2 of 3
2
Experts misrepresenting to the point of lying about geophysical facts. Why isn’t it unlawful?
Posted: 10 September 2017 08:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1597
Joined  2016-12-24

jog

Lois, we already supposedly have slander and liable laws. 
Deliberately misrepresenting facts and repeatedly ignoring corrections to those mistakes, is something that can be demonstrated based on the public record.

It’s really simple - a societal return to the expectation of honesty from our experts and leader, even if none of us is perfect. 
Sure beats the conviction that malicious lies are a free speech right.
Yeah fat change if one’s ego is so big they mistake their imagination for God.


Oh and back to deniable but unavoidable geophysical reality

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/10/hurricane-irma-florida-keys-latest-news/

Time to talk about climate change’ says Miami’s Republican mayor’
Miami’s mayor,  Mayor Tomás Regalado, has called on Donald Trump - who once dismissed climate change as a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese - to think again.
“If this isn’t climate change, I don’t know what is,” he said after declaring an emergency in his city.

“This is a truly, truly poster child for what is to come.” 
This is the new normal, and before we know it, it will be the old normal, replaced by an even more destructive one.
(and no that doesn’t mean you can expect this every year, so next year if its calm, ain’t going to be a refutation of that,
these things unfold on their own time schedule)

“I don’t want to be political, but the fact of the matter is that this is a lesson that we need protection from nature,” he added.
“So, I think this is a lesson for the people to say you know what?
We have to be prepared.”

Yeah like no longer building in doomed places, in Miami 17 high rise construction cranes left blowing in the wind like wind vanes, it’s ludicrous.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/hurricane-irmas-winds-pose-threat-floridas-skyscrapers-49674435
Not the blowing in the wind, the fact that they are even over there, it’s absolutely disconnected from reality.
Blight dismissals such as the one by the hurricane expert Dr. Klotzbach, are a key ingredient of this failure to imagine reality as it is.

Instead fixating on a blurry old incomplete “map” of a world that is gone, as though we’re gonna find answers in that time expending effort -
can’t be done without first accepting the global climate engine reality we have created for our selves

Hello >400 ppm CO2 not to mention the other scary GHG stuff happening methane increase atmospheric moisture and such HAS PHYSICAL CASCADING CONSEQUENCES
I been to Miami, the thought of supposedly grown-up intelligent people investing fortunes and lives into something that will be flooded and blown away by that random monster that decides to make it her target which the geophysics tells us will come - and that recent experience proves will only get bigger, I find flabbergasting.

[ Edited: 10 September 2017 08:31 AM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 09:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1580
Joined  2010-04-22
LoisL - 10 September 2017 01:38 AM
Beltane - 09 September 2017 12:05 PM
TromboneAndrew - 08 September 2017 09:48 PM
Beltane - 08 September 2017 09:04 PM

What should happen to the scientists who say the wrong stuff? Prison?

In law, lawyers who violate their oaths get debarred. Doctors can lose their licenses to practice.

AFAIK corrupt scientists are fired from academia and their reputation is permanently ruined. Should their PhDs be revoked as well?

Doctors and lawyers or other professionals who commot crimes don’t have their degrees revoked.

And I never suggested that. A degree is not a legal license to practice.

A typical reason for punishing a scientist for bad behavior would be for unethical treatment of test subjects.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 10:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24
TromboneAndrew - 10 September 2017 09:08 AM
LoisL - 10 September 2017 01:38 AM
Beltane - 09 September 2017 12:05 PM
TromboneAndrew - 08 September 2017 09:48 PM
Beltane - 08 September 2017 09:04 PM

What should happen to the scientists who say the wrong stuff? Prison?

In law, lawyers who violate their oaths get debarred. Doctors can lose their licenses to practice.

AFAIK corrupt scientists are fired from academia and their reputation is permanently ruined. Should their PhDs be revoked as well?

Doctors and lawyers or other professionals who commot crimes don’t have their degrees revoked.

And I never suggested that. A degree is not a legal license to practice.

A typical reason for punishing a scientist for bad behavior would be for unethical treatment of test subjects.

Which happens how often?

Why are we even discussing a subject raised by a troll to take this most serious of subjects off track.

The thing of most concern today is not the unethical behavior of many scientists except in the few cases of those who are working directly for the fossil fuel sector.

https://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer

Siegfried Frederick Singer (S. Fred Singer) is a former space scientist and government scientific administrator. [1]

Singer founded the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) in 1990, a 501(c)(3) “educational group” focusing on global warming denial. According to their website, SEPP also reports to cover topics such as nuclear radiation, DDT, science and regulation at EPA, energy policy, and space exploration. [2]

According to SEPP, “sound, credible science must form the basis for health and environmental decisions that affect millions of people and cost tens of billions of dollars every year.” [2]

Leaked documents obtained by DeSmog revealed that Fred Singer has also been receiving $5,000 a month from the Heartland Institute. With the help of Craig Idso, Singer helped develop the Heartland Institute’s “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),”

https://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen

Richard S. Lindzen is former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a position he held from 1983 until his retirement in 2013. He is the Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. [2], [3], [76], [77]

Lindzen’s academic interests lie within the topics of “climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability.” [2]

Lindzen has published work with the conservative think-tank, the Cato Institute, a think tank that has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan notes that Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services. [4], [5]

Lindzen has described ExxonMobil as “the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US.

That’s just to start with, explain to me how this isn’t criminal behavior on the greatest scale.

These are people who are using their scientific credentials to perpetual a massive fraud while being paid by the group that benefits most directly from the that fraud. A fraud that has already caused directly or indirectly the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the physical or financial injury of millions more and cost us all hundreds of billions to trillions dollars in damages already and places in jeopardy the future of humanity itself.

Show me where there is any comparison with any other group in history as this right wing troll is imply by his, “saying the wrong thing” comment in regards to some scientists.

Climate change deniers aren’t just “saying the wrong thing”, they are intentionally programming global human society for a global catastrophe that has already begun. One that if taken far enough will rival the worst events in the geological history of the planet.

https://skepticalscience.com/Lee-commentary-on-Burgess-et-al-PNAS-Permian-Dating.html

Until recently the scale of the Permian Mass Extinction was seen as just too massive, its duration far too long, and dating too imprecise for a sensible comparison to be made with today’s climate change. No longer.

In “High-precision timeline for Earth’s most severe extinction,” published in PNAS on February 10, authors Seth Burgess, Samuel Bowring, and Shu-zhong Shen employed new dating techniques on Permian-Triassic rocks in China, bringing unprecedented precision to our understanding of the event. They have dramatically shortened the timeframe for the initial carbon emissions that triggered the mass extinction from roughly 150,000 years to between 2,100 and 18,800 years. This new timeframe is crucial because it brings the timescale of the Permian Extinction event’s carbon emissions shorter by two orders of magnitude, into the ballpark of human emission rates for the first time.

How does this relate to today’s global warming?

Climate and CO2 have changed hand-in-hand through most of geological time. Mostly these changes happened slowly enough that the long-term feedbacks of Earth’s climate system had time to process them. This was true during the orbitally-induced glacial-interglacial cycles in the ice ages. In warmer interglacials, more intense insolation in northern hemisphere summers led to warmer oceans which were in equilibrium with slightly more CO2 in the atmosphere by adjusting their carbonate levels. In glacial times with less intense northern hemisphere summer insolation, the cooler oceans dissolved more CO2, and carbonate levels adjusted accordingly. The changes occurred over gentle timescales of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years – plenty slow enough for slow feedbacks like the deep oceans and ice sheets to keep pace.

Burgess et al’s paper brings the Permian into line with many other global-warming extinction events, like the Triassic, the Toarcian, the Cretaceous Ocean Anoxic Events, The PETM, and the Columbia River Basalts, whose time frames have been progressively reduced as more sophisticated dating has been applied to them. They all produced the same symptoms as today’s climate change – rapid global warming, ocean acidification, and sea level rises, together with oxygen-less ocean dead zones and extinctions. They were all (possibly excluding the PETM - see below) triggered by rare volcanic outpourings called “Large Igneous Provinces,” (LIPs) that emitted massive volumes of CO2 and methane at rates comparable to today’s emissions. The PETM may also have been triggered by a LIP, although that is still debated.

Can we seriously expect Earth’s climate to behave differently today than it did at all those times in the past?

Someone please explain to me how people who are intentionally working to recreate things like the Permian extinction have any place in human society at all. Shouldn’t it be obvious by now that if allowed to continue with their actions any further there’s very little chance there will be a human society much longer. Or even a human species let alone millions of others.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 05:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  450
Joined  2016-10-10

I’m still wondering what should be done with these supposedly corrupt scientists and greedy CEOs, but there’s been a lot of ranting and not much else.

If you want them imprisoned, how would the process work? (And remember the constitution isn’t going to be changed).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 05:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24
Beltane - 10 September 2017 05:06 PM

I’m still wondering what should be done with these supposedly corrupt scientists and greedy CEOs, but there’s been a lot of ranting and not much else.

If you want them imprisoned, how would the process work? (And remember the constitution isn’t going to be changed).

Somehow I doubt you care at all about others considering everything else you’ve posted.

In the end the most important thing is to stop the activity that is so destructive, finding justice for this kind of criminal behavior is secondary and if the tobacco lobby case is any indication the people most responsible for the vast destruction already done will never see the inside of a courtroom either criminal or civil.

There’s no question that climate change is in full gear now, the hotter and hotter summers are burning up vast areas of the planet, there is still an over 1,000,000 acres blaze a couple hundred miles to the north of here and 10 miles away there is a 5,000 acre fire. One of many that will burn in this province into the fall, and across this region far down into the US. And this is happening in various forms all over the planet, in large part because of how successful the fossil fuel lobby has been in delaying any action. When this was first brought to prominence almost 30 years ago there was a very good chance of preventing some of the worst impact of human forced climate change. Now we are already dealing with disasters that are only going to get worse.

This idea that we are going to be able to deal with these negative impacts with no problem is not supported by the evidence, when some of them hit like record breaking hurricanes and wildfires of immense size we get out of the way or die. That is exactly what is going to happen to more and more people as these things become more frequent and other impacts kick in that will threaten water and food security for more and more people all the time.

And still deniers claim there is no cause for alarm…. then flee for the hills abandoning everyone else as we just saw with Rush Limbaugh taking the insane action of telling people to not worry about a hurricane that was about to cover Florida from coast to coast with extreme winds, intense rainfall, tornadoes on the east of the state and a storm surge that could reach almost 20 feet in some areas. That will kill anyone not prepared as the governor of Florida has clearly stated. And this from a politician that forbid government employees in the state from using the term “climate change.”

We have already been screwed, the people responsible do deserve some form of justice but far more important is taking what measures we can now to save as much as possible.

This truly is an emergency even if the frauds who have been claiming it isn’t happening for decades have fooled themselves into believing their own lies. There’s no way we should keep basing official policy on these deadly lies but that is exactly what the US is going to get until the denier trump is out of the White House, Tillerson is out of State and Pruitt no longer heads the EPA.

We just have to look at the fact that these people are in the position of formulating and implementing policy to deal with climate change to see how effective the industry funded fraud has been.

What trump is doing is exactly the same thing that Limbaugh did before fleeing for his life… only on a much larger scale. Having trump and all the frauds working for him is a disaster in its own right.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 06:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1597
Joined  2016-12-24

Incidentally, if anyone was following this,
here’s the latest follow up

September 10, 2017
Phil Klotzbach’s response to Citizenschallenge Examined - The Map vs. Territory Problem

Phil Klotzbach gave me his permission to share this email and I thank him.  I haven’t changed any of his words, I simply follow along and share my responses as I try fleshing out this Map vs. Territory Problem I’m trying to explain.  By that I mean the attitude that unless you can statistically prove it, it doesn’t exist and should be dismissed, even though the physics dictates it must exist and had better be taken seriously.

There’s also the seepage issue, a sort of self-censorship where certain information is being withheld while other information is given inordinate weight - following the contrarian script rather than focusing on conveying the physical reality.
_____________________________________________________________

From: Phil Klotzbach
Date: Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: fyi, just posted “Surely you’re joking Dr. Klotzbach, no hurricane global warming connection”
To:  citizenschallenge @ gmail

Dr. Klotzbach writes:  Apologies for a delay, but it’s been a very hectic past few days.

No apology needed, considering your lead author of the Colorado State University Department of Atmospheric Science’s seasonal hurricane forecast, I imagine you’re probably running on four hours of sleep these past few weeks.  I was surprised to receive any response, let alone such a thoughtful one.  I don’t mind admitting I’m honored and thank you for your time and effort.

Explaining your position will allow me to explain mine, which I believe is compatible with the need for vigorous science in all it’s maddening details minutia and uncertainties.
______________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Klotzbach:  In answer to your questions, I have spent over 15 years working with historical hurricane data, primarily for the Atlantic but over the last several years with global data, so I do not make statements like I did on NPR and many other news outlets without having spent much time understanding the nuances of the technology going into the analyses. 

I acknowledge your expertise, in fact both Drs. Mann and Tobis made a point of telling me your professional reputation among experts is solid.  Me?  I’m a layperson and my hobby for the past 45 years has been learning about Earth sciences.  Evolution and our planet’s global heat and moisture distribution engine have been of particular fascination to me. 

My position is that while our actual living breathing climate engine is infinitely complex, it follows fundamental and well understood laws - which I believe are too often left behind in favor of obsessing over trying to explain uncertainties that in the end are more irrelevant than not, and only serve to sooth people into complacent disconnect from the changes happening underfoot.  This is what my Map vs. Territory Problem is all about, allow me to explain.

Read more »
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/09/klotzbach-response-to-citizenschallenge.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 07:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1597
Joined  2016-12-24
Beltane - 10 September 2017 05:06 PM

I’m still wondering what should be done with these supposedly corrupt scientists and greedy CEOs, but there’s been a lot of ranting and not much else.

If you want them imprisoned, how would the process work? (And remember the constitution isn’t going to be changed).

We already supposedly have slander and liable laws. 
Deliberately misrepresenting facts and repeatedly ignoring corrections to those mistakes, is something that can be demonstrated based on the public record.

It’s really simple - a societal return to the expectation of honesty from our experts and leader, even if none of us is perfect. 
Sure beats the conviction that malicious lies are a free speech right.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 09:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24

There’s no question that hurricane formation is a complex process.

A number of years ago I spent a lot of time educating myself on hurricane formation as part of an attempt to understand climate change better.

Some things that I still recall.

- The atmospheric depressions that eventually turn into hurricanes can start as far away as Ethiopia in thunder storm systems there that then move westward across the Sahara eventually reaching the Atlantic.

- If winds are strong enough blowing off of the Sahara dust carried over the Atlantic can cool the surface water impeding hurricane formation.

- In strong El Nino years the typical trade winds that usually blow to the west at that latitude can reverse and blow to the east. This can also impede the formation of hurricanes as it prevents the high altitude buildup of clouds that begin to pull warm, moist ocean surface air to high altitudes where the water vapour condenses and releases the heat that begins to accelerate the spiral winds that eventually turn a tropical depression into a hurricane when sustained wind speeds reach a certain point. The winds basically lop the top off the tropical storm before it can grow to hurricane strength.

The most important thing that I came to understand is that a key component of hurricane formation and eventual strength is the warm surface water that in turn creates the warm and much more humid air that is the “fuel” source of hurricanes.

I think saying that global warming doesn’t contribute to stronger hurricanes is like saying all that gas that you accidentally spilled in your backyard isn’t going to contribute to the brush fire that is heading your way. Warm ocean surface water is fuel to hurricanes, if a hurricane passes over water that is warmer than usual there is a very good chance it will become a more intense storm because there is more energy in the form of water vapour that will be pulled to high altitude where it condenses and releases 54 calories per gram.

I think the fact that we have just seen the most powerful hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic at a time when all indications are that climate is in fact warming does give a strong argument for a link. Academics may debate this for a long time, but given the context and the fact that this is exactly what was predicted by climate scientists 30 years ago convinces me. Enough with picking the fly shit from the pepper, let’s call all these things what they are and stop being so cautious about what’s happening.

Catastrophe is here already and based on the incredibly well supported science this is just going to increase.

Let’s not pretend the summer of Harvey, Katia, Irma, Jose and who knows what follows is a one off we won’t have to worry about in the future. This is the new normal, and it sucks.

[ Edited: 11 September 2017 01:10 AM by DougC ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 09:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24

I also think most people don’t understand the incredible amount of energy released by a hurricane.

A typical hurricane will release 600 trillion watts, that is equivalent to 200 times the worldwide electrical generation capacity.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/hurricane-power.html

All that energy comes from the water vapour that the tropical storm pulls from near the ocean surface and raises in updrafts to high altitude where it condenses and releases 540(sorry, my memory failed me, I was off by an order of magnitude, water vapour releases 540 calories on condensation) calories per gram.

If water and air temperatures are warmer there will be more evaporation and the saturation point of the air increases which means that it can carry more water vapour.

Do the math.

- A tropical storm relies on latent heat in the form of water vapour to power itself up to higher speeds. It does this by sucking surface air up into high altitude where the water vapour condenses and releases 540 calories per gram.

- Warmer surface water and air temperatures mean there is probably more water vapour present in the air near the ocean surface.

- As the tropical depression crosses over this warmer water with higher levels of water vapour it gains more energy in the form of condensing water which produces heat which takes the cyclical motion of the tropical depression - due to coriolis effect - and accelerates it.

- As the tropical storm begins to spin faster it also pulls more surface air up to high altitude where it increases the spin rate even more pulling even more humid air to high altitude where the water vapour condenses. It is a feedback loop, if there is more energy available it will strengthen this feedback even more.

Consider how much water vapour must be condensed to provide 600 trillion watts of energy. A hurricane is a very efficient way to take latent heat that is distributed over a very large volume and concentrate it into a relatively small but incredibly powerful storm system.

Please explain to me how it would be possible given all this that if you provided even more energy in the form of more water vapour that this wouldn’t result in exactly what we are seeing across the Caribbean and US south.

Abnormally powerful storm systems traveling over abnormally warm ocean surfaces.

[ Edited: 10 September 2017 11:40 PM by DougC ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 09:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24

One fortunate aspect - if anything about a hurricane can be called fortunate - of a hurricane is how it releases the energy it contains.

It may sound implausible, but most of the energy contained in a hurricane is released in ways that don’t increase the strength of the winds. It goes into the hurricanes “rising motions” or is expelled into the upper layers of the atmosphere.

People on the Earth’s surface only feel 1/2 of a percent of all the energy eventually released by a hurricane.

Fortunately for those in the path of hurricanes, most of this energy goes into generating the storm’s rising motions or gets expelled as a kind of “cold exhaust” in the upper layers of the atmosphere, some eight or ten miles up. Only a tiny portion of that total energy goes into cooking up the ferocious winds. “A hurricane is a pretty inefficient heat engine,” Landsea says. “Only about a half percent of all the energy that’s being released is actually captured by the hurricane to warm the air locally, lower the pressure, and spin the winds out.”

Yet as people in, say, Florida know all too well, that half percent still packs a wallop. Like 1,500,000,000,000 watts in the average hurricane—or fully half of the global electrical output.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 September 2017 12:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  450
Joined  2016-10-10
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 10 September 2017 07:05 PM
Beltane - 10 September 2017 05:06 PM

I’m still wondering what should be done with these supposedly corrupt scientists and greedy CEOs, but there’s been a lot of ranting and not much else.

If you want them imprisoned, how would the process work? (And remember the constitution isn’t going to be changed).

We already supposedly have slander and liable laws. 
Deliberately misrepresenting facts and repeatedly ignoring corrections to those mistakes, is something that can be demonstrated based on the public record.

It’s really simple - a societal return to the expectation of honesty from our experts and leader, even if none of us is perfect. 
Sure beats the conviction that malicious lies are a free speech right.

I think you’re getting your legal definitions mixed up because misrepresenting scientific facts isn’t slander or libel.

Slander and libel meansharmful defamation of character. Misrepresenting facts isn’t a crime at all unless it happens in court.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2017 08:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1597
Joined  2016-12-24
Beltane - 22 September 2017 12:05 PM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 10 September 2017 07:05 PM
Beltane - 10 September 2017 05:06 PM

I’m still wondering what should be done with these supposedly corrupt scientists and greedy CEOs, but there’s been a lot of ranting and not much else.

If you want them imprisoned, how would the process work? (And remember the constitution isn’t going to be changed).

We already supposedly have slander and liable laws. 
Deliberately misrepresenting facts and repeatedly ignoring corrections to those mistakes, is something that can be demonstrated based on the public record.

It’s really simple - a societal return to the expectation of honesty from our experts and leader, even if none of us is perfect. 
Sure beats the conviction that malicious lies are a free speech right.

I think you’re getting your legal definitions mixed up because misrepresenting scientific facts isn’t slander or libel.

Slander and libel meansharmful defamation of character. Misrepresenting facts isn’t a crime at all unless it happens in court.

Yes and no.  When scientists spend an huge effort to put together a study, and that study get’s malicious misrepresented,  it is not only the knowledge that is being abused but the integrity of the scientists efforts.  Go up to some newly unveiled artwork and destroy it - bet there are laws about that.  Why is intellectual so different?

I do appreciate that the malicious right wing has very methodically and deliberately made dishonesty a cornerstone of their public outreach efforts.
Hell they proudly proclaim it their free speech right.
Sure our legal system isn’t set up to deal such underhanded bullshit - but that is a big problem that ought to get rectified.

Perhaps just as important would be that scientists stop allowing themselves being played for patsies so easily

September 15, 2017
#A) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (1-3)
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/09/a-investorscom-fraud-libel-mann.html

September 17, 2017
#B) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (4-9)
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/09/b-investorscom-fraud-libel-mann.html

September 17, 2017
#C) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (10-14)
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/09/c-investorscom-fraud-libel-mann.html

September 18, 2017
#D) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (15-27)
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/09/d-investorscom-fraud-libel-mann.html

September 19, 2017
#E) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (28-36 and fini)
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/09/e-investorscom-fraud-libel-mann.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2017 01:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4314
Joined  2014-06-20
DougC - 08 September 2017 09:24 AM

Hurricanes are powered by heat they pull up from the ocean surface, warmer oceans upper layers means the potential for much more powerful hurricanes.

Water vapour when it condenses releases 54 calories per gram, as all that water vapour that is pulled from the ocean surface by growing tropical storms rises into the atmosphere condenses and releases an incredible amount of heat which is then converted into wind velocity as the hurricane spirals up. It’s why a hurricane starts dying the moment it crosses over land.

It’s completely dishonest to claim that global warming with much warmer ocean temperatures are not linked to much stronger hurricanes.

What is already happening is that once in 100 year hurricanes are going to become once in 25 years, then once in 10, etc… exactly what the science has been saying for decades.

The people being paid by the fossil fuel industry must keep lying or their paychecks will dry up as those companies most responsible for this growing disaster are sued out of existence. The damage already done by fossil fuels is in the hundreds of billions of dollars… at least.

And we’re all picking up the bill, not the Koch brothers, not Exxon-Mobil, not Shell, not Chevron, not Standard, not Southern, Peabody, Western Fuels or any of these criminal organizations who’s products in the end will be far more deadly than all the cocaine, heroin, meth, etc… ever produced.

It isn’t just the fossil fuel industry by a long shot. It’s all the dyed-in-the-wool, hard-headed capitalists who don’t want to have to cut back on their capitalistic excesses who are the real problem. They are afraid that if they accept that human caused global warming is causing problems with the weather and otherwise, that they will no longer have untrammelled capitalism to profit from. They don’t want to be restricted in any way, so they refuse to agree that climate change is human caused and that anything can be done about it. I hear from these capitalist types and their position never changes.

Here’s an example of what one human-caused climate change denier says.

“There have been category 3, 4 and 5 hurricanes before.  You remember
telling us when the global warming warnings were first launched that we
could expect 17 major hurricanes that year.  That didn’t happen and has
not happened any year since.  They can not accurately predict that sort
of stuff no matter what they say.  But we can expect it from “them”
whenever we see several hurricanes hit.  What is their explanation for
being so wrong for the past 10 years?

“For all we know we may not see another major hurricane again for several
more years.”

“Them” are liberals and climate scientists.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2017 06:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  450
Joined  2016-10-10
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 23 September 2017 08:00 AM
Beltane - 22 September 2017 12:05 PM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 10 September 2017 07:05 PM
Beltane - 10 September 2017 05:06 PM

I’m still wondering what should be done with these supposedly corrupt scientists and greedy CEOs, but there’s been a lot of ranting and not much else.

If you want them imprisoned, how would the process work? (And remember the constitution isn’t going to be changed).

We already supposedly have slander and liable laws. 
Deliberately misrepresenting facts and repeatedly ignoring corrections to those mistakes, is something that can be demonstrated based on the public record.

It’s really simple - a societal return to the expectation of honesty from our experts and leader, even if none of us is perfect. 
Sure beats the conviction that malicious lies are a free speech right.

I think you’re getting your legal definitions mixed up because misrepresenting scientific facts isn’t slander or libel.

Slander and libel meansharmful defamation of character. Misrepresenting facts isn’t a crime at all unless it happens in court.

Yes and no.  When scientists spend an huge effort to put together a study, and that study get’s malicious misrepresented,  it is not only the knowledge that is being abused but the integrity of the scientists efforts.  Go up to some newly unveiled artwork and destroy it - bet there are laws about that.  Why is intellectual so different?

Facts can’t be destroyed or abused in any meaningful sense, they still exist for those who are interested. As for scientific integrity - that is too subjective to quantify legally. It can be quantified in research to some extent, and there’s already a system monitoring that.

I do appreciate that the malicious right wing has very methodically and deliberately made dishonesty a cornerstone of their public outreach efforts.
Hell they proudly proclaim it their free speech right.
Sure our legal system isn’t set up to deal such underhanded bullshit - but that is a big problem that ought to get rectified.

Its not a big problem. You simply want those you don’t like silenced.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2017 11:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1597
Joined  2016-12-24
Beltane - 23 September 2017 06:17 PM

Facts can’t be destroyed or abused in any meaningful sense, they still exist for those who are interested. As for scientific integrity - that is too subjective to quantify legally. It can be quantified in research to some extent, and there’s already a system monitoring that.

I do appreciate that the malicious right wing has very methodically and deliberately made dishonesty a cornerstone of their public outreach efforts.
Hell they proudly proclaim it their free speech right.
Sure our legal system isn’t set up to deal such underhanded bullshit - but that is a big problem that ought to get rectified.

Its not a big problem. You simply want those you don’t like silenced.

What is too subjective of deliberately misrepresenting, misstating written studies and reports?

As for ethics - what about making the most outlandish charges against professionals in positions of responsibility -
claims and charges with no serious evidence to support them - purely intended to destroy careers.
Why are you proud to call that your free speech right?

What is it about the true blue right wing character - Truth about the physical world has taken a make-believe faith based aspect, you can ignore it at will, if it interferes with dogmatic interests, its okay to ignore all incoming information and corrections.

Innuendo, insults, misrepresenting your opponents words, so that you can fabricate a fictitious, but winning story line, all that is part of normal operating procedure.  I get the feeling you aren’t bothered in the least by someone like Trump or Bannon, doesn’t disturb your morals or peace of mind in the least?  It’s all part and parcel of having to win regardless of anything but one’s own immediate self interest in winning.

See in my world honestly still means something and our planet’s geophysics are quite straight forward.  It’s real easy to determine truth and lie, but it requires a level playing field and that has been destroyed in our modern era.  For example debating someone like MikeYohe is fundamentally useless because he refuses to absorb and process new information.  And he’s simply parroting what he’s been taught by the masters of deception.  Who would that be, well there’s a long documented history

http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org
http://exxonknew.org
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

But you can be smug, you guys won and all of us will get to reap the ‘rewards’.  downer

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2