# Conservatives: Should we prosecute climate scientists for fraud?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion
**Created:** [December 11, 2016, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457 "2016-12-11T18:52:49Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2016, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/1 "2016-12-11T18:52:49Z")
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_gubernatorial_elections,_2016), and [64% of state houses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures)) and they can decide policy as they see fit.
Well, [according to Pew research](http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/), 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](https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385); 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](https://twitter.com/AGScottPruitt/status/743832634111983616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) 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…
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2016, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/2 "2016-12-11T19:28:54Z")
[Oh, you’re no fun anymore!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOs4vsthLD0)
🙂
---
### Author:  [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2016, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/3 "2016-12-11T19:34:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> [Oh, you’re no fun anymore!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOs4vsthLD0)
>
> 🙂
Did I used to be? 🙂
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2016, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/4 "2016-12-11T20:22:05Z")
Why fraud? How have conservatives been victims of [fraud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud)?
---
### Author:  [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2016, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/5 "2016-12-11T20:38:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Why fraud? How have conservatives been victims of [fraud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud)?
I could be a smart ass (or more of a smart ass) and link to [LMGTFY.com](http://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:
> [@](#):
>
> fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain
---
### Author:  [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2016, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/6 "2016-12-11T23:30:01Z")
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”.
---
### Author:  [@DorkVader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DorkVader)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2016, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/7 "2016-12-11T23:54:47Z")
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
---
### Author:  [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2016, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/8 "2016-12-11T23:57:12Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2016, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/9 "2016-12-12T00:42:57Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2016, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/10 "2016-12-12T00:53:41Z")
> [@kopek](#):
>
> 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.
Nope.
> **[What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?](https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm)**
>
> \1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.\
> [@](#):
>
> So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies. The small number of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2. Today, an avalanche of peer reviewed studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse man-made global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading. Additionally, we reduced the SO2 emissions which were causing global cooling. The question remains whether we will reduce the CO2 emissions causing global warming.
---
### Author:  [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2016, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/11 "2016-12-12T00:56:24Z")
There have already been lawsuits against climatologists, notably Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli against Michael Mann:
> **[Michael E. Mann |](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#Attorney_General_of_Virginia.27s_investigative_demand)**
>
> Based on the CRU email leak, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli initiated a Civil Investigative Demand against the University of Virginia to obtain documentation relating to Mann's work at the university. The demand sparked widespread academic condemnation as a "blatantly political" attempt to intimidate and silence Mann, and was denied in August 2010 by a judge for failure to state sufficient cause. Cuccinelli tried to re-open his case by issuing a revised subpoena, and app In October 2010...
The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was started 5 years ago to help defend against such suits.
> **[Climate Science Legal Defense Fund](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Science_Legal_Defense_Fund)**
>
> The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) is a not-for-profit organization established in 2011 to provide legal assistance to researchers and institutions engaged in climate science facing legal challenges from private entities such as think tanks and legal foundations.
> CSLDF also provides litigation support and files amicus briefs in related cases, promotes awareness among scientists of their legal rights and responsibilities, and makes public the legal actions taken against scientists.
> C...
> **[Climate scientists are under attack from frivolous lawsuits | Lauren Kurtz](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/07/climate-scientists-are-under-attack-from-frivolous-lawsuits)**
>
> Lauren Kurtz: Climate Science Legal Defense Fund is forced to defend climate scientists against constant frivolous lawsuits
---
### Author:  [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2016, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/12 "2016-12-12T00:59:52Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2016, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/13 "2016-12-12T03:53:43Z")
> [@Oakminster](#):
>
> 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.
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”](http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/congressman-doubles-down-accuses-noaa-scientists-of-doctoring-results/):[/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.](http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/senate-science-committee-hearing-challenges-dogma-of-climate-science/)” 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](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/science/New_Mann_CID.pdf) 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?
---
### Author:  [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2016, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/14 "2016-12-12T04:13:31Z")
How do you _prove_ someone lying _knew_ they were lying ?
---
### Author:  [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2016, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/15 "2016-12-12T06:17:18Z")
> [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](#):
>
> …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.
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?
---
### Author:  [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2016, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/16 "2016-12-12T07:02:27Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#):
>
> How do you _prove_ someone lying _knew_ they were lying ?
It’s got to be at least theoretically possible, or there would never be a successful perjury prosecution.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2016, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/17 "2016-12-12T08:30:02Z")
> [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](#):
>
> Don’t fight the hypothetical.
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”](http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/congressman-doubles-down-accuses-noaa-scientists-of-doctoring-results/):[/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.](http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/senate-science-committee-hearing-challenges-dogma-of-climate-science/)” 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](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/science/New_Mann_CID.pdf) 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.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2016, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/18 "2016-12-12T14:02:15Z")
> [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](#):
>
> 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.](http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/senate-science-committee-hearing-challenges-dogma-of-climate-science/)” In the opening remarks, Senator Ted Cruz opined:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > 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.”
>
> 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.
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
---
### Author:  [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2016, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/19 "2016-12-12T14:13:05Z")
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](http://www.theday.com/article/20100423/OP01/304239950).
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.
---
### Author:  [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2016, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457/20 "2016-12-12T14:49:20Z")
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.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-should-we-prosecute-climate-scientists-for-fraud/774457.md?page=2)