California bill prosecutes climate change skeptics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monte_RCMS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
How often do you hear about official studies before are conducted?
Click to expand...
Why would it matter WHEN we heard about the studies?

I try to keep informed of the news, I read newspapers, watch certain news shows, It common to hear about the direction authorities and law enforcement want to go, (different laws they would like to see created or believe we need), usually in response to local or national problems.

Prescription drug abuse is one example, long before the new laws in 2012 were created, the KY state LE officials made it clear they wanted tough new laws, this was before studies had been done of course, they were just reacting to a problem in the area and letting people know they wanted new laws to deal with it…oddly, every study done thereafter, backed up their beliefs/ concerns, so they were not wrong on one thing??? (kind of strange to me law enforcement officials would be so accurate in regards to medical issues).

And really its the same no matter what the topic or focus is, this thread is about climate change, if lawmakers hint they want new laws to deal with this, rest assured ANY and ALL studies done after that will back them up or confirm their concerns.

I really cannot think of ONE instance in the past when lawmakers or Govt in general, wanted new laws or regulations, but the expert studies did not back their concerns, in reality this sort of thing should be easy to find if it existed.
 
mikekle said:
Why would it matter WHEN we heard about the studies?
Click to expand...
Because you used your perception of how many government studies turned out positive to support your hypothesis that all government studies are rubber stamps and always turn out positive. But if you only hear about studies after they turn out positive, then of course you will only head about studies that turned out positive, because studies that turned out negative never made it to your attention. That is why I initially asked where you got your statistic. And now I see that it was a wild guess and not a statistic at all.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Because you used your perception of how many government studies turned out positive to support your hypothesis that all government studies are rubber stamps and always turn out positive. But if you only hear about studies after they turn out positive, then of course you will only head about studies that turned out positive, because studies that turned out negative never made it to your attention. That is why I initially asked where you got your statistic. And now I see that it was a wild guess and not a statistic at all.
Click to expand...
OK, I will ask you this then…In your opinion, Do you think it has ever happened that Govt or law enforcement wanted some kind of new law or regulation, but after having an official study done, it turned out, their concerns or beliefs were not justified or they were wrong?
 
mikekle said:
OK, I will ask you this then…In your opinion, Do you think it has ever happened that Govt or law enforcement wanted some kind of new law or regulation, but after having an official study done, it turned out, their concerns or beliefs were not justified or they were wrong?
Click to expand...
I have no scientific basis on which to offer an opinion on that. Just like you have no scientific basis to offer the opinion of the contrary. Either opinion on that question would just be a wild guess on my part or yours. But if believing your point is a matter of faith for you, then there is little I can say to dissuade you.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This ill-conceived law has been abandoned. Yet it was not as represented here. Read the whole article. The law** was not **written to apply to individuals speaking their minds. It was written specifically for corporations or organizations that use climate change skepticism for their own self-interests.
Click to expand...
That the law was abandoned is surely a good thing, but even your description of it goes beyond anything that could be considered a good law. There should no restrictions disallowing one from promoting something in his own self interest. It should only be illegal if it is deceptive. There is absolutely no justification for punishing Exxon (et al) for climate change skepticism so long as their arguments against it are reasonable.
It is like the tobacco companies having “research” that offers the opinion that smoking is not dangerous. That is not free speech. That is organizations fraudulently presenting research that benefits the organization.
Click to expand...
Fraud should be, and probably already is, punishable by law. I doubt this new law was intended to double up the punishments for fraud; it seems much more likely it was intended simply to intimidate those who oppose what they consider to be the fraud of anthropogenic global warming.

Ender
 
Ender said:
Fraud should be, and probably already is, punishable by law. I doubt this new law was intended to double up the punishments for fraud; it seems much more likely it was intended simply to intimidate those who oppose what they consider to be the fraud of anthropogenic global warming.

Ender
Click to expand...
Speculation as to intent is just that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top