Or the right wing doesn’t see them as being any different.
Al “is that a cheesecake” Gore wanted to be associated with MMCO2GW, and now he is. Woohoo.
I didn’t see an option for ‘Yes, if they actually commit fraud’.
There are two cases I know of where the scientist ought to have been charged with fraud or a crime or vioated contractual agreements.
#1. Peter Gleick. Gleick, who was on the AGU ethics committee, fraudulently obtained documents from the Heartland Institute and also faked up a couple documents and sent them out. Link. Link 2.
Gleick took a leave of absence from his position and then got his job back a short time later. Basically he walked free with no real consequences.
#2. Jagadish Shukla. Shulka was one of the folks who suggested prosecuting skeptics under RICO. The problem is that Shulka himself appeared to be committing fraud. Shulka ran the Institute of Global Environment and Society which received about 63 million in grants from the NSF, NOAA and NASA over 14 years. The problem twofold. The first problem is that the IGES had the following employees: Business Manager was Jagadish Shuklas wife. Shulkas daughter, Anastasia, was the assistant business manager. The only other employee was James Kinter who have worked together since 1984.
The second problem is that Shulka was an employee of George Mason University and George Mason University and the federal agencies that gave Shulka the money prohibit double dipping. Shulka shouldn’t have gotten money for research from both G.M and the government.
This came out after Shulka posted a ‘Rico 20’ letter on the IGES website. The letter got a lot of attention, was taken down from the IGES website and then people started looking and found that all was not right in Shulkas world. Link. Link 2
Some folks on both sides have tried using lawsuits/legal threats to punish the other side. This should not happen unless the person actually broke a law or violated contracts.
Slee
Ah! Thanks! 
Edit: I admit to my laziness. I did not take the time to read the OP fully. My apologies.
Why should science by a matter of trust, rather than evidence?
Science is evidence.
That’s like saying that you don’t trust light, you just trust what you can see with your eyes.
Oh, by all means, let’s go by the evidence. If we were doing that in the first place, this wouldn’t be a problem. There’s been a fairly strong consensus for at least a decade (and possibly quite a lot longer) that global warming exists and will be a serious problem. Looking through the peer-reviewed literature, you will find virtually no mention of any of the common denialist talking points. At best, you’ll find a scant selection of various papers proposing alternative hypotheses, most of which have since been rejected. The vast, vast majority of climatology papers either contribute to the consensus on climate change or take it as the basis for their arguments.
The problem is that the people who deny global warming typically aren’t the type to read or accept the evidence.
Seems that a lot of fabrication from outfits like Breitbart are in the articles you point here. AFAIK regarding Gleik, I think he deserved to be sued, but when I look at was was going on it is very clear that the Heartland Institute had a lot of very bad connections with fossil fuel industry money so the discovery phase would be very bad for the ones making a lawsuit; so, nothing came from it.
As for Shulka, a commenter at ARS Technica explains why it looks like Breitbart and others are also stuck in the past innuendo because, as usual, an accusation does not make it a fact, and it is even less worthy of consideration when partisan sites just never bother to report that nothing has come from those accusations, because the other side would be found with the real chicanery.
And of course it has to be added that currently the Committee of Science and Technology in the House is controlled by deniers like Lamar Alexander that have been pointed out as using also unfounded reasons to demand emails from scientists so as to intimidate them.
As others pointed out, nothing regarding this cases goes against the scientific evidence that has been found, we need to stop polluting the atmosphere.
I voted yes but ONLY if they were deliberately doctoring records and using such records to live off of grants and such. No difference than when say Volkswagen last year was prosecuted for doctoring records on car fuel economy and then profiting off of it.
Stupid question, not least because, in the REAL world, it’s climate change DENIERS who are being threatened with legal action by their enemies.
Conservatives don’t punish their ideological foes as mercilessly as liberals do. Ask Brendan Eich.
I asked around what other people thought, but since all the people I asked worked for ACORN and Planned Parenthood, they all disagreed with you.
This shouldn’t come as a huge surprise, as much of what they’re doing is ethically not dissimilar to slander (if you intentionally take a scientist’s research out of context in order to lie about his field of study, I fail to see any moral difference), is extremely harmful, and is fundamentally dishonest. No kidding that it’s the denialists who are more likely to get in trouble for this shit - they’re the equivalent of the people trying to cover up a huge catastrophe for a few quick bucks.
IDK but I would love to watch the Supreme Court trying to determine that the greenhouse effect is not real.
Gigo, I don’t read Breitbart. I did, however, read what Peter Glieck himself said.
. Link.
So, now that we know Peter Glieck admitted to the crime, are you going to claim that he works for Brietbart and this was all a giant ‘denier’ scam to discredit AGW?
Additionally, regardless of what Heartland says, what Gleick did is wrong. He admits it, why can’t you?
So, a commentator at Ars is your best cite? Good job! Certainly a commentor at Ars is a better cite than an investigation by the school that Shulka worked for or the Wall Street Journal. Additionally, you can find all the gory details including cites to policies,etc, here*.
Additionally, this thread is about prosecuting climate scientists for fraud. I stated that they should be prosecuted for fraud* IF THEY COMMIT FRAUD*. I made no comment about anything else.
Slee
*Yeah, it is Steve McIntyre which will probably make your head explode. However McIntyre does solid reseach, especially on this sort of thing.
Planned Parenthood uses the law to punish its enemies far more than the other way around.
The folks who exposed PP’s dirty dealings ended up prosecuted by PP’s political allies in Houston. Liberals are far more likely to turn political disagreements into criminal offenses than conservatives.
I say the scientists are on the ball and the denialists are idiots, liars, or both. That said, let the trials begin! Televise them! Get Ken Burns on the phone! I’d love to see denialists try to prove their claims in a court of law instead of on some worthless blog or right-wing propaganda program.
(I’m assuming you’re talking about the “Center for Medical Progress” fiasco. If you’re not, my apologies; I hadn’t heard of another Houston-based issue surrounding Planned Parenthood".
Yeah. Do you know why they were prosecuted, and Planned Parenthood was not? Because Planned Parenthood did nothing wrong, and David Daleiden committed fraud in an attempt to slander a non-profit he disagreed with and get it shut down. There have been literally a dozen investigations into Planned Parenthood and not one was able to show any kind of “dirty dealings”. The only people who broke the law here are David Daleiden and CMP.
Really? Or is it just that it’s far more likely for conservatives to break the law in politically motivated ways? I’m not convinced that’s the case, but the example you provided is not an example of liberals legally striking back in a political disagreement. It’s an example of someone committing fraud in support of a political position and getting busted for it. Unless you meant something different, in which case my apologies, I wish you had been more specific.
IMHO the OP is too complicated to be answered with a one-size-fits-all response. There’s not one category of “climate scientists” who either are or are not perpetuating fraud, and any individual scientist acts on his or her own motivations.
FWIW, I tend to be a bit skeptical of global warming claims. I don’t think the claims are ultimately based on fraud, but I do think scientists in general tend to be overconfident of their level of understanding of complex matters, including but by no means limited to global warming.
As to which side is committing more fraud, I don’t have any actual knowledge of this aspect. But in general, scientists tend to suppress opinions that diverge from the mainstream consensus and are sometimes not above using underhanded means of doing so, in the interests of the Great Cause. But conversely, the minority opinion tends to attract all sorts of iconoclasts and cranks, many of whom have their own issues.
I lean in this direction, too.
But I would think that that there is an additional spin to this climate change debate, for me. On one side of the coin is the science & scientists, who I have an open mind on (and can become more convinced with reasoned argument), but on the other hand, there is the political side of the issue, which is where I am much more skeptical and cynical. I get the feeling that politicians would like to use GW as a way to raise revenue.
Let me see:
[QUOTE=GIGObuster, posted before in the thread]
Seems that a lot of fabrication from outfits like Breitbart are in the articles you point here. AFAIK regarding Gleik, I think he deserved to be sued,
[/QUOTE]
Gee, it seems that once again you do not want to quote so your narrative would sound valid or something.
So solid that he has convinced all about how wrong everybody is. Not!
So since that bit of committing fraud the fraud you are talking about (and still not demonstrated where it counts) is not related to climate science itself, so you are only still going for a big red herring.