by Judith Curry

A new low in science: criminalizing climate skeptics.

Fox News op-ed

Here is the link to my op-ed:

Scientists have many important roles to play in preparations for the upcoming UN Conference on Climate Change in Paris. Some are working hard to clarify uncertainties in the science, others on developing and evaluating alternative climate policies.

One group of climate scientists is trying a different approach. Dismayed by what they see as a lack of progress on the implementation of climate policies that they support, these 20 scientists sent a letter to the White House calling for their political opponents to be investigated by the government.

In particular, they are voicing their support of a proposal by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) for a RICO investigation of fossil fuel corporations and their supporters, who the scientists allege have deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, with the consequence of forestalling America’s response to reducing carbon emissions.

RICO, short for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, is a federal law enacted in 1970 as a crime-fighting tool for use against the Mafia. It includes prison sentences of up to 20 years and seizure of financial assets for those found guilty of such “racketeering.”

Senator Whitehouse singled out one climate scientist, Willie Soon, a solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Research Center who argues that changes in solar radiation, rather than carbon emissions, are the major force behind global warming.

Seven other climate scientists were the targets of a recent McCarthyite ‘witch hunt’ by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ). I was one of the seven. Rep. Grijalva indicated that I was investigated because of my recent Congressional testimony summarizing peer-reviewed research indicating that the magnitude and impacts of expected warming could be less than generally believed.

None of the Grijalva 7 was found to have engaged in wrongdoing of any sort, yet there have been significant career consequences for some.

The demand by Senator Whitehouse and the 20 climate scientists for legal persecution of people whose research on science and policy they disagree with represents a new low in the politicization of science.

The role of these 20 scientists is particularly troubling. The consequence of this persecution, intended or not, is to make pariahs of scientists who are doing exactly what we expect of researchers: to critically evaluate evidence and publish that work in the scientific literature.

Minority perspectives have an important and respected role to play in advancing science, as a mean for testing ideas and pushing the knowledge frontier forward. While President Obama bows to no one in attacking climate ‘deniers’, he recently made an important statement in a town hall meeting at the University in Iowa on the importance of challenging received knowledge in a university setting:

“Because there was this space where you could interact with people who didn’t agree with you and had different backgrounds from you … I started testing my own assumptions, and sometimes I changed my mind,” he said. “Sometimes I realized, maybe I’ve been too narrow-minded; maybe I didn’t take this into account; maybe I should see this person’s perspective. That’s what college, in part, is all about.”

That’s even more what real science is about. It is important for scientists to engage the public and to work with policy makers to assess the impacts and unintended consequences of policy options. However, it has become ‘fashionable’ for academic scientists to advocate for certain political outcomes, without having much understanding of the policy process, economics, or the ethics of such advocacy.

What these 20 scientists have done with their letter is the worst kind of irresponsible advocacy. Attempts by powerful people to silence other scientists, especially in this brutal fashion, is a recipe for stifling scientific progress and for making poor policies.

Climate policy has been limited by an overly narrow set of narratives and policy options. Expanding the frameworks for thinking about climate change and climate policy can lead to developing a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from it.

That is how democracy is supposed to work. We search for solutions that can garner a critical mass of support. We don’t try to criminalize our political opponents, and especially should not try to criminalize scientists who have a different view.

I would like to acknowledge comments from Peter Webster and Roger Pielke Jr. in preparation of this op-ed.

The RICO20 speak out

Several of RICO20 have made public statements:

In an interview, Alan Betts made the following statements:

“Bring them to court and make them face up,” Betts said. “Somebody downstream is going to have to pay the staggering costs of all the delays in taking action on climate change. The fossil fuel companies are now deeply culpable because of their deliberate deceptive strategies.”

Asked if RICO could be used to investigate local intervenors or dissenting environmental groups like Energize Vermont, Betts said, “I don’t think so. Everyone has a right to discuss.” The scientist also dismissed concerns that RICO investigations might violate the right to free speech, saying, “I have no idea how it affects the First Amendment.”

Barry Klinger of George Mason/IGES posted a statement on his website, excerpts:

A RICO suit like the one we propose would be very narrowly focussed on whether companies were engaged in fraud in order to continue selling a product which threatens to do harm. I’m not a legal expert, but I think that anyone not selling a product or service can not be punished for fraud, so the vast majority of people opining on climate are not even theoretically threatened by such a case. Even for an oil company, the standard for finding fraud is quite high.

What do we want to do to climate contrarians? No one is trying to throw anyone in jail. Our model is the civil (not criminal) tobacco suit which previously used RICO. If I understand the case correctly, the final outcome of the judgement against tobacco companies was to order them to stop denying known harms of smoking and to publicize the falsity of their fraudulent statements. I expect that a case against fossil fuel companies, if it ever did prove fraud, would result in a similar judgement.

Should free speech apply to all sides of a debate? I sympathize with the fear that the legal system could be inappropriately applied to squelching the free speech of scientists. I would strongly oppose a widening of the scope to anyone unrelated to the efforts of a company selling a product (for which there is a lot of case law about commercial exceptions to free speech).

However, I don’t recall climate contrarians coming to the defense of Michael Mann when he was subject to ideologically-based legal harrassment from then-Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli as well as from Republicans in Congress.

Note: Steve McIntyre has a new post taking Klinger to task regarding the defense of Mann by climate ‘contrarians’ [link].

Tobacco RICO

Well, Klinger’s view of RICO and the tobacco model is quite naive. Via email, I received an email from tobacco researcher James Enstrom, excerpt:

I was illegally inserted into the 1999-2006 USDOJ RICO lawsuit against the tobacco industry because I published politically incorrect findings in the May 17, 2003 BMJ. This insertion severely damaged my distinguished scientific career at UCLA, but with great effort I have survived and fought back.

This letter motivated me to look into this. I spotted this 2007 LaTimes article Tobacco funding of research reviewed. Excerpts:

For more than three decades, epidemiologist James Enstrom has labored quietly at UCLA, studying the effect of tobacco smoke on human health. In recent years, his work has challenged the conventional view that second-hand smoke poses a serious health risk.

He calls himself a lone wolf, a maverick and a rebel. His critics call him a turncoat.

Enstrom once worked closely with the American Cancer Society, but today his sponsor is the tobacco industry. Over the last 15 years, he has received $1.4 million plus undisclosed consulting fees from the industry while producing research that supports industry views. One study used the American Cancer Society’s database to contend that second-hand smoke was not a serious health hazard.

Now Enstrom has become a symbol of industry influence for activists who support a proposal to bar University of California researchers from receiving tobacco industry money. The regents will take up the issue in May. Mirroring divisions elsewhere in UC, some university regents back a ban, while others oppose it on grounds of academic freedom. The 63-year-old Enstrom maintains that he is simply a scholar in “pursuit of truth.”

“If I was so corrupt, how could I survive for 33 years at UCLA?” he asks. “The effort is to smear me and libel me.”

Seven months ago, his research and correspondence were cited by a federal judge in a racketeering case as evidence of the tobacco industry’s manipulation of the scientific process. In January, the ethics of his research were called into question at a public meeting of the UC Board of Regents.

Enstrom, tall, forceful and passionate, believes the proposed ban at UC is aimed personally at him and says he is being vilified by a powerful lobby that places “political correctness” above science. He denies that tobacco money influenced his results, says no one has found errors in his calculations and contends that other studies corroborate his findings.

“It’s unfortunate to end up in a racketeering lawsuit for writing an article in a British medical journal,” he said ruefully.

University officials have kept their distance from Enstrom but note that he has faced tremendous pressure from his critics.

“In some sense I will stand up for Dr. Enstrom,” said Roberto Peccei, UCLA vice chancellor for research. “He’s got all these people beating on him. I’m not here to defend him, but I do think he was hit by a Mack truck.”

Read the whole article, it is fascinating as well as very disturbing.

Why Do Academics Sign Climate Action Petitions?

Lucas Bergkamp has penned a provocative essay [link], discussing the RICO20 and also the role of scientists in the Dutch Urgenda case. Excerpts:

Why would an academic sign a petition to request that a government take some specific action or refrain from taking some action? Where an academic possess expertise that is relevant to a policy issue, he or she might decide to share that expertise with the government and suggest a specific course of action based on that expertise. The problem with this practice is that science does not dictate policies, so the arguments set out in such petitions need to invoke some value or make some subjective judgment to arrive at the policy recommendation. Nevertheless, where the values invoked are commonly accepted and already reflected in law and policy, this is uncontroversial.

In the area of climate change, academics have been filing petitions left and right. In the US, a group of academics requested the Obama administration to launch a criminal investigation into “climate deceptive” statements of corporations, because it would be “imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible.” The evidence for their accusation are some books and reports by social and climate action advocates. Many of the signatories are not lawyers and had no formal legal training. The petition does not set forth any coherent argument. It purpose seems to be to deter rejection of a socially constructed and politically endorsed scientific consensus.

This is a puzzling practice. Why would academics put their reputation on the line by endorsing a poorly argued, activist petition entirely outside their area of expertise? If he or she did so as a citizen, without using academic titles, this would not be much of a concern; such citizen petitions are submitted all the time. But if academic titles and affiliations are used in connection with an issue that has no relation whatsoever with the substance of the petition, is their use appropriate? In general, the risk would that the academic’s independence, impartiality, and scientific credibility is adversely affected by such practices. Partisanship is incompatible with academic excellence, sound scientific research, and unbiased, reliable opinions.

In the area of climate change, this seems not to be a concern, however, as long as the opinions expressed are in line with the climate action orthodoxy. Academics that side with the climate action activists are in the good camp. Partisanship does not adversely affect their credibility and reputation, because these attributes do not derive from the strength of their arguments. Their authority is a function of their affiliation with the good camp. Likewise, the lack of authority of opponents or critics is a function of their affiliation with the “climate-destructive” industry, some self-interest, or their general lack of enlightened pro-climate thinking. Whether this way of assigning academic authority is consistent with science’s mission, is an issue that does not deserve attention, given the urgency of the climate action required.

These climate action petitions unduly distort the public debate and are unhelpful to policy-making, because they inappropriately invoke scientific authority and do not rely on sound argument. At best, they will be recognized as such and ignored. At worst, they will be viewed, mistakenly or willfully, as science-based advice from the academic community. The latter, of course, is what these academics hope for. They may well realize that they abuse their academic credentials, but it does not stop them. After all, as the Dismal Theorem holds, peoples’ willingness to pay to guard against possible future climate catastrophe is infinitely large. Why should anyone bother about inappropriate use of credentials if the continued existence of humanity and planet earth is on the line? In saving our planet, who could possibly challenge the proposition that the ends justify the means?

Funding issues

Other articles that I’ve spotted focus on the government funding going to IGES, particularly what is being paid to Shukla and members of his family:

From the Examiner article:

What is not criminal is having an opposing scientific opinion. What is not criminal is pursuing the science and extending the debate on climate. To call such science as criminal without a crime having been committed is a political witch hunt without a broomstick to stand on.

This topic is receiving much discussion in academic circles – astonishment at the amount of government funding Shukla has been pulling in and the large double salary he is paying himself. Based on conflict of interest guidelines at Georgia Tech and University of Colorado, there is no way that I can see that this would have been legal/allowed. I know of several people investigating this issue informally; I assume someone will pick up this investigation in a more formal way.

All this makes Willie Soon’s $1.2 M over 10+ years from energy companies, all of which went to the Harvard Smithsonian, look virtuous (not to mention paltry).

BREAKING: Steve McIntyre has a thorough expose Shukla’s Gold. Must read.

JC reflections

I’m hoping that my op-ed will help stimulate outrage over the RICO20 letter, lessons learned for the scientists, and the development of better ethical guidelines for scientists interacting with the public and engaging in advocacy.

The RICO20 letter certainly seems to have backfired, as the main publicity it is receiving is investigation of GMU/IGES funding improprieties and conflict of interest.

I’ll conclude by reiterating this statement from my op-ed:

What these 20 scientists have done with their letter is the worst kind of irresponsible advocacy. Attempts by powerful people to silence other scientists, especially in this brutal fashion, is a recipe for stifling scientific progress and for making poor policies.