Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
When does Denial Become Fraud?
In testimony before Congress, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said the Department of Justice “has discussed” bringing a civil RICO action against climate change “deniers” for fraud — similar to the Clinton Administration’s suits against the tobacco industry — and confirmed that it has issued a request for action to the FBI for consideration. Assuming that she really means it and isn’t just trying to threaten people into silence, what constitutes prosecutable denial? There are many levels of opposition to the belief that global warming is primarily caused by human activity and that this warming will be catastrophic. Here’s a list of beliefs in descending levels of dissent:
- Global warming is a complete hoax;
- The planet is warming, but due to natural causes;
- Human activity contributes to global warming, but is not the primary driver;
- Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but the consequences are not catastrophic;
- Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but there is nothing we can do to stop it;
- Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but adaptation is more economical than trying to stop it;
- Human activity contributes significantly to global warming and there may be something we can do to stop it, but we don’t yet know what that is; and
- Human activity contributes significantly to global warming but, we don’t know yet how to stop it and, until we do know, we shouldn’t implement “solutions” that might only make things worse
Which of these statements constitutes the minimum standard for fraud?
Suppose the CEO of a company (say, ExxonMobil) asks its scientists to determine whether global warming is real and, if so, what the company’s position should be. Emails fly back and forth in an internal debate, representing all levels of belief and disbelief. In the end, the company decides (as ExxonMobil did) to back a carbon tax as the best response.
Do the emails that expressed some level of disbelief represent fraud? Do the emails expressing complete buy-in prove that there was a cover up?
Published in Law, Science & Technology
With all due respect, I completely disagree. Until a model can be run to predict the future, and when that future arrives it is accurate. And it can do so again and again and again, with accuracy, now we have something to base policy on.
I don’t know where Attorney General Lynch went to law school, but at mine we learned that “fraud” is not just an untruth. It is (1)a misrepresentation of a material fact (2)made with actual knowledge of its falsity, (3)which is intended to, and does, (4)induce the interlocutor to act on the misrepresentation (5)to his detriment.
1.How can climate change denial be called a misrepresentation? None of the IPCC’s dire predictions have come to pass, and the warming trend of recent years has been on a long hiatus. For that matter, what is the transaction in which the alleged factual misrepresentation is “material”? (With the cigarette cos, at least we HAVE a transaction: the purchase of tobacco products)
2. How can climate change skeptics be said to have actual knowledge of falsity in light of the foregoing?
3. What actors do the deniers allegedly intend to influence?
4. What action by people who hear the climate skeptics opinions is the propagation of climate change skepticism supposed to have induced? (See 1)
5. What is the detriment, since so far there aren’t any damages to anyone? people in poorer countries have suffered from weather events, like they always do, but the data don’t support any conclusion that the events have been more severe or more frequent. Damages, in a legal sense, usually have to be something that has actually happened, not mere speculation about what you MIGHT suffer in the indeterminate future.
This is an Inquisition, with climate change heretics to be forbidden the public square, cast out of their jobs, ostracized by their social and professional communities, their lands and possessions forfeit to punishing fines, and lo, thrust into prison.
But “fraud”?
Nunh-uh, learnéd counsel Lynch.
The test of a model is to run it backwards to a known point that has known data. Compare the known data to the data “predicted” by the model. If they agree, the model may prove reliable in predicting future events.
While I agree that climate models will be used to predict the future, the climate alarmists don’t want to wait to see if those predictions are valid. The model is used as a crutch to support their agenda not as a tool for valid science.
It is a means of extortion. Get money from Exxon et. al.
It is also a meme that will be used to flog those who “deny” man-made climate change. Yet another way to marginalize their opposition.
I take your point about tobacco execs, but still, asking someone what they believe about something is an exercise in subjectivity. It can’t be a basis for prosecution almost by definition.
If you asked them if they had conducted specific tests on cigarettes that showed such and such and they lied, that’s one thing. But simply saying “I don’t believe cigarettes are dangerous” cannot be the basis for any legal action. It’s the same with saying you don’t believe in global warming.
So the issue here shouldn’t be about the facts of global warming. It’s about the basic kinds of statements which are and are not legally actionable.
Well, the left claims that they have a “smoking gun” in the ExxonMobil case in the form of an internal e-mail (or, perhaps, e-mails) from ExxonMobil “scientists” stating that global warming was real, yet the company still sent contributions to skeptic organizations.
Presumably, the response would be something like: How did the scientists “know” that global warming is real? Were they saying that global warming would necessarily be catastrophic? Were they saying that mankind was the only, primary, or an important contributor to global warming? What was their scientific specialty? Why does their opinion outweigh other opinions held by people in the company? Why does sending contributions to one or more organizations constitute fraud?
As is their absolute right to do so.
The more relevant question is: Is there an actionable criminal or civil charge that can be brought against the Attorney General for abusing the authority of her office to extort a private entity by threatening to cripple such an entity with frivolous investigations and baseless indictments?
Who says tobacco products conferred no benefit? I really, really liked tobacco products. Cigarettes, chewing tobacco, even dip. Whoopee!
Now I stopped, because of my own weighing of the costs and benefits. The principle of liberty means that we should, almost always, leave this to the individual.
“may” being the operative word. When a model “predicts” the past it may (most likely?) means only that its assumptions have been massaged to fit the known data. Until it has predictive value, it ain’t science. And predictive value is shown by making predictions that prove accurate. Repeatedly.
Otherwise we are in complete agreement – this isn’t science and that’s why they don’t want to wait to take over the world (after all, if that was your goal you wouldn’t want to wait either). Besides, the science may not come out the “right” way.
Well that depends on who is in power doesn’t it?
I always am impressed by how well I write after my pieces have been edited by the Ricochet staff. Thanks!