Legal liability for skeptics?

“This question may soon be playing out in the courts.”

Conducive Chronicle editor Christine Shearer writes in “Will fossil fuel companies face liability for climate change?“:

In a recent article in National Journal, Americans for Prosperity (AFP) President Tim Phillips said there is no question that AFP and others like it have been instrumental in the rise of Republican candidates who question or deny climate science: “We’ve made great headway. What it means for candidates on the Republican side is, if you … buy into green energy or you play footsie on this issue, you do so at your political peril.”

AFP is a section 501(c)(4) organization, meaning it does not have to disclose its donors, but has been tied to significant funding from the Koch Family Foundations – founded by the billionaire Koch brothers of Koch Industries – as well as smaller donations from companies like ExxonMobil. Koch Industries and ExxonMobil are among the largest funders of studies questioning climate change science, often drawn upon by conservative politicians to legitimize their view that regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is not needed because the science is still under debate.

These organizations and their supporters say they are just funding their own independent studies of climate change science. Yet these studies almost all go against observable scientific data to question global warming – so much so that one study funded in part by the Kochs that confirmed a rise in average world land temperature was regarded as an anomaly. Which raises the question: if these studies are largely designed not to shed light on climate change, but to create doubt and confusion to delay greenhouse gas regulations, why is it legal, and do those deliberately spreading misinformation face liability?

The first question, as far as I can tell, apparently boils down to: it’s legal because we have yet to make the deliberate manipulation of science illegal.

Yet while people and companies enjoy the First Amendment right to free speech, legal scholars have argued that right does not extend to influencing people under false pretenses. According to former tobacco industry lawyer Stephen Susman, when it comes to fossil fuel companies and supporters funding their own research on climate change, if “they knew the information they were spreading was false and being used to deliberately influence public opinion—that would override their First Amendment rights.”

This question may soon be playing out in the courts…

As prior cases involving lead, asbestos, and tobacco lawsuits show, people seem to think it is one thing to do your own research, but it is another to deliberately deceive people, contributing to widespread harm primarily to retain profits.

Read Shearer’s entire article.

About these ads

9 responses to “Legal liability for skeptics?

  1. “it is another to deliberately deceive people, contributing to widespread harm primarily to retain profits.” Change the word “profits” to taxpayer funding and you are now talking about the UN IPCC, Al Gore, and the entire AGW propaganda machine!

    • You’re right. They know people are questioning them, so they are grapsing at straws. They know the science is flawed and they want to punish people for questioning them. This will only make people want to discover the truth even more. Little do they know they’re putting themselves in this position. Soon AGW will go down as one of the greatest manipulators of science of all time.

    • YES! Let’s sue Algore (OK, Al Gore)!

  2. People have paid up front for climate change. Will Gore and others give back that cash when their predictions fail to come true?

  3. I’m a denier in as much as I deny that you can be called a Scientist and withhold the data and computer codes for your published research. I deny that idea that any sort of consensus can define the truth of a scientific matter. I deny the notion that the outputs of computer models are data, especially unvalidated and unverified models. I deny the catastrophic predictions made for even a 3-5 degree C increase in average global temperatures. I truly believe these things and if you want to sue me for that then you are the denier – of freedom.

  4. If this is the case, it raises another the question: if these studies are largely designed to only prove the existence of anthropogenic climate change, why are they legal, and do those deliberately spreading misinformation face liability?

  5. Hersey must, must be punished up to and including burning at the stake.

  6. We MUST prosecute Gore et. al. for fraud, misrepresentation and any other crime. Pseudoscience is not the law here.

  7. Currently AGW is a no lose situation for the warmers. If we act and temps go up, the warming was already in the pipeline. If we act and the temps go down then they can claim that it was as a result of direct action.

    The only way to prove their hoax wrong is to do nothing and have the temps go down. Kinda like what is happening now.

    MrC

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s