More lawfare in the emerging one party state - climate skeptics are really the Mafia

[maxparrish]

One of the joys of the emerging one-party state is the accelerating adoption of lawfare against those who oppose the new order. While not yet as accomplished as it is in Venezuela, the "Demonistas" of the climate kulture elite are honing their skills.

Remember Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva who demanded an investigation to know who dared to give research funding to seven professors who were viewed as enemies to the climate change Movement? Well, it now seems that 20 "progressive" university professors are asking the federal government to prosecute climate change dissenters. They sent a letter to the Obama several weeks ago equating those who express doubt about global warming to the sinister tobacco industry. Why worry about civil liberties, why not suppress them with the anti-Mafia RICO statute? Yippy, that's the ticket:

http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf

We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. 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 methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done...

So this is the "morality" of the left: use civil and criminal law to keep people silent? Hey, if it worked for Chavez, Maduro, and Putin, whose to argue?

 

[scombrid]

So you're saying that it was wrong to use RICO to go after tobacco industry deceptions?

 

[maxparrish]

So you're saying that it was wrong to use RICO to go after tobacco industry deceptions?

So I have said that it is wrong to use RICO to go after climate skeptics - a point you are avoiding.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's no credible scientific source that denies climate change.

Just consider a recent issue: Shell Oil has known for a long time that we are going to see major warming. A planning document leaked recently that shows they're expecting a 4 degree rise--and that will be pretty nasty.

 

[maxparrish]

So?

 

[Ford]

So?

A succinct question.


So let's say there's an industry that produces a product. For the sake of argument we'll call it a cigarette. After decades of people dropping dead who just happened to consume this product, a blue-ribbon panel of scientists discovers that it is not just a coincidence. The product is actually killing the people who consume it.


After years of denial by the producers of these "cigarettes," just about every reputable scientist not in the employ of the manufacturers of the product concludes that these little confections made of paper and leaves are toxic. The science is not in doubt.


Not only that, but the scientists who were hired by the producers of these "cigarettes" conceded that they knew exactly how toxic the product was, but lied about the results because they were being paid to do so.


I think that a case could be made that the scientists who trumped up the data on these "cigarettes" could be held responsible for engaging in a conspiracy. They'd certainly be corrupt. And perhaps that might fall under a statute meant to counter racketeering.

 

[scombrid]

So you're saying that it was wrong to use RICO to go after tobacco industry deceptions?

So I have said that it is wrong to use RICO to go after climate skeptics - a point you are avoiding.

Your quoted material says that the group of scientists is asking the government to use RICO to go after companies that are being knowingly deceptive.

So if you oppose using RICO there then you also should oppose its having been used against the tobacco lobby.

I do not see anywhere in your opening post, in the material you quote, or in the source of your quoted material a justification for your claim that there is a push to use RICO to silence scientific skepticism.

 

[braces_for_impact]

The right really does have this weird fetish for Chavez and Venezuela don't they?

 

[KeepTalking]

The right really does have this weird fetish for Chavez and Venezuela don't they?

At least one of them does. I don't hear much about Venezuela from any rightist other than Maxie.

Anyway, back to the OP...

Oh, wait, there really isn't much of a reason to address the OP other than to note that it is a bunch of hyperbolic bullshit. Done.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Why not adopt the usual conservative line that adjusting to climate change is better policy than than changing it.

I don't see anything wrong with greater transparency in funding. And if turns out there is a conspiracy, maybe it should be investigated.

Politics or money shouldn't be allowed to dictate science.

 

[Bronzeage]

The right really does have this weird fetish for Chavez and Venezuela don't they?

It's sort of a Catch-22 situation for them. There's nothing they fear more than a good idea, because good ideas appeal to a lot of people and they know they are a minority.

The catch is, they are not capable of recognizing a good idea.

They think Chavez's policies have some kind of appeal to people in the US. There's no one in the US who thinks Chavez style policies would do anything but wreak havoc, but the right have to battle the spectre of Chavez.

The truth is, they think Hugo and Caesar were the same person.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The right really does have this weird fetish for Chavez and Venezuela don't they?

It makes me ponder about anti-gay gay Republicans. Does maxparrish sit up late at night in his den dreaming of state ownership of the oil industry?

 

[dismal]

Why not adopt the usual conservative line that adjusting to climate change is better policy than than changing it.

I don't see anything wrong with greater transparency in funding. And if turns out there is a conspiracy, maybe it should be investigated.

Politics or money shouldn't be allowed to dictate science.

So, then you must find it abhorrent that some people want to jail people for a scientific opinion. Even an incorrect one.

I'm sure everyone who is not a petty little fascist finds that abhorrent. Yet this thread does not seem to read that way for some reason.

 

[braces_for_impact]

The right really does have this weird fetish for Chavez and Venezuela don't they?

It's sort of a Catch-22 situation for them. There's nothing they fear more than a good idea, because good ideas appeal to a lot of people and they know they are a minority.

The catch is, they are not capable of recognizing a good idea.

They think Chavez's policies have some kind of appeal to people in the US. There's no one in the US who thinks Chavez style policies would do anything but wreak havoc, but the right have to battle the spectre of Chavez.

The truth is, they think Hugo and Caesar were the same person.

This has been my experience as well. I often see that an appeal may be made for some kind of say, regulation over some existing business. Then the right screams bloody hell, and tosses Chavez and Venezuela out of their back pocket. It's so very odd.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Why not adopt the usual conservative line that adjusting to climate change is better policy than than changing it.

I don't see anything wrong with greater transparency in funding. And if turns out there is a conspiracy, maybe it should be investigated.

Politics or money shouldn't be allowed to dictate science.

So, then you must find it abhorrent that some people want to jail people for a scientific opinion. Even an incorrect one.

I'm sure everyone who is not a petty little fascist finds that abhorrent. Yet this thread does not seem to read that way for some reason.

No, maybe some people should go to jail for using criminal methods to advance a scientific opinion, correct or incorrect.

Tell you what, let's look at their records, funding and communications etc and see what it tells us. Surely in the age of squinting at every HRC email, that can't be so bad.

This reminds me in a way of the science paper publishing scandal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/

 

[ksen]

So, then you must find it abhorrent that some people want to jail people for a scientific opinion. Even an incorrect one.

I find that abhorrent. Who did that?

 

[fromderinside]

Why not adopt the usual conservative line that adjusting to climate change is better policy than than changing it.

I don't see anything wrong with greater transparency in funding. And if turns out there is a conspiracy, maybe it should be investigated.

Politics or money shouldn't be allowed to dictate science.

So, then you must find it abhorrent that some people want to jail people for a scientific opinion. Even an incorrect one.

I'm sure everyone who is not a petty little fascist finds that abhorrent. Yet this thread does not seem to read that way for some reason.

Its all part and parcel with companies giving money to universities to conduct 'research' on topics in a way that is sympathetic to their views. If one who wants money is willing to test proven debunked theses apparently showing they are not really debunked with slippery methods is not that person guilty of violating her charge to let the data take her where it will?

Just sayin'

 

[dismal]

So, then you must find it abhorrent that some people want to jail people for a scientific opinion. Even an incorrect one.

I'm sure everyone who is not a petty little fascist finds that abhorrent. Yet this thread does not seem to read that way for some reason.

Its all part and parcel with companies giving money to universities to conduct 'research' on topics in a way that is sympathetic to their views. If one who wants money is willing to test proven debunked theses apparently showing they are not really debunked with slippery methods is not that person guilty of violating her charge to let the data take her where it will?

Just sayin'

Climate models contain assumptions.

You would like to criminalize certain assumptions?

And, if so, should the guys whose models wildly overpredicted warming these last 20 years be sent to prison now that following the data where it leads shows they made bad assumptions?

 

[maxparrish]

So let's say there's an industry that produces a product. For the sake of argument we'll call it a cigarette. After decades of people dropping dead who just happened to consume this product, a blue-ribbon panel of scientists discovers that it is not just a coincidence. The product is actually killing the people who consume it.

After years of denial by the producers of these "cigarettes," just about every reputable scientist not in the employ of the manufacturers of the product concludes that these little confections made of paper and leaves are toxic. The science is not in doubt.

Not only that, but the scientists who were hired by the producers of these "cigarettes" conceded that they knew exactly how toxic the product was, but lied about the results because they were being paid to do so.

I think that a case could be made that the scientists who trumped up the data on these "cigarettes" could be held responsible for engaging in a conspiracy. They'd certainly be corrupt. And perhaps that might fall under a statute meant to counter racketeering.

So I have said that it is wrong to use RICO to go after climate skeptics - a point you are avoiding.

Your quoted material says that the group of scientists is asking the government to use RICO to go after companies that are being knowingly deceptive.

So if you oppose using RICO there then you also should oppose its having been used against the tobacco lobby.

I do not see anywhere in your opening post, in the material you quote, or in the source of your quoted material a justification for your claim that there is a push to use RICO to silence scientific skepticism.

First, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was mainly intended to provide the law enforcement a tool to prosecute the crimes of crime families and mob bosses - to get the organized crime leaders and not just the outer layer of sacrificial underlings that protect them. As such, its judicial purpose is to convict a entire mob family using evidence that, if applied to specific individuals, might not (or would not) convict.

A secondary, and far less important, purpose of RICO was to provide a tool to prosecute public corruption. While the days of Boss Tweed political machines is mainly over, RICO on occasion has had a use in prosecuting those politicians who do run corrupt organizations.

RICO was not intended to be used to treat legitimate businesses (partnerships, proprietorships, joint stock holding companies, or corporations) as criminal enterprises (unless, of course, they were a merely a front for the real underlying criminal enterprise).

Second, whatever its purpose, RICO has been a civil rights nightmare - challenging the rights of speech, property, due process, etc. It has created havoc and abuse in forfeiture, attorney relationships with clients in payment of fees, torts, shareholder actions, burdens of proof, etc. It has become a favorite lawfare weapon against the pro-choice movement, free speech, the marijuana movement, guns, tobacco, and just about any other activity or product some person or group dislikes.

Last, the use of RICO against tobacco companies was more than dubious. Laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, or false advertising are reasonable - not "RICO".

But the issue is now the Orwellian demand that the state begin a campaign of lawfare persecution of anyone who "might be" funding research that does not comport with the views of the climate establishment. So much for the notion of the "marketplace" of ideas (or peer reviewed debate) settling differences...why do that when you can get the referees to arrest the other team?

 

[ksen]

But the issue is now the Orwellian demand that the state begin a campaign of lawfare persecution of anyone who "might be" funding research that does not comport with the views of the climate establishment.

Not according to what you posted in your OP.