"Science" that can't stand up to a few expressions of opinion is not deserving of the name. If your claims are supported by evidence, you shouldn't fear the speech of critics, no?
Propaganda is a powerful tool. With a loud enough megaphone and a big enough wallet funding it, a lie can easily replace the truth in the minds of laymen.
Who decides who are the "laymen", and who are the privileged cognoscenti who get to shield the "laymen" from incorrect thought? And how do I opt out if I'd rather not be shielded?
Well, technically they're using it as an analogy to make accusations of gross scientific misconduct, but same diff. If an Alex Jones-style criminal is sending their mob after you, you have a much bigger problem than someone just disagreeing with you.
The ratio of oxygen and hydrogen isotopes in water molecules.
Both elements have two abundant and stable isotopes: one heavier and one lighter.
The quotient of the heavier isotopes in land ice is a linear function of the temperature, because it takes more energy to evaporate the heavier isotopes from icean water.
This appears to have big stakes for free speech in general, not just climate science. We need people to be allowed to disagree - yes, even in the face of data.
I don't want advertisers and shopkeepers lying to me about their products. I don't care if they're not under oath. I'd rather they not be allowed to scam me into buying their worthless goods.
Beyond that, if "free speech" trumps proof of harm or criminal intent, then all forms of fraud would be legal. Fortunately, the legal system is not that stupid.
Virtually every country on Earth has laws that apply when you make false accusations that cause real-world harm, and there is a long history of such trials in the US, so I fail to see how this has "big stakes for free speech".
I hate to say it, but at this point, we need a pseudonymous publication system with some type of proof of authorship to maintain the safety of scientists while keeping the scientific credibility of peer reviewed publications intact.
The data that is coming out is so concerning, it suggests several immediate courses of action. Those who know would wisely keep it to themselves. The ignorant will reap their reward.
21 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 56.3 ms ] threadIt's not "who", but "what". That is, the scientific method, not the scientist.
Both elements have two abundant and stable isotopes: one heavier and one lighter.
The quotient of the heavier isotopes in land ice is a linear function of the temperature, because it takes more energy to evaporate the heavier isotopes from icean water.
The data that is coming out is so concerning, it suggests several immediate courses of action. Those who know would wisely keep it to themselves. The ignorant will reap their reward.
What credibility? https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-...