Thank you for your reasoned comments about how to frame this issue. I sincerely hope the free speechers will listen, but most comments so far are not very promising in that respect.

The issue, as you have stated, is not whether a layperson is liable for expressing a thought that runs counter to the consensus. In complex issues, many people tend to not believe something of which they dislike the perceived consequences (“Back to the stone age!”). It’s unfortunate, but you can hardly put them on trial for that.

The issue, as you have stated, is whether an entity (person, industry) with a financial interest in the matter, who knowingly distorts the evidence to increase their financial profit, is liable for doing so. To that, the answer is yes.

The less clear-cut issue is if somebody without direct financial interest knowingly distorts the evidence. E.g because they fear the evidence would drive the government to raise taxes (so there is at least a ‘perceived indirect financial interest’ so to speak). The court analogy may be difficult to apply here. But what would future generations like to say to this particular person? How would what they say change, if the consequences of climate change are not as bad as expected by mainstream science? And how would it change, if the consequences are worse? Those are important questions to ponder.

Bart

My analysis was based on the third claim for relief in the Kivalina complaint, which is the one that states a cause of action for the “knowing misleading” allegations starting at paragraph 189. The complaint doesn’t seem to say that there was a conspiracy *to cause global warming*. Instead, there was a conspiracy to prevent interference (e.g., by public boycotts) with each defendant’s contributions to climate change. To prove conspiracy, the complainants need to show some overt action. The overt action alleged is “mislead[ing] the public with respect to the science of global warming”–”creating unwarranted doubts about the existence of global warming and/or its specific causes among the general public.” In other words, the overt action of the conspiracy was accomplished by persuasive, political speech–rhetoric! No speech, no cause of action.

You’re right, the claim here is not that the speech itself was harmful. So this case resembles more Claiborne Hardware or Scheidler, where protected speech is the means by which a non-speech (alleged) tort is achieved. Again, I’m rusty: I haven’t taught free speech in half a dozen years, and even back then only to undergraduates, who don’t need more than a good argument. But count 3 still looks to me like it involves a central First Amendment concern. Otherwise, what is your reading of why 189 et seq. is relevant to plaintiff’s recovery?

David: You’re right, the lawyers for Kivalina don’t seem to have asked for an injunction to stop the conspiratorial and knowingly false denial of global warming that is continuing to cause public inaction–yet. I hope you didn’t give them any ideas!

Take feedback, for instance. Are we really going to say that someone who is perplexed about the extent and nature of feedback must be lying if he says the evidence is not convincing? Are we going to say that someone who finds the PCA methods used by MBH98 less than adequate, and so doubts the conclusion that today’s warming is any greater than that of the MWP, must be lying?

It is commonly stated by the AGW movement that sincere informed scepticism about the hypothesis is not possible. But look at these two examples, and there are many more, and it obviously is.

Not that I think, as a matter of public policy, that trying to prosecute people for not professing belief of things they do not wish to profess belief in, is remotely helpful to anything, including the progress of science.

In fact, most of the defendants’ CO2 emissions are trivially small. For example, an oil or coal company has very small CO2 emissions; it is their customers who burn their products (without capturing the resulting CO2 who are causing the emissions).

Not to mention the fact that several of the defendants have operations that are predominantly in the U.S. Since U.S. emissions are only 20-25% of worldwide emissions, even if anthropogenic are entirely responsible for all of the sea level rise and warming, U.S. companies wouldn’t be responsible for a majority of the damage.

I really hope you’re joking: do you consider that an open question, in a country with free speech?
What people determine the “scientific consensus” on an issue? Some of the folks who happen to have PhD’s, plus the scientific illiterates of the news media? We are supposed to be a democracy here! And as an earlier commenter asked: what happens when the great scientific consensus changes– as it does at times.

the accusation of causing a public nuisance still requires a chain of causation that can be established between the actions of the defendant and the nuisance.

Further to the difficulty of showing a causal link, what percentage of the CO2 rise is directly attributable to the defendants? Are coal companies more liable than methane companies? What about portland cement producers? As noted by another poster, there were also direct benefits to the consumers who were “duped” into using the product, so do how do we quantify the level of overall harm or benefit when both appear to be at least somewhat intangable?

And I’ll start to take those petitions seriously when they agree to remove people who want their names removed.

IPCC refuses to remove the names of scientists who disagree with IPCC’s “consensus” view as published, so should I also take IPCC’s view seriously?

the key question here is about fraudulent conduct, not free speech.

It’s also about knowledge and intent – if our knowledge changes at a later time, so that, for instance, we find that natural variation is sufficient to explain GW, can I get my money back?