The Intolerant Left: This Dem Senator Wants to Censor Climate Change Skeptics
According to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. (F, 4%), you shouldn’t be reading this commentary.
A polemic he’s written for the Columbia Journalism Review makes that clear. Why? Because I, along with several others whom the senator identifies, am a “persistent climate denier.” Anything I write questioning the attacks on the First Amendment rights of those who have their doubts about global warming is nothing more than “clever, made-to-order, industrial-scale dissemination of industry propaganda.”
Whitehouse suggests that editorial boards should refrain from publishing articles and letters containing what he calls “phony ‘opinion’ writing” about the climate change debate.
Whitehouse is unapologetic, of course, about urging censorship and supporting government-run investigations of anyone on the wrong side of what he considers to be an undisputable fact – the existence of man-induced, catastrophic global warming. Never mind that this is an unproven, scientific theory over which there is vigorous, persistent and educated debate by reputable researchers, scientists and meteorologists. Whitehouse refuses to distinguish between what are facts and what is opinion.
He refers to the “fossil fuel industry’s climate denial operation,” even though there is no proof any such widespread, systematic “conspiracy” exists. This unsubstantiated allegation apparently justifies, in his mind, either a civil or criminal investigation under RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. He faults me and others for not distinguishing between civil and criminal RICO investigations, as if a civil RICO investigation by the government of a company (or anyone else) is somehow less onerous or less serious than a criminal investigation.
The state attorneys general who have launched these investigations have been hazy on whether they are conducting civil or potential criminal investigations. But it doesn’t really matter. Any type of investigation that attempts to criminalize scientific dissent or impose civil penalties for such dissent is an abuse of government power and a violation of fundamental First Amendment rights.
Whitehouse says that fraud trumps the First Amendment. But as I pointed out recently in a letter to The Washington Post, the U.S. Supreme Court said in 2003 in Illinois ex rel Madigan v. Telemarketing Assocs., Inc. that “simply labeling an action one for ‘fraud’ does not carry the day.”
What “fraud” has been committed? According to Whitehouse, it is the sponsorship by companies such as ExxonMobil of “phony science” supporting climate denial. What “phony science” is he talking about? In a 2006 Corporate Citizenship Report, ExxonMobil (seemingly the main target of this series of investigations) acknowledged that “the risk to society and ecosystems from rising greenhouse gas emissions could be significant” and that “strategies that address the risk need to be developed and implemented.” That doesn’t sound like a denial to me.
Moreover, in the countersuit filed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute after it was served with a subpoena issued by the U.S. Virgin Islands attorney general for all of its research on climate change, CEI noted that the AG could only come up with two statements made by ExxonMobil that he claimed were supposedly fraudulent:
“International accords and underlying regional and national regulations for greenhouse gas reduction are evolving with uncertain timing and outcome, making it difficult to predict their business impact.”
“Current scientific understanding provides limited guidance on the likelihood, magnitude, and timeframe of physical risks such as sea level rise, extreme weather events, temperature extremes, and precipitation.”
These statements simply express the uncertainty that exists over the scope, causes and pace of climate change and about appropriate climate policy. The view that these are, or even could be construed as, fraudulent statements that can form the basis of a governmental investigation lacks both common sense and a basic understanding of the legal standards that apply not just to government investigations, but to protected First Amendment activity.
Also alarming is the fact that these nascent investigations appear to target not only ExxonMobil, but scientists and academic scholars who question the accepted wisdom of those who want to declare the debate about climate change is over. How else can one explain why a think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, was targeted with a subpoena in a climate change investigation? Or why another subpoena served on ExxonMobil targeted its communications with almost a hundred different think tanks, universities, and individual scientists, professors and researchers?
Whitehouse and others have tried to compare these investigations to the lawsuits filed against the tobacco industry for misleading the public about the health effects of tobacco. But that comparison fails to distinguish between proven facts and unproven theory. When those lawsuits were filed, we had decades’ worth of tests, observation, research and experimentation showing that tobacco contains carcinogens that cause cancer, and that nicotine is a highly addictive drug.
On the other hand, there are many problems with the theory of man-induced, catastrophic climate change, from computer models that have over-predicted warming to data sets that disagree on whether the earth is warming or whether temperatures have plateaued. And it is a matter of great dispute — and vigorous debate — over how much of our climate is influenced by man-made events, as opposed to natural occurrences such as sun flares.
The bottom line is that no fraud of any kind is being committed by anyone or any entity that questions the “science” behind climate change. Anyone who insists that those who question this should be investigated is violating basic free speech rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Americans — and that includes corporate America, both profit and non-profit — have the right to speak their minds about public policy and issues involving science and technology — and that includes climate change. They should not be harassed, threated, investigated, silenced or bullied for doing so. (For more from the author of “The Intolerant Left: This Dem Senator Wants to Censor Climate Change Skeptics” please click HERE)
Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.
