Who is Michael E. Kraft? Does it really matter, because, he seems to be saying what most Warmists think, namely, yeah, there’s a First Amendment and all, but, some things are more important, so, it’s OK to violate their free speech rights. For the record, he is professor emeritus of political science and public and environmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay.
Michael E. Kraft: Climate-change deniers deserve punishment
Most of us recognize the value of science in dealing with complex problems that pose significant risks to public health and well-being.
Thus we expect reputable science to be reported and used in helping us make difficult policy choices, such as what to do about climate change.
Scientific findings and associated uncertainties should be scrutinized carefully and debated vigorously within the scientific community and among the public.
Can’t you feel the “but” coming?
However, denying the best scientific evidence we have is neither smart nor safe. It could lead to greater societal harm than if we had taken sensible action when reliable knowledge was first available.
The best available science at the time said that the world was flat, that it was only 6,000 years old, that the Sun went around the Earth, and that witches were real. After some blather about the Cult Of Climastrology’s favorite comparison, to the tobacco company lawsuits (funny how they all seem to have the same talking points), we get to the meat
Some ask whether such inquiries should be limited to fossil fuel companies. What about extending the liability, they say, to certain think tanks and advocacy groups?
Some such groups have been heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry and have misrepresented climate change risks to the public. That might be a tougher sell, given rights to free speech, but it could be given consideration.
In other words, they could manufacture a way to eliminate Free Speech protections for those who fail to fall in line.
Our current limited policies reflect a history of science denial by fossil fuel companies and others that have sown confusion and weakened public support for doing more. Those who intentionally misled the public about climate change should be held accountable.
Isn’t interesting how Warmists/Progressives always seem to go for the Big Government, draconian, authoritarian route? Wanting to punish people for their beliefs? This is the route they will take, saying that people “intentionally misled the public” (even as Warmists are unable to support their belief in anthropogenic climate change with hard facts and data) and should be punished, 1st Amendment be damned.
The left are all upset about Citizens United v FEC decision, saying that it extends free speech rights to those wicked ol’ corporations, but the First Amendment doesn’t say that people have freedom of speech; it says that Congress may make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
If we were to take the left’s position, that the First Amendment means only that real persons have the freedom of speech, then we must also say that the freedom of the press, guaranteed in the same phrase, would also be limited to real persons, and that the New York Times Corporation and NBC and every other media company had no freedom of the press protections.
The truth is simple: the left favor freedom of choice on exactly one thing. On everything else, the power of government to force the individual’s compliance is what they support.
Excellent comment Dana.
As for the article by M. Kraft, if the global warming cultists had been right about anything, if their computer models had predicted anything correctly, if any of their constant warnings of doom and gloom had come true, people might pay some attention to them. But they’ve been spectacularly wrong for decades. And since rational people are tuning them out, they’re reaction? Punish people who don’t agree. That’s a hell of a winning argument.
And yet the left embraces it.
Says all you need to know about them.
There is an accompanying piece to Kraft’s poorly thought out writing which can be found here:
Furthermore, it is clear that these actions are against free speech. Such oppression of the rights of people is against the law.
Perhaps it is time to arrest and jail those who are actually breaking the law rather than those who are exercising their rights.
The argument is (as I know you know) that corporations are not “people” and therefore should not participate in the political process.
In addition to Dana’s points, there are two more that need to be considered:
1) A “corporation” is legally a “fictitious person for the purpose of the law.” For the purpose of lawsuits and things, the US government is a corporation. (It is even codified in the US Code.) If corporations cannot voice opinions or advocate, does that mean that members of the legislative branch or executive branch can’t support ideas and programs?
2) Most unions are corporations as well. For all those who hate the Citizens United case, imagine how they react when you tell them that overturning Citizens means unions can’t advocate and lobby as well. I’ve done it. People go nuts and say “you can’t take away my right of free speech!”
The left always wants to restrict freedoms.
Corporations are groups of people (that group can be a group of one person) who have come together to perform some function, usually to make money. The First Amendment also states that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The Constitution very specifically states that the people can come together for political purposes.
Our esteemed host is an individual, but he is using corporations to publish his message. He gets internet service at his home through some ISP, almost certainly a corporation, and uses Dreamhost, also a corporation, as his site hosting service.
If the left had their way, those corporations could be prosecuted for disseminating our host’s message!
Corporations do not have a constitutional right to lie, mislead and ultimately defraud their investors and shareholders. If, as is claimed, Exxon’s own internal global warming research was convincing enough for Exxon to change their strategy, yet they were telling potential investors that the evidence supporting global warming was murky, they could be in trouble.
The 1st Amendment does not protect fraudulent activities. If Heritage, Heartland, CEI etc were paid by Exxon et al to promote the fraud, they could have some culpability as well, as part of a conspiracy to defraud investors.
The investigations and the courts will tell. I suspect CEI and others are already shredding documents and deleting emails.
Conservabloggers are likely safe. Mostly they lie and mislead out of ideology, not greed.
The problem is Jeffery that there is no proof of what you and others are claiming. As in the cites given, there are plenty of people – actual scientists – who disagree with AGW.
This is an attempt to shut down dissent and actual debate. Courts have ruled that the government cannot intervene when there is a discussion or debate on ideas. We on the right know that you on the left hate open debates and discussions which is why you support the illegal activities of the AG’s.
Correct.
Now, show someone the fraud.
There is none and that’s the point.
The courts will likely tell the Virgin Islands and the AG’s to go pound sand. These people are on a fishing expedition and the only “evidence” they have is that there are differing opinions.
In case you missed social studies, a difference in opinion is not a crime nor should it be.
I would say that is projection from you, but we all know that you lie out of ideology and greed.
So they shouldn’t investigate whether fraud was committed because they haven’t yet proven that fraud was committed? Clever defense.
Again, in case you missed social studies, that’s why we have investigations and trials.
Did Exxon lie to potential investors and shareholders regarding the impact of global warming on Exxon’s business? Why would they lie? To keep the money coming in, to keep stock prices up. We get it: Exxon wants to protect its hundreds of billions of dollars. Bernie Madoff didn’t want to get caught either. That’s why we have investigations.
On one thing you are right. There is a difference of opinion.
You and Exxon want to shut down the questioning before it gets started.
And there are actual scientists who believe vaccinations cause autism, that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, that green tea will make you live longer, that Vit E is good for your heart, that the Earth isn’t warming, and that CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation. So? These are all extreme minority positions in the scientific community.
The claim is that Exxon conducted its own internal research showing that global warming was real enough that the corporation changed its commercial strategies. Yet, they informed the public, potential investors and shareholders that global warming most likely was not a problem – to keep the investment coming. If that’s shown to be true, it’s not a difference of opinion, it’s fraud.
We get it. Conservatives blame the victims in fraud cases. It’s the survival of the fittest. Corporations count on a gullible public, and anything the corporation says (or does!) is protected speech – since, corporations are people, my friend.
So that is a difference of opinion – conservatives feel corporations can do no wrong while liberals see a role for government in protecting citizens from multi-billion dollar corporations that control our politicians.
Your “cites” were to a Heartland employee (funded by Koch Industries and Exxon and others) who discussed (but did not cite) the No Tricks Zone blog. Gosselin at the No Trick Zones DID list over 200 abstracts. I picked 2 at random – one was NOT published in 2015 as claimed and the other discussed solar forcings in the so-called Little Ice Age.
There is no question that there are well-compensated opinionists.
They should not investigate because there is no evidence that a fraud has been committed. It is clear that you don’t understand how an investigation starts or the legal basis for one. Is it your position that the government should be able to demand records on a whim? That people and companies should have to pony up documents without any indication that there is a problem? Should the government be able to come into your company or home and demand you turn over all your records because your company is part of big medicine which is accused all the time of all sorts of illegal activities?
Do you have any proof they did? If not, then the answer is no. Go ahead and read the subpoena. There is no actual allegation that is based on anything other than speculation. That doesn’t meet the threshold of an investigation.
We have investigations based on evidence and a criminal theory. There is neither evidence or a crime here. What is being said is that Exxon advocates for a position that a governmental official disagrees with.
I want the law and the Constitution to be followed. You don’t.
It is clear that since you aren’t winning, you want people to stop the debate.
If a warmist falsifies data or publishes a paper which is not supported by data, should that warmist be arrested for fraud?
Even if what you are saying is true (it isn’t as AGW is still debated by a large number of scientists,) having an opinion is not a crime.
Conservatives know that the rule of law should be applied. Liberals don’t care about the law and will even break it to silence those with whom they disagree.
We get it. Warmists are losing the battle on AGW as more and more scientists leave the AGW camp because of the actual fraudulent activities of warmists. Warmists hate the truth and anyone that disagrees with them so they have to break the law and oppress speech.
I am always amazed by the left’s belief that because a person works for someone, they must be corrupt. That is pure projection on your part and basically an ad hominem attack.
And?
So Al Gore’s claims are all false? People who get grants and funding to prove AGW are automatically wrong because they are “well compensated?”
The bottom line is that the papers listed at the No Trick Zone shows that there is a large diversity in the scientific community on the causes of global warming. (And that is just one place that lists papers like that.)
Exxon and others are being accused of having an opinion that is not what politicians want to hear. Nothing more. Nothing less.
These AG’s are looking to criminalize free speech and sadly you and your liberal pals support them.
Jeffrey wrote:
You need probable cause to start an investigation. Simple disagreement does not constitute probable cause.