More lawfare in the emerging one party state - climate skeptics are really the Mafia

[maxparrish]

It's sort of a Catch-22 situation for them. There's nothing they fear more than a good idea, because good ideas appeal to a lot of people and they know they are a minority.

The catch is, they are not capable of recognizing a good idea.

They think Chavez's policies have some kind of appeal to people in the US. There's no one in the US who thinks Chavez style policies would do anything but wreak havoc, but the right have to battle the spectre of Chavez.

The truth is, they think Hugo and Caesar were the same person.

This has been my experience as well. I often see that an appeal may be made for some kind of say, regulation over some existing business. Then the right screams bloody hell, and tosses Chavez and Venezuela out of their back pocket. It's so very odd.

Apparently you and several other posters of the left are unfamiliar with the proto-communist Venezuelan judicial system and/or current US jurisprudence. As one of the last of the Venezuelan left regimes its lawfare prosecutorial tactics have much in common with the current abuse in the US. However, if you like, I can also make comparisons to Castro, Putin, or Stalin...oh wait, I already have.

 

[braces_for_impact]

This has been my experience as well. I often see that an appeal may be made for some kind of say, regulation over some existing business. Then the right screams bloody hell, and tosses Chavez and Venezuela out of their back pocket. It's so very odd.

Apparently you and several other posters of the left are unfamiliar with the proto-communist Venezuelan judicial system and/or current US jurisprudence. As one of the last of the Venezuelan left regimes its lawfare prosecutorial tactics have much in common with the current abuse in the US. However, if you like, I can also make comparisons to Castro, Putin, or Stalin...oh wait, I already have.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you, kind sir, for reinforcing my point entirely. Would you like some lube?

 

[maxparrish]

But the issue is now the Orwellian demand that the state begin a campaign of lawfare persecution of anyone who "might be" funding research that does not comport with the views of the climate establishment.

Not according to what you posted in your OP.

Thank you for your contribution.

 

[ksen]

Not according to what you posted in your OP.

Thank you for your contribution.

You're welcome. Figured you'd like to know you were arguing about something that's not supported by your OP.

 

[fromderinside]

Its all part and parcel with companies giving money to universities to conduct 'research' on topics in a way that is sympathetic to their views. If one who wants money is willing to test proven debunked theses apparently showing they are not really debunked with slippery methods is not that person guilty of violating her charge to let the data take her where it will?

Just sayin'

Climate models contain assumptions.

You would like to criminalize certain assumptions?

And, if so, should the guys whose models wildly overpredicted warming these last 20 years be sent to prison now that following the data where it leads shows they made bad assumptions?

Free to make assumptions. Thats a pretty grand statement.

Here's one I know pretty well. Moving sound, moving at rates typical for hearing in animals, including humans, tend to obscure place information. A hearing aid producer grants funds for research. It also has on the market a device that does not filter out or accommodate motion information from place and recognition information in acoustic signals.

Presume for a moment I accept some of their money to conduct a study using signals moving so slowly that the auditory system can use the motion information as an aid for place and and recognition. My results show trained observers can discriminate movement more precisely than with stationary signals and they can discriminate signals more accurately from one another in terms of spectrum.

I couch my findings in information science terms saying moving signals carry more information than stationary and humans use this to augment their ability for place and recognition processing. that conclusion doesn't explicitly overturning previous results but, by implication, casts doubt on the generalization of theory derived from the 5000 studies that arrived at the negative impact on locating and recognizing caused by normal moving sounds.

I knew what I was doing and I accepted the money knowing I could probably show what I did show. I also knowingly took a generalization form information theory to justify my result knowing that humans don't process just information. Rather living things process information of various sorts in trades to achieve optimums between conflicting demands on our sensing processes.

Isn't that what the cigarette people did? Shouldn't I, as a scientist, be held to a standard taking into account the nature of sounds used by humans. Or can I makes assumptions outside the realm of the normal or expected to get whatever end I want so I can make a buck.

 

[Ford]

Isn't that what the cigarette people did? Shouldn't I, as a scientist, be held to a standard taking into account the nature of sounds used by humans. Or can I makes assumptions outside the realm of the normal or expected to get whatever end I want so I can make a buck.

Making a buck is the most important thing, and if you have to fudge the truth - or even outright lie - in order to make a buck then you're doing the right thing.

Anyone who tries to hold you to account for lying to make a buck is engaging in Orwellian lawfare, hates America, and probably kicks puppies for fun.




p.s. Hugo Chavez!

 

[dismal]

Climate models contain assumptions.

You would like to criminalize certain assumptions?

And, if so, should the guys whose models wildly overpredicted warming these last 20 years be sent to prison now that following the data where it leads shows they made bad assumptions?

Free to make assumptions. Thats a pretty grand statement.

Here's one I know pretty well. Moving sound, moving at rates typical for hearing in animals, including humans, tend to obscure place information. A hearing aid producer grants funds for research. It also has on the market a device that does not filter out or accommodate motion information from place and recognition information in acoustic signals.

Presume for a moment I accept some of their money to conduct a study using signals moving so slowly that the auditory system can use the motion information as an aid for place and and recognition. My results show trained observers can discriminate movement more precisely than with stationary signals and they can discriminate signals more accurately from one another in terms of spectrum.

I couch my findings in information science terms saying moving signals carry more information than stationary and humans use this to augment their ability for place and recognition processing. that conclusion doesn't explicitly overturning previous results but, by implication, casts doubt on the generalization of theory derived from the 5000 studies that arrived at the negative impact on locating and recognizing caused by normal moving sounds.

I knew what I was doing and I accepted the money knowing I could probably show what I did show. I also knowingly took a generalization form information theory to justify my result knowing that humans don't process just information. Rather living things process information of various sorts in trades to achieve optimums between conflicting demands on our sensing processes.

Isn't that what the cigarette people did? Shouldn't I, as a scientist, be held to a standard taking into account the nature of sounds used by humans. Or can I makes assumptions outside the realm of the normal or expected to get whatever end I want so I can make a buck.

So, what's the crime?

How many years should someone do in jail for doing science with criminally bad assumptions?

 

[ksen]

So, what's the crime?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

 

[dismal]

So, what's the crime?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

Don't we already have laws against fraud?

 

[ksen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

Don't we already have laws against fraud?

Yes.

Who was asking for new laws?

 

[dismal]

Don't we already have laws against fraud?

Yes.

Who was asking for new laws?

I think attempting to criminalize bad science assumptions stretches the current definitions of fraud a touch.

 

[ksen]

Yes.

Who was asking for new laws?

I think attempting to criminalize bad science assumptions stretches the current definitions of fraud a touch.

meh, the courts are smart enough to figure that out.

But asking for fraud laws to be applied to what you perceive as being fraud isn't that out of the ordinary or dastardly.

 

[Ford]

Yes.

Who was asking for new laws?

I think attempting to criminalize bad science assumptions stretches the current definitions of fraud a touch.

So then you think that a company which deliberately deceives people with bad science or produces a dangerous product and defends it with bad science should not be held accountable?

 

[Keith&Co.]

How many years should someone do in jail for doing science with criminally bad assumptions?

I don't think bad assumptions in themselves are actionable.

Using assumptions that are publically avowed to be good, while privately acknowledged to be incorrect, because those are the assumptions that your boss prefers for non-scientific reasons, such a profit, would be the fraud.
Telling lies for $$$ is pretty much the definition of fraud.

 

[dismal]

I think attempting to criminalize bad science assumptions stretches the current definitions of fraud a touch.

So then you think that a company which deliberately deceives people with bad science or produces a dangerous product and defends it with bad science should not be held accountable?

If a product is proven to be dangerous then there should be consequences.

What does that have to do with this thread?

Do you think the people whose climate models predicted large warming the last 20 years and were wrong should be prosecuted for misleading the public?

 

[scombrid]

So, then you must find it abhorrent that some people want to jail people for a scientific opinion. Even an incorrect one.

That would be terrible.

But the opening post doesn't provide evidence of such advocacy among the "Demonistas of Klimate Kulture Elite" as it calls them.

 

[scombrid]

This has been my experience as well. I often see that an appeal may be made for some kind of say, regulation over some existing business. Then the right screams bloody hell, and tosses Chavez and Venezuela out of their back pocket. It's so very odd.

They've been playing the environmentalists/scientists are commies card at least since Rush Limbaugh was raging against CFC regulation and cap and trade for sulfur emissions.

 

[scombrid]

But the issue is now the Orwellian demand that the state begin a campaign of lawfare persecution of anyone who "might be" funding research that does not comport with the views of the climate establishment. So much for the notion of the "marketplace" of ideas (or peer reviewed debate) settling differences...why do that when you can get the referees to arrest the other team?

The opening post documents no such demands.

Demand in the opening post is only that deliberate deception such as that practiced by the tobacco industry be prosecuted.

 

[dismal]

But the issue is now the Orwellian demand that the state begin a campaign of lawfare persecution of anyone who "might be" funding research that does not comport with the views of the climate establishment. So much for the notion of the "marketplace" of ideas (or peer reviewed debate) settling differences...why do that when you can get the referees to arrest the other team?

The opening post documents no such demands.

Demand in the opening post is only that deliberate deception such as that practiced by the tobacco industry be prosecuted.

You mean like when those guys manipulated that chart to show a hockeystick?

That sort of thing should result in prosecution?

 

[Trausti]

But the issue is now the Orwellian demand that the state begin a campaign of lawfare persecution of anyone who "might be" funding research that does not comport with the views of the climate establishment. So much for the notion of the "marketplace" of ideas (or peer reviewed debate) settling differences...why do that when you can get the referees to arrest the other team?

The opening post documents no such demands.

Demand in the opening post is only that deliberate deception such as that practiced by the tobacco industry be prosecuted.

Well, the federal government's RICO against the tobacco industry was a civil action not a criminal prosecution. And that tobacco lawsuit is much too dissimilar from voicing global warming skepticism. This seems a lot of hot air.