There are at least three things wrong with the April 18 editorial ("Climate of freedom") criticizing my position on possible fraud in the fossil fuel industry's climate change denial operation.

The Journal insinuates, though does not state, that I am seeking criminal prosecutions, using both the words "prosecution" and "crime" in its editorial. The tobacco lawsuit by the Department of Justice was a civil proceeding, and the Department of Justice won it. The editorial page repeatedly has insinuated that "prosecution" is the issue, but the tobacco case was civil. Failing to clarify this difference does not seem very fair and balanced.

Two, the Journal insists on insinuating that I want to prosecute scientists, or anyone who disagrees with me, when the case against Big Tobacco was for a scheme of fraud brought by the tobacco corporations and the corporate front groups. There was in fact a fraud scheme, and that fraud scheme was the subject of the litigation. No one, scientist or otherwise, was "prosecuted" in that case for "disagreeing" with the surgeon general about tobacco's dangers. To maintain that insinuation, against the facts, does not seem very fair and balanced.

Three, there is considerable academic and investigative work about an apparatus deliberately propagating climate denial on behalf of the fossil fuel industries. One of those scientists, Naomi Oreskes, spoke at Roger Williams University just last week, but there are also many others. It is a fairly robust body of academic and investigative work. Moreover, more than a dozen attorneys general think there is enough chance of fire behind the fossil fuel smoke that they have started making inquiries. To make no reference to this apparatus, or to the considerable body of academic and investigative work examining what one scientist calls the "climate denial machine," also does not seem very fair and balanced.

Similar arguments were made in some editorial pages on behalf of the tobacco industry, to try to discourage the Department of Justice from proceeding with its case. But in the best American traditions, in the cool, dry atmosphere of a courtroom where evidence counts and truth is a requirement, the government was able to identify and address the fraud scheme.

In the last few days, the Journal news pages have reported on a slew of climate-related threats to Rhode Island: a front page story on drowning marshes; a major story on the hundreds of historic buildings here at risk of sea-level rise; a seminar on changes in the oceans that are creating upheaval for our fishing industry. Climate change is not a concern about which we in the Ocean State should be casual, and if there is a fraud scheme within the climate denial machinery, the big fossil fuel companies should not just be allowed to get away with it. I doubt it's the Journal's editorial position that the fossil fuel industry is exempt from fraud laws, or that attorneys general and courts can't tell the difference between disagreement and fraud.

Sheldon Whitehouse is a U.S. senator from Rhode Island.

Editor's note: A civil proceeding by the government, as well as a criminal one, is a form of prosecution. While we strongly believe humans are contributing to climate change, it is our position that disagreements about policy issues and scientific theories should not be turned into grounds for investigations by government officials into supposed fraud, because that undermines the First Amendment and has a chilling effect on free speech. We believe, with the founders who listed this essential freedom first in the Bill of Rights, that open discussion and disagreements are healthy, allowing people to learn, grow and embrace or reject new ideas, as well as to safely challenge the misconduct of government officials and other forms of injustice. We will continue to strenuously oppose attempts to undermine this bulwark of all our freedoms.