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

[scombrid]

Climategate, hockeystick, rinse repeat. Throw in that there has been a cooling trend for the last 20 years for the trifecta and full demonstration that you get your information on climatology from blogs and AM radio.

 

[scombrid]

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years

Hockeystick what?

If something is a deliberate fraud then it should be prosecuted as such.

 

[dismal]

Climategate, hockeystick, rinse repeat. Throw in that there has been a cooling trend for the last 20 years for the trifecta and full demonstration that you get your information on climatology from blogs and AM radio.

So, now do I get sent to jail or something?

 

[scombrid]

Are you shilling for an industry and knowingly creating and disseminating misleading material? Or are you just repeating whatever you see on the web and hear on AM radio that feels good to your political sensibilities?

 

[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. 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 (emphasis) that deliberate deception such as that practiced by the tobacco industry be prosecuted.

Nope. The demand in the letter is for a widespread RICO investigation of a vague but deliberate deception that does not exist; done on bogus basis to scores of organizations and companies. Perhaps you don't know just who they have in mind so look at the letter's references to these "lists" of "documented guilty"hobgoblins they consider eligible for RICO. Here is more from the link provided:

The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer reviewed
academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product
(Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt
(Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception
Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call
for a RICO investigation

So just who do you think they are targeting? Their FIRST reference to those "documented" is to Brulle, 2013. Brulle targets 140 foundations that donate to 91 (Climate Change Counter Movement) groups or persons. He states that the "overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations." Mind you, Brulle did not show or prove that any of these contributions were illegal but hey, that's not the point of those who want to suppress legal opposition...is it?

So given that it is aimed at anyone who might be funding anyone in opposition to the climate consensus your use of the word "only" has a unique meaning known "only" to you.

The use of RICO to intimidate (and bankrupt) its targets are well known. They (and their supporters) are not fooling anyone, other than the red meat hooters of their rank and file.

 

[dismal]

Are you shilling for an industry and knowingly creating and disseminating misleading material? Or are you just repeating whatever you see on the web and hear on AM radio that feels good to your political sensibilities?

Sounds like a question for a jury to decide.

Just like the Hockey stick fraud.

 

[ksen]

The opening post documents no such demands.

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

Nope. The demand in the letter is for a widespread RICO investigation of a vague but deliberate deception that does not exist; done on bogus basis to scores of organizations and companies. Perhaps you don't know just who they have in mind so look at the letter's references to these "lists" of "documented guilty"hobgoblins they consider eligible for RICO. Here is more from the link provided:

The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer reviewed
academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product
(Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt
(Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception
Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call
for a RICO investigation

You assert deception does not exist. Others assert it does. Hmmm, seems an investigation is just what is needed to figure out who is right.

So just who do you think they are targeting? Their FIRST reference to those "documented" is to Brulle, 2013. Brulle targets 140 foundations that donate to 91 CCCM (Counter Climate Change Movements). He states that the "overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations." Mind you, Brulle did not show or prove that any of these contributions were illegal but hey, that's not the point of those who want to suppress legal opposition...is it?

So given that it is aimed at anyone who might be funding anyone in opposition to the climate consensus your use of the word "only" has a unique meaning known "only" to you.

The use of RICO to intimidate (and bankrupt) its targets are well known. They (and their supporters) are not fooling anyone, other than the red meat hooters of their rank and file.

Maybe well-known to shortwave radio enthusiasts but when I google "RICO used to intimidate and bankrupt" I get no hits on links that describe cases where RICO was used to "intimidate and bankrupt" someone.

btw, how does an investigation bankrupt someone? It's not like you get sent a bill if you're being investigated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The right really does have this weird fetish for Chavez and Venezuela don't they?

Because the left lionizes them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why not adopt the usual conservative line that adjusting to climate change is better policy than than changing it.

I don't see anything wrong with greater transparency in funding. And if turns out there is a conspiracy, maybe it should be investigated.

Politics or money shouldn't be allowed to dictate science.

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

Incorrect--no.

Deliberate fabrication--yes. That's fraud.

 

[dismal]

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

Incorrect--no.

Deliberate fabrication--yes. That's fraud.

So, how much jail time should they get in the hockey stick case for deliberately chopping off some of the data?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Telling lies for $$$ is pretty much the definition of fraud.

No. Fraud requires an intent to take something or do other harm due those lies.

Otherwise you're describing any author of fiction.

 

[fromderinside]

Telling lies for $$$ is pretty much the definition of fraud.

No. Fraud requires an intent to take something or do other harm due those lies.

Otherwise you're describing any author of fiction.

Authors of fiction use, er, misuse science. If the author contracted the scientist to misuse science both the scientist(s) and the author are guilty of fraud of different kinds. The author got what he wanted to make a profit out of false scientific representation. The scientist(s) are guilty of a much higher kid of fraud in that they manipulated data to get to a conclusion which they could use to oppose well established scientific understanding. See my example. If such as I illustrate and these people here contend is all right we might as well bring back Lysenko, wrap up our labs, and prepare to walk in animal skins as we did just a few thousand years ago because science won't be useful any more.

Seems to me the same is true for business, especially business that takes advantage of advances in technology. If any assumption is permitted one can invoke God or miracle as reason for a desired, but impossible, outcome. Check our folk history. Its full of it. We are where we are because we began to examine and verify what is done. Before that it was all just whispers and daemons that got us from tree to tree to cave to tree. Forget all those spears, jars, monuments, if all we had was folk history and method.

 

[maxparrish]

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.

If you mean that it is likely that Obama and his DOJ will ignore the wishes of Senator Whitehouse and the twenty scientists, you (hopefully) may be right. However, the cases dissimilarity do not necessarily protect those organizations or researchers.

In the process of expanding federal criminal law, prosecutors, accommodating judges (many of whom are former federal prosecutors), members of Congress, and compliant juries have managed to eliminate almost all of the protections that old English common law and the legal traditions that once existed in this country had established for people accused of crimes.

Federal law in almost no way represents the system we inherited from Great Britain; if anything, it is reminiscent of the former Soviet Union’s “crimes of analogy,” in which a “crime” could be fashioned from nearly any activity as long as a prosecutor could find a law criminalizing “similar” conduct.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2009/11/v32n4-2.pdf

But for the daring of the Obama administration (which has already ignored many legal traditions) the potential victims remain (so far) unmolested.

 

[Ford]

Telling lies for $$$ is pretty much the definition of fraud.

No. Fraud requires an intent to take something or do other harm due those lies.

Otherwise you're describing any author of fiction.

So I guess Volkswagen was merely authoring fiction when they wrote software for their diesel engines that would make them seem more fuel efficient than they actually were.

They didn't lie...they just came up with some fictional numbers based upon a creative writing technique. No harm, no foul. Just good storytelling.


Oh, and Hugo Chavez. Did I mention Hugo Chavez? Because we can't forget about Hugo Chavez. It is very important to keep talking about him even though he's been dead for quite some time.

 

[maxparrish]

No. Fraud requires an intent to take something or do other harm due those lies.

Otherwise you're describing any author of fiction.

So I guess Volkswagen was merely authoring fiction when they wrote software for their diesel engines that would make them seem more fuel efficient than they actually were.

They didn't lie...they just came up with some fictional numbers based upon a creative writing technique. No harm, no foul. Just good storytelling.

There are (at least) two distinct meanings of fraud. One meaning is "an act of deceiving or misrepresenting" (disclosed fiction is not fraud because it is NOT deceiving the reader into believing it is real).

The other meaning includes the first meaning, but requires an "intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right."

In general the first meaning is not a civil infraction and/or a crime; the second more expansive meaning usually is.

If Volkswagen, as a business, unintentionally put such software in its vehicles for sale one would be hard pressed to call it fraud by Volkswagen in the second sense. If so, the emission results are 'a fraud', but only in the first sense.

 

[Ford]

If Volkswagen, as a business, unintentionally put such software in its vehicles for sale one would be hard pressed to call it fraud by Volkswagen in the second sense. If so, the emission results are 'a fraud', but only in the first sense.

Oh there's no "unintentionally" about it. They deliberately defrauded their customers.


But you're okay with that because Hugo Chavez.

 

[bilby]

If Volkswagen, as a business, unintentionally put such software in its vehicles for sale one would be hard pressed to call it fraud by Volkswagen in the second sense. If so, the emission results are 'a fraud', but only in the first sense.

Oh there's no "unintentionally" about it. They deliberately defrauded their customers.


But you're okay with that because Hugo Chavez.

Ooops - I accidentally wrote, tested and debugged some code that has the effect of detecting a set of very specific conditions that just happen to exactly match the EPA emissions test, and then inadvertently turns on the emission control system for the engine just for the duration of the test.

It must have been the cat walking across my keyboard.

 

[maxparrish]

If Volkswagen, as a business, unintentionally put such software in its vehicles for sale one would be hard pressed to call it fraud by Volkswagen in the second sense. If so, the emission results are 'a fraud', but only in the first sense.

Oh there's no "unintentionally" about it. They deliberately defrauded their customers.

But you're okay with that because Hugo Chavez.

I am sure there is a meaning in your incoherence.

 

[Ford]

Oh there's no "unintentionally" about it. They deliberately defrauded their customers.

But you're okay with that because Hugo Chavez.

I am sure there is a meaning in your incoherence.

I'm not the guy that's claiming that climate science is a giant left-wing conspiracy.

 

[dismal]

I am sure there is a meaning in your incoherence.

I'm not the guy that's claiming that climate science is a giant left-wing conspiracy.

But hiding the data on the hockey stick was. They were even talking about "hiding the decline" in their e-mails.

Then they hid the data.

How much time do they deserve for that?