 2014

This is getting embarrassing.

[Orbitus]

Another genius who does not know how to do research. Reply to Our Critics

"The Heartland Institute has not received any funding from ExxonMobil (either the corporation or its foundation) since 2006. Most of our work on climate change (other than reporting on the debate in Environment & Climate News) started in 2008, after ExxonMobil stopped funding us. Heartland received a single donation from the Charles G. Koch Foundation — and none from any other foundation or corporation affiliated with either Charles or David Koch — in the last decade: $25,000 in 2012 for our work on health care policy, not climate or energy policy. Funding from fossil fuel and tobacco companies has never amounted to more than 5 percent of Heartland’s annual income."

"There have been numerous false and malicious claims that The Heartland Institute is a front for the energy industry and is funded by 'the Koch brothers.' These statements are often made with full knowledge they are untrue; in some cases they are made without such knowledge. With this notice, the reader is informed he/she will have no defense of "innocent mistake" made because of lack of knowledge and may have legal liability for defamation." — Legal Counsel, The Heartland Institute, June 2014

This is getting embarrassing.

The only one that should be embarrassed is you. They can claim they aren't getting any funding from Exxon but they are getting all kinds of funding from the Koch Brothers via different foundations they have made. Check http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute#funding out. If you look at the biggest donator, the Donors Capital Fund, that is a Koch foundation fund. Almost $14 million alone from them up until 2013.

Then you have the Dunn's Foundation for the Advancement of Right Thinking, which was founded by William A. Dunn, who is the Director of the Cato Institute, which was founded by Charles Koch. They gave $830,000. To say that they aren't getting funding from the Koch brothers since 2011, makes you the embarrassed one.

I will not EVER believe the Heartland Institute. Especially since they are being funded to deny climate change. And you are buying it up because they probably fund you as well.