Fraud doesn’t usually result in criminal convictions. If you want a truly chilling effect, try manslaughter. Because some of their predictions are far too small and far too modest in scope, in places like Italy climate scientists that UNDERSTATE the danger could be found liable for climate-related deaths. We’ll have to wait and see.
Hummm… Sheep blindly following ANYTHING their Republican leaders tell them!
Don’t you feel like a shameless dupe?
FYI - It is in the interest of big business to NOT be burdened with environmental rules. They make more money in the short term if they can pollute the world. They DON’T CARE about the long term.
FYI - I am old and don’t own beach front property, so go right ahead and follow along with your leaders and cause long term damage to the earth - I will not be here, but you younger people will.
It is your earth and your future!
Note: On a more realistic and reasonable level… Although I know science is correct, I feel the environmental rules in the U.S. have gone WAY overboard! The federal government imposes all sorts of silly rules and restrictions on businesses and local governments which cost millions to comply with.
WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY for all this! So yes the EPA does need to back off a bit and be more realistic - make rules we can all afford. But we don’t need to resort to make believe lies about scientists to achieve this.
P.S. People on this board are smart and are not blind sheep. You are not going to change anyone’s viewpoint here with propaganda and false news! Try Facebook.
The OP has demonstrated as startling level of ignorance about fraud, climate change, science…
OK champ, why don’t you live up to the board motto and fight some ignorance? Spell out how I am ignorant about fraud, climate change and science.
Should the lying climate scientists be investigated or prosecuted for fraud?
Do you know for a fact that they are lying?
AFAIK, global warming has been happening since the last ice age.
No, I don’t know they are lying, but the current leaders of the Republican party and teh United States of America claim they are. Again:
The President Elect of the United States of America says they are lying at the behest of the Chinese.
The Chairman of the United States Senate Science Committee says climate scientists are making "political and partisan claims that run contrary to the science and data and evidence.”
The the Republican chairman of the House committee on space, science and technology actually subpoenaed Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) alleging that they manipulated data in support of an “extreme climate agenda”.
The Virginia Attorney General filed suit against scientists claiming they knowingly defrauded the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia out of taxpayer money.
Now I could link to cases where scientists were prosecuted and found guilty of committing fraud. I don’t know what Shodan, Oakminster, or msmith537 is using for their definitions but the scientists that I know about were found guilty because they fabricated and falsifyed data (see for instance Dipak Das, Eric Poehlman, and Luk Van Parijs). How, exactly, is this different from what our duly elected political leaders are claiming? Why are you not worried about this? Do you think our President Elect is lying? Is Ted Cruz lying? Because the majority (again, according to Pew Research) of Republicans agree that we (the American Taxpayers) are being swindled (I linked this in my OP) by scientists following either a political agenda or seeking to enrich themselves… I am just trying to find out how many people here at the Dope agree with the elected leaders of our country.
So, John Mace may think these people are idiots, and msmith537 may think that I don’t understand science (I have publications and degrees that say you’re wrong), and Oakminster may think that I don’t understand what fraud is in a scientific context, but they don’t seem to have anything to back these claims up. Of the three only John linked to a definition of fraud that included the phrase:
Yet none of them can point out how this definition does not fit what the President elect of the United States, the chairman of the Senate Science Committee, and the Chairman of the House committee on Space, Science and Technology is claiming. I have to believe, unless other evidence is forthcoming, that these people know more, understand the law better, and are more successful in this area than msmith537.
Nevermind.
Right?
I can truthfully say that I love Donald Trump more than any other American for miles around, but I do not think the treasonous scientists should be prosecuted. According to my Internet it’s snowing right now all the way from Seattle, Wash. to Portland, Maine! These “scientists” will soon be laughingstocks and lucky to find work mopping floors.
I think Trump should go after the real villain — Communist China. Let’s move six or seven aircraft carriers into the South China Sea and dare them to keep sabotaging our economy! If they don’t stop stealing our jobs, we’ll cancel the $$trillions of USG paper they own. I’m pretty sure they’ll see the light and Make a Deal.
With Russia now happy to be our ally despite eight years of Obama stupidity, I foresee an America stronger and greater than ever. We’ll look the other way as Russia rescues the million Russians held captive under the heinous Latvian yoke; and they’ll help us bring the Communists in Peking to heel, or demolish their cities if they resist.
So, No to OP’s question. The liberal dummies who’ve taken over our schools are small potatoes. Our message should be positive. Make our universities great again. Make America great again. Get some mileage out of the trillions spent developing our great military. HTH.
Y’all get that the OP is not, himself, a conservative climate change denier, right?
I’m a conservative environmentalist who fully believes that man-made climate change is a real thing. Guess that puts me at poll option 4#.
(post shortened)
How long have the man-made global warming zealots been trying to convince people that the IPCC, UN, and UNFCCC claims of an immediate global warming disaster is upon us? 30 years? Why haven’t they been more successful? Is it simply a matter of trust? Or more to the point, a lack of trust?
At one time, people worked together to promote clean air and clean water. People worked together. Then. Now, these same people aren’t/won’t/can’t work together to support the MMC02GW claims. It appears that the MMCO2GW zealots can’t figure out how to make themselves appear more believable to the masses. Sucks to be them, I guess.
So I take it you think they should be investigated for making fraudulent claims on the taxpayers dime?
ETA: I am not really interested in discussing the claims of the IPCC, the UN or other “man-made global warming zealots”. The subject of this thread is a personal question to each and every doper (with emphasis on conservative ones); do you personally thing that scientists should be investigated or prosecuted? I don’t want to talk about why you feel the way you do, just how you feel.
(Underline added)
You don’t have to talk about it. Really. Seriously.
FYI, you guessed wrong about my selection in your poll. I selected:
How can you live with yourself for posting something like this?
because that is how I feel. Thanks for offering me that choice in your poll.
Generally-speaking, I’m in favor of investigations. How else can we the people uncover all the facts? How else can we the people discover who/which side is more convincing?
Hearing this from someone who denies the overwhelming scientific consensus is rich. Hey buddy, you tell me. Why don’t you trust the overwhelming majority of scientists when they tell us that global warming is a serious problem? Why do you feel the need to reject the overwhelming scientific consensus? Why don’t you trust the science when you can pick out virtually any peer-reviewed paper on the subject and it will tell you that global warming is real? My guess is that you’d rather listen to politicians than scientists when said scientists disagree with your political leanings. But that’s just me.
I’m curious what this actually means as applied to climate science. There are already myriads of scientific papers and blogs on the 'Net about climate science,or debunking it, or debunking the debunkers. What exactly is it you want in addition to that? The verdict of a Congressional Committee? To watch a debate moderated by Megyn Kelly?
People are free to listen to all sides of this issue, and are free to make up their own minds as to who, or what, seems more convincing/trustworthy.
The MMCO2GW zealots have had almost 30 years to make their case to the public, and now you’re asking me to tell you how to convince the public that your side is right/correct/more scientific/believable/etc.? That sounds a bit desperate, doesn’t it?
Maybe it’s not the facts so much as it’s the delivery? All you stupid people out there know that we MMCO2GW zealots are smarter than you, and you should just do, and vote, the way we tell you. If you freely chose not to do what we tell you, we will continue to taunt you a second, third, sixth, twentieth time.
I’ve been told that I don’t believe in global warming, or maybe it’s that I don’t believe in the correct version of global warming? I believe in global warming. And I believe that Al “manbearpig” Gore is a con artist.
While it might be amusing to diagnose your peculiar antipathy against this Nobel Prize-winning statesman, he is not a scientist and never pretends to be one. What is the relevance?
Just curious…
Why are “moderates” and “Liberals” lumped together in the poll?
From the OP:
Or to be more concise: laziness.