I would go more for a "re-education" camp.
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.
The Fresh Prince of Baudelaire
Banned at least 10 times. Don't give a fuck, going to keep saying what I want how I want to.
Eat meat. Drink water. Do cardio and burpees. The good life.
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.
The Fresh Prince of Baudelaire
Banned at least 10 times. Don't give a fuck, going to keep saying what I want how I want to.
Eat meat. Drink water. Do cardio and burpees. The good life.
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
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?
Let's just throw everyone in jail. Equality!
Originally Posted by Darchi
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"
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Last edited by Forogil; 2016-04-19 at 09:08 PM. Reason: Clarified
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.