This vile effort threatens to undermine free speech and open enquiry, the very underpinnings of successful democracies and the scientific method

Prosecuting “deniers” would deny free speech to skeptical Americans

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, Illinois—President Barack Obama is hostile to open debate and research contradicting his opinions and policies.

The most recent evidence for this is U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, in which she said the Department of Justice has discussed pursuing legal action against companies, research institutions, and scientists who debate whether humans are causing catastrophic climate change.

The revelation the Obama Administration has asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate people involved in an ongoing scientific debate should shock the sensibilities of all Americans.

It was not Obama or Lynch who first broached the idea of prosecuting climate realists for exercising their free-speech rights; that dishonor falls to U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who in a May 2015 op-ed published in The Washington Post argued the fossil-fuel industry is collaborating with conservative think tanks to disseminate research contradicting the scientific consensus on man-caused climate change.

The First Amendment to the Constitution presents the first significant hurdle to efforts by Whitehouse and the Obama administration to silence their critics in the global warming debate.

Obama, Lynch, and Whitehouse all swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the First Amendment is pretty clear: “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.”

For more than 200 years, the First Amendment has protected the rights of individuals and groups to speak freely on issues of public importance, including global climate change—even if politically connected renewable power interests, influential environmentalists, members of Congress, or even the president of the United States disagree with them.

Another problem hampering the Obama Administration’s attempt to prosecute climate skeptics is that the truth is a legal defense against fraud, which means it is impossible for Lynch to prove skeptical scientists and climate researchers are lying when they say the human impact on climate is unclear and evidence of harm is lacking.

Contrary to the constant false claims made by the Obama Administration, the matter is still part of an ongoing, lively scientific debate.

The German climate science site No Tricks Zone documented approximately 250 peer-reviewed academic articles published in 2015 disputing one or more of the many claims made by climate change alarmists.

These papers show nature plays a significant role in climate change, increasing amounts of carbon dioxide are improving plant growth, and, contrary to climate model projections, weather extremes are not getting worse due to climate change.  These articles make clear, individually and collectively, the discussion concerning the causes and consequences of climate change is not over.

Additionally, a survey of members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) found 67 percent of AMS members who responded believe humans are responsible for more than half of climate change.  Are we to believe the 33 percent of AMS members who disagree humans are responsible for climate change are committing fraud?

For centuries people believed illnesses were due to an imbalance of humours in the body and that Earth was flat and was the center of the universe. Those people were wrong, but most of them were not frauds.

Everyone who currently disputes humans are causing dangerous climate change could be completely wrong and may be shown to be so as more evidence is gathered and carefully analyzed.

It’s also possible those who believe fossil-fuel use is causing a climate apocalypse could also be wrong, but being wrong on a scientific matter does not constitute fraud.  Debate is the scientific method in action, not a crime.

By raising the specter of possible prosecution, the Obama Administration is attempting to pressure those who disagree with it on climate matters into silence.

This vile effort threatens to undermine free speech and open enquiry, the very underpinnings of successful democracies and the scientific method.

H. Sterling Burnett is a research fellow on energy and the environment at The Heartland Institute, a nonpartisan research center Arlington, Ill.  Readers may write him at The Heartland Institute, 3939 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004 or e-mail him at hburnett@heartland.org