Conservatives: Should we prosecute climate scientists for fraud?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Seriously. Right now the conservative Republicans in the US are ascendant. This may be because the Russian’s interfered in our electoral process, or it might be because of gerrymandering and voter suppression, but it is more likely due to the fact that they did a better job at selling their ideology to the American people. Now they are in charge (President, Senate & House, 66% of Governorship, and 64% of state houses) and they can decide policy as they see fit.

Well, according to Pew research, only 18% of Conservative Republicans believe that climate scientists understand whether climate change is occurring and only 11% believe that climate scientists understand the causes of climate change. Furthermore, the majority of conservatives think that Climate scientists’ research findings are due to the scientists desires to advance their careers or because of their political ideology. Less than 10% think their findings are based on scientific evidence or interest in the public welfare.

If the scientists are truly lying to us for their own selfish reasons, shouldn’t they be punished for their fraud? According to our President elect, climate change is a hoax being perpetrated on the American people by the Chinese; doesn’t this make the scientists treasonous? Scott Pruitt, the future head of the EPA, tweeted that he thinks scientists can be prosecuted for fraud in response to some Democratic Attorney Generals threatening to sue Exxon and others for fraud after they funded skeptic propaganda.

What do you think? Should they be prosecuted?

Note: I am lumping moderates and liberals together in the poll. Not because I think they feel the same, but because I am more interested in seeing how conservatives vote.

Poll coming…

2

Oh, you’re no fun anymore!

:slight_smile:

3

Did I used to be? :slight_smile:

4

Why fraud? How have conservatives been victims of fraud?

5

I could be a smart ass (or more of a smart ass) and link to LMGTFY.com (let me google that for you), but I won’t. I thought I spelled it out pretty clearly in my OP; climate scientists are raking in many millions of dollars doing climate science research and the majority of conservative Republicans think they are full of shit. They think that they are lying to further their careers (i.e. for money) or because of ideology. The future President thinks that this is not just fraud (i.e. enriching themselves at the detriment of the US taxpayer), but actually a plot by the Chinese to damage the US. That fraud.

Or to be even more explicit, from your cite:

6

Don’t give Conservatives any ideas, please. Next thing you know, they’ll take your idea and run with it. Start going after people who push theories like “evolution” or “gravity”.

7

I think Gore, as a cheerleader regarding things climate change/global warming related, was a fraud and a con-man, but climatologists I don’t believe are committing fraud, generally. I believe they are committing science to the best of their knowledge and abilities and to the limits of the technological aids available to them. I fall somewhere between conservative and moderate with a hint of liberal on the political flavor chart

ETA the political/social distinctions on the voting options in the poll are disturbingly biased and incomplete

8

I went
I am moderate/liberal, believe they are liars, but freedom of speech protects them.
but that isn’t really exact to how I feel. I think climates are always changing and fluctuating and I think they (assorted alarmist members of the science community) actually believe what they say and feel their claims are accurate. I just think they are just taking their best SWAG and missing the mark a bit.

9

There are many university disciplines, useless products of capitalism, foolish political grand-standing and harmful beliefs. Even if these are done by insincere deliberate liars for money that does not constitute fraud.

Culturally conservative, economically socialist: climate change is as real as granite.

10

Nope.

11

There have already been lawsuits against climatologists, notably Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli against Michael Mann:

The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was started 5 years ago to help defend against such suits.

12

I’m a conservative, at least by the standards of this board, and I don’t think you have a clue what fraud means in a criminal context. Did not see an option for that in the poll.

13

Don’t fight the hypothetical.

OK, fine, it might be hard to shove what climate scientists are purportedly doing into the legal definition of fraud. I wouldn’t really know being a scientist and engineer and not a lawyer. Even so, there are plenty of examples of leading Republicans claiming that scientists are behaving fraudulently and should be investigated and potentially prosecuted:
[ul]
[li]In 2015, the Republican chairman of the House committee on space, science and technology issued subpoenas to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) alleging that they manipulated data in support of an “extreme climate agenda”:[/li]
[QUOTE=Lamar Smith (R - Texas)]

It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made. NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda. The agency has yet to identify any legal basis for withholding these documents. The Committee intends to use all tools at its disposal to undertake its Constitutionally-mandated oversight responsibilities.
[/QUOTE]

[li]Also in 2015, Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican Presidential Contender convened the hearing titled “Data or dogma? Promoting open inquiry in the debate over the magnitude of human impact on Earth’s climate.” In the opening remarks, Senator Ted Cruz opined:[/li]

[QUOTE= Ted Cruz (R - Texas)]
This is a hearing on the science behind the claims of global warming. Now, this is the Science Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, and we’re hearing from distinguished scientists, sharing their views, their interpretations, their analysis of the data and the evidence. Now, I am the son of two mathematicians—two computer programmers and scientists—and I believe that public policy should follow the actual science, and the actual data and evidence, and not political and partisan claims that run contrary to the science and data and evidence.”
[/QUOTE]

If this is not a claim that scientists are behaving fraudulently, you may be right that I don’t have a clue what the word fraudulently means.

[li]But still, if this does show that some prominent legal scholars (I believe many on the right believe Ted Cruz is a prominent legal scholar, I could provide cites if you so desire), how about an actual suit by an actual Attorney General? In 2010, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, the attorney general of the commonwealth of Virginia filed a fraud claim against Dr Michael Mann under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (Virginia Code 8.01-216.1, et seq.) claiming that Dr. Mann applied for grants that knowingly contained false information. I hope you agree that an actual lawyer and an actual attorney general has a clue what fraud means in a criminal context, right? Because it is clear that he gets what I am asking in my poll.[/ul][/li]
So let me rephrase it again for you: If climate scientists are knowingly lying about global warming and applying for grants from the government for taxpayer dollars to study said (fake) warming, are they committing fraud and should they be investigated and potentially prosecuted for said fraud?

14

How do you prove someone lying knew they were lying ?

15

If that isn’t the premier example of a pot calling a kettle black I don’t know what is. Isn’t it more likely the politicians are lying to further their career or ideology? Shouldn’t they be prosecuted for fraud?

16

It’s got to be at least theoretically possible, or there would never be a successful perjury prosecution.

17

Your OP wasn’t a hypothetical. It didn’t say “let’s imagine that fraud included what climate scientists are doing”. In fact you doubled down and went for “treason”. Treason!?

[quote]
OK, fine, it might be hard to shove what climate scientists are purportedly doing into the legal definition of fraud. I wouldn’t really know being a scientist and engineer and not a lawyer. Even so, there are plenty of examples of leading Republicans claiming that scientists are behaving fraudulently and should be investigated and potentially prosecuted:
[ul]
[li]In 2015, the Republican chairman of the House committee on space, science and technology issued subpoenas to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) alleging that they manipulated data in support of an “extreme climate agenda”:[/li][li]Also in 2015, Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican Presidential Contender convened the hearing titled “Data or dogma? Promoting open inquiry in the debate over the magnitude of human impact on Earth’s climate.” In the opening remarks, Senator Ted Cruz opined:[/li]
If this is not a claim that scientists are behaving fraudulently, you may be right that I don’t have a clue what the word fraudulently means.

[li]But still, if this does show that some prominent legal scholars (I believe many on the right believe Ted Cruz is a prominent legal scholar, I could provide cites if you so desire), how about an actual suit by an actual Attorney General? In 2010, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, the attorney general of the commonwealth of Virginia filed a fraud claim against Dr Michael Mann under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (Virginia Code 8.01-216.1, et seq.) claiming that Dr. Mann applied for grants that knowingly contained false information. I hope you agree that an actual lawyer and an actual attorney general has a clue what fraud means in a criminal context, right? Because it is clear that he gets what I am asking in my poll.[/ul][/li][/quote]

People file bogus lawsuits all the time. How did that particular lawsuit work out for the VA AG? That’s the point that some of us are trying to make to you. Just because some people are stupid, doesn’t make them right.

18

You are right twice - it isn’t a claim that scientists are behaving fraudulently, and you don’t know what the word fraudulently means.

Regards,
Shodan

19

It sets an extremely dangerous precedent to punish scientists for unpopular views (including whether they promote or oppose accepted concepts of climate change). In my view this includes criminal/civil prosecutions as well as e-mail fishing expeditions.

One of the more notorious examples involved a state attorney general (Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.) targeting the Infectious Diseases Society of America, which sets guidelines for diagnosing and treating infectious diseases. Blumenthal brought suit against the IDSA due to its lack of support for long-term antibiotics to treat “chronic Lyme disease”, for what can be regarded as political motives.

Disreputable tactics have also been employed against scientists engaged in or defending genetic modification research, and vaccine development/evaluation.

One thing to watch for in the new Congress is whether antivaxers will succeed in getting hearings on the bogus CDC “whistleblower controversy”.

If you don’t like what the science tells you, refute it using science, not in the courtroom.

20

Well there is precedent. The USSR, having decided Lysenko’s blank slate, nurture over nature, self-determination, genetical theories were the proper explanation in line with political expectation persecuted dissident scientists and arrested them, for what the politicians thought was fraud.

These were criminal, not civil, offences.