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

[Vyxn]

Funny, I don't feel destroyed. Especially since he is using sources that are saying that they themselves don't accept oil money but other sources show they do.

what sources media maters? or was it mother jones?

[Nadiru]

Jailing people for thinking things which are wrong, even if they are demonstrably wrong, is in opposition to the spirit of science.

[Garnier Fructis]

Jailing people for thinking things which are wrong, even if they are demonstrably wrong, is in opposition to the spirit of science.

It's not jailing people for being wrong. It's jailing people for knowing it's wrong but promoting it anyway to make money. This is called fraud.

[Orbitus]

Jailing people for thinking things which are wrong, even if they are demonstrably wrong, is in opposition to the spirit of science.

But they aren't just "thinking" things are wrong, they knew that they were contributing to climate change but are paying people to lie for them.

- - - Updated - - -

what sources media maters? or was it mother jones?

Still better sources than Fox News, Heartland institute or Popular Technology blog. But no, I didn't use those.

[Endus]

Still better sources than Fox News, Heartland institute or Popular Technology blog. But no, I didn't use those.

The root issue here is that people don't understand why the above sources are deemed to be non-credible. It's not because they're right-wing. It isn't partisan at all. It has to do with how much they misrepresent the facts. The latter two to a much higher degree than Fox News, which usually just resorts to spin, rather than outright misinformation.

Saying "oh yeah? Your sources have a political lean too" completely misses the point, which is fundamentally non-partisan.

[Delekii]

Thank you Poptech for joining the forum and the discussion and experienced what forum members like my self have to deal with when it comes to discussions dealing with subjects like climate change. how if you try to debate matters like there is no consensus on man made climate change and show proof that those that say there is like John Cook with his fuadulent survey has been thoroughly debunked provide proof of that debunking by a peer reviewed paper detailing why it is fraudulent.
this is why I used your site so to show them how the concensus claims have been debunked which brought you here

and woukd like to also thank you for utterly destroying Endus, Ripster42, Garnier Fructis, and Orbitus, but your fighting a loss cause incase if you havnt noticed no matter what sourse you give no matter what undienable proof you provide it will just be a waste of time

I would like to finish this reply off with this

Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2][3]
This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time, and although most errors are immediately fixed, some errors maintain unnoticed. However, it can be noted that Wikipedia's Good Articles and Featured Articles are some degree more advanced, professional, and generally more credible than an article not labeled Good or Featured. It is because these articles are reviewed heavily and edited many many times, passing a lot of "tests" before being confirmed Good or Featured, that they can be used for some deeper research than usual. It is Wikipedia's Featured Articles that are especially trustworthy in contrast to normal or even good articles, as they have to pass even harder "tests" to become featured, as they are to be "the best of Wikipedia", "a model for other articles", and thus, a much more reliable source than average articles.

and you will never believe where this quote came from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

that is right Wikipedia themselves are telling us they aren't credible now doesn't that just take the cake when Endus argued with you about the credibility of Wikipedia when Wikipedia them selves agree with you Poptech that they aren't credible

Wikipedia has links to click through to the primary source in every case. Pages or comments that are not sourced are cited as such. Any single individual fact you can see on a wikipedia page, you can click through to the primary source.

In the case of academia, the onus is on the essay writer to click through and link to the primary source.

In the case of people wanted to pretend to be educated on an online gaming forum, we have no onus to do your work for you. If you don't know the facts and wont go to the effort of learning them, but instead make an argument based on "wikipedia isn't reliable, they say so themselves", that's your fucking problem. You're 100% right; wikipedia is not reliable as an academic source, in the same fashion that an encyclopedia isn't. You must follow through to primary sources in academia; the same is not true here.

If you take issue with the primary source, that is a different matter altogether. You can say that "x primary source isn't valid because of y"; it is a reasoned argument, even if people disagree with you. That's where most of the discussion stems from - Fox News vs. whatever left-wing partisan hack is analogous. But saying that wikipedia is not a valid source is not an argument; if you want to decry the information linked via wikipedia, go to the primary source and discredit that. Saying wikipedia isn't valid is a misnomer; wikipedia is just the portal to the information source.

[Ripster42]

No, we established you are an illiterate since your argument is invalidated by the question you keep dodging:

Do you think Climate Science & Policy Watch, RealClimate, Media Matters and PBS are morons?

I think the specific people who bother debunking your site specifically are morons. Because it's a joke. If people from those organizations did, then yes, those specific people who wasted time doing it were being morons. So I'm not dodging the question. You still answered the implication that only morons bother debunking ancient aliens by linking to your site debunking ancient aliens.

It's not a conspiracy theory to say they got money from oil companies when you yourself claim they got money from oil companies, just that it happened a while ago. Endowments don't require ongoing funding because they only operate on the endowment's investment profits.

The reason people say CO2 is pollution is because of its greenhouse effect. Not because it's bad for plants. It seems like you've got a tenuous grasp on what pollution even is.

[Forogil]

Oh and I looked up John Lefebvre, he wasn't convicted of money laundering, he was convicted of illegal gambling. Maybe you should research before you start talking bullshit AGAIN.

He was certainly not convicted of illegal gambling (in the sense that he gambled himself) - but of helping illegal gambling which naturally include money laundering:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oukin-...36368620070711

"Lefebvre pleaded guilty to a wide-ranging conspiracy charge that included transmitting interstate and foreign bets, promoting gambling offences and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business between 1999 and 2007"

Or in other words he made it possible for people to bet illegally and get their illegal wins paid in a way that looked legit, i.e. laundering money. So, using the term "money launderer" is factually correct - but gives the wrong impression.


As for James Hoggan the main claim is that he is linked to Hydrogen and Fuel Cells; which is an interesting potentially clean technology that hasn't really delivered yet (the technology of handling hydrogen isn't that easy - and instead electric vehicles are seen as a solution combined with solar energy).
However, one of non-clean aspects is that a simple source of Hydrogen is reformed Hydrocarbons (e.g. methane; but I believe there has also been work on gasoline) - which DeSmog forgets to mention in many of their texts about fuel cells - although there is at least one dealing with it:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/08/16...ropose-keep-it

If they ignored/downplayed that aspect of hydrogen fuel cells for some years because of Hoggan's association with hydrogen and fuel cell lobby would be troubling and dirty money - but I would assume the oil industry also kept quiet about that.

[Orbitus]

He was certainly not convicted of illegal gambling (in the sense that he gambled himself) - but of helping illegal gambling which naturally include money laundering:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oukin-...36368620070711

"Lefebvre pleaded guilty to a wide-ranging conspiracy charge that included transmitting interstate and foreign bets, promoting gambling offences and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business between 1999 and 2007"

Or in other words he made it possible for people to bet illegally and get their illegal wins paid in a way that looked legit, i.e. laundering money. So, using the term "money launderer" is factually correct - but gives the wrong impression.


As for James Hoggan the main claim is that he is linked to Hydrogen and Fuel Cells; which is an interesting potentially clean technology that hasn't really delivered yet (the technology of handling hydrogen isn't that easy - and instead electric vehicles are seen as a solution combined with solar energy).
However, one of non-clean aspects is that a simple source of Hydrogen is reformed Hydrocarbons (e.g. methane; but I believe there has also been work on gasoline) - which DeSmog forgets to mention in many of their texts about fuel cells - although there is at least one dealing with it:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/08/16...ropose-keep-it

If they ignored/downplayed that aspect of hydrogen fuel cells for some years because of Hoggan's association with hydrogen and fuel cell lobby would be troubling and dirty money - but I would assume the oil industry also kept quiet about that.

Your article mentions nothing about money laundering either. It just says that they did illegal international gambling.

[Forogil]

Your article mentions nothing about money laundering either. It just says that they did illegal international gambling.

It mentions "unlicensed money transmitting business" which assumedly include the wins from illegal gambling. (Yes, this is shocking news - but it seems that some illegal gambling companies actually paid the winners actual money. Unbelievable!)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cr...22302920070116
Has the head-line:"NETeller ex-directors on money laundering charges"

[Poptech]

Because it isn't libelous lies, Heartland institute is saying they don't accept money from the oil companies. That is like a police station investigating themselves and coming out with a clean bill of health. Of course they are going to say they aren't receiving money from oil companies. While we have shown you they are still getting money from the Koch Brothers and their foundations.

You have shown no such thing.

Please provide irrefutable evidence that any money granted to the Heartland Institute from Donors Trust originated from the Koch Brothers.

And compared to your website, YES every link that is on a Wikipedia page will be reputable.

At least you are consistent in your intellectual dishonesty.

Oh and I looked up John Lefebvre, he wasn't convicted of money laundering, he was convicted of illegal gambling.

Sorry but DeSmogBlog is funded by a convicted felon John Lefebvre.

NETeller ex-directors on money laundering charges

"Two former directors and founding shareholders of NETeller Plc [Stephen Lawrence and John Lefebvre], have been charged in the United States with laundering billions of dollars in illegal gambling proceeds."

Ex-NETeller exec pleads guilty in gambling case

"Lefebvre pleaded guilty to a wide-ranging conspiracy charge that included transmitting interstate and foreign bets, promoting gambling offences and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business between 1999 and 2007."

New York Southern District Court - Case No. 1:07-cr-00597: USA v. Lawrence et al

"JUDGMENT: As to John David Lefebvre (2), Count 1, Imprisonment: 45 days; Supervised Release: 1 Year. [..] The defendant is to pay a fine in the amount of $750,000.00 (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 10/25/2011)"

[Korlok]

It's like the ToA thread cloned itself, then name-changed a bit...

Ha, hahahahaa, hahahahahahahaa!!!!
I was wondering how this felt all so familiar. Thank you for clearing that up for me Vanyali.

[Poptech]

This question does not make any sense. Nobody claimed that Wikipedia citations were de facto reputable by default, forever. We said that, if you wanted to take issue with a particular Wikipedia article, the onus was on you to demonstrate why its information was incorrect.

I am well aware that every time I look at a Wikipedia page I have to independent verify everything on it - that is what I consider an unreliable source.

You've made no effort to do so. You just refuse to even look at the source. It's a character attack, rather than an attack on substance.

Why would I waste my time with unreliable sources?

There's the problem; you haven't demonstrated that it's unreliable. You've claimed it by fiat, and you don't have any authority to do so, nor have you presented any valid arguments as to why.

I don't have to demonstrate anything other that how it works since it is unreliable by design.

Anytime I look at a Wikipedia page is the information on it guaranteed to be accurate?

You're still resorting to personal attacks. If your actual arguments had merit, you wouldn't need to.

Hypocrite.

"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." - Endus

Refusing to look at sources you don't like is not a valid argument. Every time you've asked us about why we dismiss some of the sources you cite, we don't just go "oh, Heartland Institute, lol" and leave it at that.

I am not wasting my time looking at unreliable sources and have provided extensive evidence as to why they are unreliable.

We dig into the details of how they misrepresent the facts, and that they have a vested political interest in doing so.

You have done no such thing since what you presented was misinformation from unreliable sources.

You don't do anything of the sort. You engage in nakedly partisan attacks (as if a source being "left-wing" in any way reduces its credibility; it doesn't), and refuse to even look at the source or what it's saying.

A source being left-wing biased is only one of the reasons I may consider it unreliable. Of course a source being left-wing biased reduces its credibility since the source is more likely to omit or spin information that challenges their bias.

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly, for someone who was just beating me over the head a few pages ago for misreading your page, you also misread here. We were talking about the credibility of the sources cited by Wikipedia. Those, like your webpage, also cannot be edited by anyone with an internet connection at any time.

You keep dodging the question:

What are the requirements to edit a semi-protected Wikipedia page?

[Garnier Fructis]

You keep dodging the question:

What are the requirements to edit a semi-protected Wikipedia page?

I'll give you my answer to that as soon as you agree to address the topic that you shifted away from to get here. Which is, namely, that we were discussing the credibility of the sources cited and not of Wikipedia itself, and how one should focus their attention on those instead of Wikipedia itself.

Is this really how you 'win' debates and 'defend your credibility?' By 1) changing topics every time you're trapped, 2) doing the Ted Cruz routine of hiding behind words that give you plausible deniability ("I said the media on that page, not the scientists!" <-- which I fell for until Endus pointed out that you have elsewhere actually attributed them to scientists), and 3) asking a boatload of loaded questions, such as this one?

I honestly don't know if you actually think these maneuvers are legitimate or you're just really good at misdirection. At least with Vyxn we can be pretty sure he just doesn't know better.

[Poptech]

I think the specific people who bother debunking your site specifically are morons. Because it's a joke. If people from those organizations did, then yes, those specific people who wasted time doing it were being morons. So I'm not dodging the question. You still answered the implication that only morons bother debunking ancient aliens by linking to your site debunking ancient aliens.

At least we have established that Ripster 42 believes Climate Science & Policy Watch, RealClimate, Media Matters and PBS are morons.

Now lets go back to where your reading comprehension problems originated:

Endus posted at #571

"If you're wondering why these aren't academic papers, it's because the NIPCC isn't taken seriously by anyone, because their dishonesty is so clear. They don't bother doing point-by-point breakdowns for the same reason they don't do so for the Ancient Aliens TV show." - Endus

Endus is libeling the NIPCC as "dishonest" and "not taken seriously". It is irrefutable that he is making no implication about anyone who actually does try to criticize them or he would be attacking his own three sources he used to do so: Climate Science & Policy Watch, RealClimate and Media Matters.

As to his other more ambiguous statement about Ancient Aliens which was specifically for a "point-by-point breakdown", it is unlikely he would be attacking anyone who did because that would make arguing against Ancient Aliens in the future much more difficult for him since his opponents could use it against him.

Regardless, the Popular Technology.net Debunking Ancient Aliens Resource does not do a "point-by-point breakdown" so it is not possible for it to fall into any ambiguous language from the second statement which specifically only talks about a "point-by-point breakdown".

Since Endus is desperately looking for anything to attack me with, it is of no surprise that he carelessly agreed with what you stated without thinking it through in post #579.

"Ripster42 understood me perfectly. You, apparently, did not." - Endus

This is easy to settle since we simply need Endus to weight in:

Endus, do you believe the sources you cited (Climate Science & Policy Watch, RealClimate and Media Matters) are morons?

Endus, do you believe NOVA/PBS are morons for debunking Ancient Aliens?

Ripster42, this is why I recommended you stay out of debates that are over your head.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do I have to keep going back and correcting the conversation record here?

I'll give you my answer to that as soon as you agree to address the topic that you shifted away from to get here. Which is, namely, that we were discussing the credibility of the sources cited and not of Wikipedia itself, and how one should focus their attention on those instead of Wikipedia itself.

No I originated the discussion that Wikipedia is an unreliable source in Post #567, while you have failed to show how all the sources are reliable anytime anyone looks at a Wikipedia page.

It is quite obvious you keep dodging this question:

What are the requirements to edit a semi-protected Wikipedia page?

Is this really how you 'win' debates and 'defend your credibility?' By 1) changing topics every time you're trapped, 2) doing the Ted Cruz routine of hiding behind words that give you plausible deniability ("I said the media on that page, not the scientists!" <-- which I fell for until Endus pointed out that you have elsewhere actually attributed them to scientists), and 3) asking a boatload of loaded questions, such as this one?

It is not possible to be "trapped" by strawman arguments, I just need to expose them as such.

We have already demonstrated you do not read what you attempt to criticize and have misrepresented Popular Technology.net in this discussion.

The article, 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism has always said:

"During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age."

Endus point out nothing but another strawman argument he fabricated. Misrepresenting your opponents arguments is all you people apparently know how to do here.

I refuted this in the same post #567:

"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."

I honestly don't know if you actually think these maneuvers are legitimate or you're just really good at misdirection. At least with Vyxn we can be pretty sure he just doesn't know better.

Defending myself from lies, misinformation and strawman arguments is not misdirection.

[Garnier Fructis]

Defending myself from lies, misinformation and strawman arguments is not misdirection.

Misdirection is exactly what this is:

"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."

This is the same tactic that Ted Cruz uses so that he can actually say he hasn't ever told a lie. What you (like Ted) are doing, is lying without lying, or misdirection.

You didn't specifically say anything about the state of the science. But in common parlance, that's what is meant when a generic attribution to scientists is made. There is no possible way, with how immersed you are in this debate, that you do not know this. But when someone challenges it, you (just like Cruz) will say 'oh, but I didn't actually say that.' Which is technically true.

And no, I'm not going to answer your loaded questions, for their very purpose is to destroy honest debate.

And can you please stop with the 30 point font? It's annoying. What is the point of typing up a long response and then highlighting a single word or sentence? You're basically asking people to ignore everything else you wrote; a waste of effort.

[Endus]

I am well aware that every time I look at a Wikipedia page I have to independent verify everything on it - that is what I consider an unreliable source.

You should be checking the sources of anything you read with a critical eye. That's standard academic practice.

That there are sources that you don't check the citations on is a demonstration of your own personal lack of rigour. Hell, this is why, above the first year or two of a baccalaureate, you're expected to use secondary sources less and less, and try and dig into primary sources as much as possible. Once you hit the graduate level, even moreso. Because there's little point in citing Person A talking about Person B's work, when you can just cite Person B yourself.

A source being left-wing biased is only one of the reasons I may consider it unreliable. Of course a source being left-wing biased reduces its credibility since the source is more likely to omit or spin information that challenges their bias.

See, this is just flat-out false. It's exactly the kind of "libel" you keep accusing others of. You have no grounds whatsoever to make this kind of claim. It damages your credibility to state that you are this blatantly partisan.

Since Endus is desperately looking for anything to attack me with, it is of no surprise that he carelessly agreed with what you stated without thinking it through in post #579.

"Ripster42 understood me perfectly. You, apparently, did not."

This is easy to settle since we simply need Endus to weight in:

Endus, do you believe the sources you cited (Climate Science & Policy Watch, RealClimate and Media Matters) are morons?

Endus, do you believe NOVA/PBS are morons for debunking Ancient Aliens?

Ripster42, this is why I recommended you stay out of debates that are over your head.

Again, this all boils down to you failing to grasp what I originally said, when Ripster42 understood it just fine. Your accusatory questions here make no sense in the context of my original comments.

Particularly since my original comment, in post #571, was about why you don't see academic sources breaking down Ancient Aliens. Every group you just listed is a media source, not an academic source.

So I repeat; you did not understand what I said, or you're deliberately misinterpreting it because a straw man's a more convenient target.

The article, 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism has always said:

"During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age."

Are you willing to acknowledge that this article, then, only serves to highlight the potential for the media to make too much of contradictory viewpoints because controversy sells papers, and that it does not in any way reflect the state of climate science, which was in consensus about warming in the 1970s despite these media claims and has remained solid on that point in the decades since?

Y'know, exactly why climate change denial gets press today, despite there being essentially no scientific support for the position whatsoever.

And if you're not willing to acknowledge the above, then we've established that you are trying to use that article to misrepresent the scientists in the field.

[Ripster42]

What we've established is that you bothered debunking ancient aliens and that some specific people within those organisations are moronic for bothering with idiots.

[b]Blah blah blah.

He's saying they're dishonest and a joke because they're not honest in their assessment of facts and the way they try present facts is laughable to people who actually pay attention. Somewhat like you linking a video about plants growing better with higher CO2 levels as if that has anything to do with whether it's a pollutant or not. It doesn't. You're either dishonest, and you know it's a pollutant and want people to think its not, or you're stupid for thinking that the video has any relevance towards whether it's a pollutant or not.

It's not libel if they're dishonest and not taken seriously. Since no one believes they're as stupid as you'd have to be to come by their positions naively, we assume they're dishonest. It's true, they could just be impressively stupid but you'd think that was libelous as well. So we're stuck in an almost schrodingers box of whether they're dishonest or stupid with the upshot being that either way they're not taken seriously.

[Poptech]

Misdirection is exactly what this is:

More libel.

You didn't specifically say anything about the state of the science. But in common parlance, that's what is meant when a generic attribution to scientists is made. There is no possible way, with how immersed you are in this debate, that you do not know this. But when someone challenges it, you (just like Cruz) will say 'oh, but I didn't actually say that.' Which is technically true.

Misrepresenting what I say and then lying about it after I correct you is not a valid argument.

Your subjective opinion of what is "common parlance" is irrelevant to the actual context of the words I use.

I know exactly what I said, so why do you continue to be intellectually dishonest about what I am actually saying or what is explicitly stated in the 1970's cooling article at Popular Technology.net?

And no, I'm not going to answer your loaded questions, for their very purpose is to destroy honest debate.

This is not a loaded question as you keep falsely stating that anyone with an Internet connection cannot edit Wikipedia pages at anytime. In your one example the page was "semi-protected" so stop dodging the question:

What are the requirements to edit a semi-protected Wikipedia page?

And can you please stop with the 30 point font? It's annoying. What is the point of typing up a long response and then highlighting a single word or sentence? You're basically asking people to ignore everything else you wrote; a waste of effort.

Stop making libelous claims about the Popular Technology.net 1970's cooling article after I repeatedly explained to you its context.

[Garnier Fructis]

Look at all that whining. It's not even libel.