The House science committee is worse than the Benghazi committee

[Landslide Lyndon]

Disgusting to say the least.
Too bad that Inks isn't around anymore to explain us how Republicans aren't the anti-science and anti-intellectual party.

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616370/science-committee-worse-benghazi-committee

The science committee, Fox News, the Daily Caller, climate deniers, CEI — at this point, it's all one partisan operation, sharing information and strategies.

Republican radicalization has already laid waste to many of the written and unwritten rules that once governed American politics. The use of congressional committees as tools of partisan intimidation is only a chapter in that grim story.

But the science committee is going after individual scientists, who rarely have the resources on hand to defend themselves from unexpected political attack. It is doing so without any rationale related to the constitutional exercise of its oversight powers — not with a false rationale, but without any stated rationale, no allegations of waste, fraud, or abuse — in service of an effort to suppress inconvenient scientific results and score partisan political points against the executive branch.

The federal government is an enormous supporter of scientific research, to the country's great and enduring benefit, though that support is now under sustained attack. If such funding comes with strings, with the threat that the wrong inquiry or results could bring down a congressional inquisition, researchers are likely to shy away from controversial subjects. The effects on the US scientific community, and on America's reputation as a leader in science, could be dire, lingering on well past the 2016 election.

[Ban my account ffs!]

One of the scientists mention hered.. Shukla.. should have plenty of resources to withstand what he's getting.  He has double dipped to the tune of $millions.  He started an organization that employed mostly immediate family and close friends and paid them 6-figure salaries using government grant money...

Then posted a letter demanding that "climate deniers" be investigated under RICO signed by several other prominent climate scientists.  When the science committee in question heard of that, they dug into Shukla's organization and found out it was a front organization to pay himself and his family exorbitant salaries in the name of "climate security".  This goes against the policy of the university he works for.

Since then, the organization took the letter down saying it was posted by accident... weeks after it made a huge stink in the climate community... and announced the organization was now defunct.

And here's Lyndon ridiculing the science committee for investigating him...

Corruption runs very strong in the science community.  Especially those areas flooded with grant money.. like climate change.

[Landslide Lyndon]

One of the scientists mention hered.. Shukla.. should have plenty of resources to withstand what he's getting.  He has double dipped to the tune of $millions.  He started an organization that employed mostly immediate family and close friends and paid them 6-figure salaries using government grant money...

Then posted a letter demanding that "climate deniers" be investigated under RICO signed by several other prominent climate scientists.  When the science committee in question heard of that, they dug into Shukla's organization and found out it was a front organization to pay himself and his family exorbitant salaries in the name of "climate security".  This goes against the policy of the university he works for.

Since then, the organization took the letter down saying it was posted by accident... weeks after it made a huge stink in the climate community... and announced the organization was now defunct.

And here's Lyndon ridiculing the science committee for investigating him...

Corruption runs very strong in the science community.  Especially those areas flooded with grant money.. like climate change.

The article says that he (and other scientists) asked the DoJ to investigate Exxon for RICO, not individual scientists.
And that's only one of the stories mentioned in the article.
I know you're awful when it comes to climate change Snowguy but don't pick up the habit of selective reading.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It's cute that you accuse me of selective reading when you took the f**king VOX article at its word and didn't actually read the letter that Shukla posted.  Primary sources....

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/09/19/letter-to-president-obama-investigate-deniers-under-rico/

I direct you to this particular snippet:

One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peerreviewed 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.


No mention of Exxon.  That is simply damage control at this point.  They mention "corporations and other organizations".  No individual scientists... but no individual scientist worth her/his weight is not involved in a corporation or other organization.

Also.. the titles of those papers sound like a smear campaign more than anything remotely scientific.  That they can get their buddies to "peer review" them and have them published with no questions asked (what journal wants to be accused of climate DENIAL or the new broader SCIENCE DENIAL) shows the poor state of science today.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like some people on this forum.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Small government Republicans.

[Bacon King]

RICO isn't for going after people, it's for going after large organizations and their top leadership

[Torie]

RICO isn't for going after people, it's for going after large organizations and their top leadership

And that is the alleged crime?  It seems like an exercise of free speech to me.  Being wrong, even maliciously wrong, is not a crime. Doesn't that seem rather chilling to you if that is the case?

[Taco Truck 🚚]

And that is the alleged crime?  It seems like an exercise of free speech to me.  Being wrong, even maliciously wrong, is not a crime. Doesn't that seem rather chilling to you if that is the case?

Yeah but lying while knowingly destroying the global environment is a crime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

[Torie]

And that is the alleged crime?  It seems like an exercise of free speech to me.  Being wrong, even maliciously wrong, is not a crime. Doesn't that seem rather chilling to you if that is the case?

Yeah but lying while knowingly destroying the global environment is a crime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

No, it isn't, unless it's lying under oath.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

And that is the alleged crime?  It seems like an exercise of free speech to me.  Being wrong, even maliciously wrong, is not a crime. Doesn't that seem rather chilling to you if that is the case?

Yeah but lying while knowingly destroying the global environment is a crime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

No, it isn't, unless it's lying under oath.

So you admit they weren't just innocently "wrong"?  They did lie about climate change and cover up, right?

[Torie]

And that is the alleged crime?  It seems like an exercise of free speech to me.  Being wrong, even maliciously wrong, is not a crime. Doesn't that seem rather chilling to you if that is the case?

Yeah but lying while knowingly destroying the global environment is a crime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

No, it isn't, unless it's lying under oath.

So you admit they weren't just innocently "wrong"?  They did lie about climate change and cover up, right?

I don't admit anything. What I am dissenting from is the wild slinging of the word "crime" around here. It's free speech. I have no interest here debating the merits of climate change theories, claims, etc.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

I don't admit anything. What I am dissenting from is the wild slinging of the word "crime" around here. It's free speech.

Ah, Torie but you said they just innocently had a "wrong" opinion.  Which doesn't appear to be true.  If your statement about them just accidentally being "wrong" is true prove it.

I have no interest here debating the merits of climate change theories, claims, etc.

Who's debating climate change?  Exxon's own documents from decades ago clearly state human driven climate change is happening and it is driven by their products.  Where's the debate?  I agree with Exxon's internal documents.

[SteveRogers]

And that is the alleged crime?  It seems like an exercise of free speech to me.  Being wrong, even maliciously wrong, is not a crime. Doesn't that seem rather chilling to you if that is the case?

Yeah but lying while knowingly destroying the global environment is a crime.

Oh really? According to what statute?

[Torie]

I don't admit anything. What I am dissenting from is the wild slinging of the word "crime" around here. It's free speech.

Ah, Torie but you said they just innocently had a "wrong" opinion.  Which doesn't appear to be true.  If your statement about them just accidentally being "wrong" is true prove it.

I have no interest here debating the merits of climate change theories, claims, etc.

Who's debating climate change?  Exxon's own documents from decades ago clearly state human driven climate change is happening and it is driven by their products.  Where's the debate?  I agree with Exxon's internal documents.

I said no such thing. I don't know whether it's innocent or not, and moreover, I am not going to debate whether the statements made were right or wrong, or open to debate. All I said was that no crime was involved, unless there was lying under oath. Again, I have no interest in discussing anything else here. Take that up with someone else, not me.

[Landslide Lyndon]

RICO isn't for going after people, it's for going after large organizations and their top leadership

And that is the alleged crime?  It seems like an exercise of free speech to me.  Being wrong, even maliciously wrong, is not a crime. Doesn't that seem rather chilling to you if that is the case?

It seems to me that the one who is trying to silence somebody else is Lamar Smith with his constant harassing of scientists whose opinions and findings he doesn't like.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

RICO isn't for going after people, it's for going after large organizations and their top leadership

And that is the alleged crime?  It seems like an exercise of free speech to me.  Being wrong, even maliciously wrong, is not a crime. Doesn't that seem rather chilling to you if that is the case?

It seems to me that the one who is trying to silence somebody else is Lamar Smith with his constant harassing of scientists whose opinions and findings he doesn't like.

Yeah.  I find the outrage directed at people calling Exxon out for its wrongdoing to be a bit misplaced... and kind of over the top.  The government harassing scientists it doesn't like for no reason is far more ominous than some people saying it's wrong for corporations to lie to consumers about their dangerous products.  Kind of sad that even needs to be said.  I thought it was common sense.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

And that is the alleged crime?  It seems like an exercise of free speech to me.  Being wrong, even maliciously wrong, is not a crime. Doesn't that seem rather chilling to you if that is the case?

Yeah but lying while knowingly destroying the global environment is a crime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

No, it isn't, unless it's lying under oath.

Tell that to the New York attorney general...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/05/exxonmobil-under-investigation-for-misleading-the-public-about-climate-change/


B-b-b-but muh free speech!

[Badger]

And that is the alleged crime?  It seems like an exercise of free speech to me.  Being wrong, even maliciously wrong, is not a crime. Doesn't that seem rather chilling to you if that is the case?

Yeah but lying while knowingly destroying the global environment is a crime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

No, it isn't, unless it's lying under oath.

Tell that to the New York attorney general...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/05/exxonmobil-under-investigation-for-misleading-the-public-about-climate-change/


B-b-b-but muh free speech!

Yeah, this is what's at heart here. Misrepresentation to the public at large isn't a crime, misrepresentation to shareholders potentially is. Energy companies have detailed statements about climate change in prospecti and shareholder reports for decades now. Materially false statements could be legally actionable.

I also suspect there are aspects of a politician stretching what may be technically , but not practically prosecutable in order to score points with NYvoters by attacking Big Oil on a hotbutton issue. If anything i suspect this, as well as Exonn misrepresenting what it knew about climate change, are both mostly the case here.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Disgusting to say the least.
Too bad that Inks isn't around anymore to explain us how Republicans aren't the anti-science and anti-intellectual party.

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616370/science-committee-worse-benghazi-committee

The science committee, Fox News, the Daily Caller, climate deniers, CEI — at this point, it's all one partisan operation, sharing information and strategies.

Republican radicalization has already laid waste to many of the written and unwritten rules that once governed American politics. The use of congressional committees as tools of partisan intimidation is only a chapter in that grim story.

But the science committee is going after individual scientists, who rarely have the resources on hand to defend themselves from unexpected political attack. It is doing so without any rationale related to the constitutional exercise of its oversight powers — not with a false rationale, but without any stated rationale, no allegations of waste, fraud, or abuse — in service of an effort to suppress inconvenient scientific results and score partisan political points against the executive branch.

The federal government is an enormous supporter of scientific research, to the country's great and enduring benefit, though that support is now under sustained attack. If such funding comes with strings, with the threat that the wrong inquiry or results could bring down a congressional inquisition, researchers are likely to shy away from controversial subjects. The effects on the US scientific community, and on America's reputation as a leader in science, could be dire, lingering on well past the 2016 election.

What's your major aversion to just getting the red avatar?  You're easily the most loyal propaganda soldier on the forum.