Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lynching Science—and the First Amendment
Townhall.com ^ | March 16, 2016 | Calvin Beisner

Posted on 03/16/2016 5:15:25 AM PDT by Kaslin

In 1779 Thomas Jefferson wrote in Virginia’s Statute of Religious Freedom, “Truth is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless, by human interposition, disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate.”

That conviction found its way into the First Amendment to our Constitution as “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ….”

Attorney General Loretta Lynch seems not to have gotten the message. She told the Senate Judiciary Committee March 9 she has discussed possible civil actions against “climate change deniers” (whatever those are) and “referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action.”

Her rationale, and that of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who has called for such action for nearly a year now, is that “climate change deniers” are analogous to tobacco industry apologists who intentionally suppressed scientific evidence of the dangers of smoking. That wasn’t just free speech, which the First Amendment protects, but fraud (“some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him an injury”), which it doesn’t.

For smoking, the path of harm was eminently clear, for both correlation and causal mechanism, and had been for several decades by the time President Clinton’s Justice Department prosecuted tobacco companies in the 1990s.

But for climate change, or—to be more precise, since the other side likes so much to obscure the real subject of debate—dangerous, manmade climate change, the evidence is far less so.

That carbon dioxide is an infrared-absorbing gas (misnamed a “greenhouse gas,” since it doesn’t work as a greenhouse does) is universally recognized. That adding it to the atmosphere is almost certain therefore to raise global average temperature (GAT), all other things being equal, is almost universally recognized. That human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere have therefore probably contributed to the rise in GAT since the Industrial Revolution is nearly as widely acknowledged.

But after that, there is enormous divergence of opinion among qualified scientists, precisely because “all other things” aren’t equal. There are hundreds of climate feedbacks the magnitude of which we still don’t know, and some the sign (positive or negative—warming or cooling) we still don’t know. Therefore we cannot know how much net warming will come from an increment of CO2.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims 95% confidence that anthropogenic CO2 caused “most” (meaning over 50%) of the recent warming, although there are no underlying numbers from which that 95% confidence level was calculated (meaning it’s “expert judgment,” i.e., a hunch), and plenty of climate scientists contest it. But let’s assume that’s right.

Warming since the Industrial Revolution is somewhere around 0.8°C, a small fraction of the daily temperature change, and a smaller fraction of the seasonal temperature change, in most locales. That’s why MIT’s Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s foremost climatologists, says the appropriate response is “So what?”

Of course the IPCC claims future warming, not past, will be catastrophic. Yet its scenarios show all of mankind wealthier, several times over, by the end of this century and the next, even if we do nothing to slow global warming. Why? Because the same fossil fuel energy that drives the warming also drives economic growth. And with that added wealth comes reduced vulnerability to pretty much every risk to health and life imaginable, climate related or not.

In short, the case for harm from CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use is extremely tenuous even if we grant the IPCC’s estimates of 1.5–4.5°C (with “best estimate” of 3.0°C) of warming in response to doubled CO2 concentration. And because that “best estimate” calls for GAT to rise at a rate two to three times faster than actually observed over the relevant period, and because natural contributors to GAT’s rise can’t be ruled out, that estimate is almost certainly high by a factor of two, three, or more.

That is why estimates of climate sensitivity (how much warming comes from doubled CO2) published in refereed journals have been declining over the last fifteen years or so, with various experts estimating it at from 0.3–2.0°C, which is below what the IPCC considers the danger threshold.

Then, unlike with smoking, there are the offsetting benefits: Rising atmospheric CO2 causes increased plant growth all over the world, making more food available for animals and people—especially the poor, and energy from fossil fuels makes people wealthier and so healthier and longer lived.

So it will be far more difficult to prove fraud on the part of “climate change deniers”—in or out of the fossil fuel industry—than it was with the tobacco industry.

I suspect Lynch and Whitehouse know this and that ultimately there will be no prosecutions. But the threat has a chilling effect. Some climate scientists will be afraid to publish disagreements or even do research that might provide evidence against alarmism.

That is bad news for science, which thrives on vigorous, open, unimpeded debate, even over matters on which there is overwhelming consensus (such as the belief, which prevailed for decades, that peptic ulcers were caused by excess stomach acid and spicy foods—a belief overturned in the 1980s when it was proved that most are caused by bacterial infection, a discovery that won the Nobel Prize).

It’s also bad news for public policy, which likewise thrives on open debate.

There should be no lynch mob against freedom of speech, press, and scientific inquiry. They are the friends of truth, liberty, and human well-being. The enemies are those who would squelch them.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: climatechange; epa; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; lorettalynch; popefrancis; romancatholicism

1 posted on 03/16/2016 5:15:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; MinuteGal

Loretta Lynch, yet another Obama regime Fascist.


2 posted on 03/16/2016 5:24:52 AM PDT by flaglady47 (TRUMP ROCKS !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
For smoking, the path of harm was eminently clear, for both correlation and causal mechanism . . .

Not everyone who smokes develops cancer--Ergo, no causation.

3 posted on 03/16/2016 5:26:38 AM PDT by Arm_Bears (Rope. Tree. Politician/Journalist. Some assembly required.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The obvious rebuttal to Lynch is to point out that socialism, in all its forms, including National Socialism and fascism, international socialism, and various versions of communism, is destructive, dehumanizing, murderous, and one of the worst forms of government ever created, *for which the evidence is overwhelming, and even damning*. This being the direct and provable murder of over 100 million people in the world, with many still being murdered today.

So should advocates of socialism, be they in government, academia, or in any other position of trust or responsibility be prosecuted for promulgating the lies, deceit, violence, incompetence, antisemitism, racism and anti-humanism of socialism?


4 posted on 03/16/2016 6:00:03 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The data doesn’t support them so they must punish the people who disagree with the narrative.


5 posted on 03/16/2016 6:02:25 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you really want to irritate someone, point out something obvious they are trying hard to ignore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears

Problem in your logic:

Not everyone who drives drunk will have an accident, therefore driving drunk doesn’t cause accidents.

Not everyone who had gay sex caught AIDS. Therefore, gay sex doesn’t cause AIDS.


6 posted on 03/16/2016 6:04:41 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you really want to irritate someone, point out something obvious they are trying hard to ignore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

Actually, being drunk doesn’t cause accidents. But it does make you more likely to do things that will cause accidents. Like driving in the opposite lane.

And homosexual sex does not cause AIDS. AIDS is caused by the HIV virus. But homosexual sex is certainly one of the chief routes for spreading the HIV virus.

It’s a question of Causation vs Correlation.

All of the Cancer researchers that I work with assure me that nobody knows what causes Cancer. If the author of this article does know, he should apply for a Nobel Prize.


7 posted on 03/16/2016 6:17:17 AM PDT by JoeDetweiler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy; Arm_Bears

Believe the point was that ‘consensus’ != science.

Problem in *your* logic:

Gay sex does not necessarily mean one will contract AIDS/STDs (drug user vs. transfusions vs.....)

More correct would be:

Not everyone who has promiscuous sex catches STDs. Therefore, promiscuous sex doesn’t cause STDs.

Still, even being logical (asking them to point to THE model that is the ‘correct/good’ one, or showing the multitude of times in the past where the ‘consensus’ was wrong [sun revolves around Earth/etc.]) does NO good in face of a zealot. This is dogma to the Socialists and CANNOT be logic’d-away


8 posted on 03/16/2016 6:20:01 AM PDT by i_robot73 ("A man chooses. A slave obeys." - Andrew Ryan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73

Yes but if someone asks “How did I get AIDS?”, it is reasonable to say “Because you had sex with men”. That’s what caused you to get AIDS.


9 posted on 03/16/2016 6:37:02 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you really want to irritate someone, point out something obvious they are trying hard to ignore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; alrea; ...
DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Global Warming on Free Republic here, here and here

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

Latest from CO2 Science

10 posted on 03/16/2016 3:30:38 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Stick a fork in America; she's done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson