Bernie Madoff and Legal Liability in Climate Science

April 24th, 2009

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Earlier today during a Congressional hearing Al Gore and Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) had an exchange with clear ties to our earlier thread today on legal liability for expressions of climate skepticism (transcript courtesy Think Progress):

GORE: Thank you. I believe it is important to look at the sources of the science that we rely on. With all due respect, I believe that you have relied on people you have trusted who have given you bad information. I do not blame the investors who trusted Bernie Madoff, but he gave them bad information.

BARTON: I have never talked to Bernie Madoff.

GORE: I’m not saying that you have, but he gave them that information and committed a massive fraud that ended up hurting most of all the people who trusted him. Senator Warner made reference in his opening statement to the story on the front page of the New York Times this morning, absolutely incredible. The largest corporate carbon polluters in America, 14 years ago, asked their own people to conduct a review of all of this science. And their own people told them, “What the international scientific community is saying is correct, there is no legitimate basis for denying it.” Then, these large polluters committed a massive fraud far larger than Bernie Madoff’s fraud. They are the Bernie Madoffs of global warming. They ordered the censoring and removal of the scientific review that they themselves conducted, and like Bernie Madoff, they lied to the people who trusted them in order to make money. And the CEO of the largest . . .

BARTON: I will stipulate that CO2 concentrations are going up. there is no debate about that. there — they are about 380 parts per million and they’re going to rise to about 500 parts per million in the next 50 to 100 years. I will stipulate that. Now, the consequences of that, and that is because of man-made CO2, I think are debatable. I do not know about the scientific peer review that you just talked about, but if somebody lied about something 14 years ago, I am sure Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey will conduct am investigation oversight hearing into that. My question to you was about the cost of the allowance system. How are we gonna to pay for it? How many jobs are we going to lose? if you’ve got information about something that happened 14 years ago, I am sure, again, our chairman and subcommittee chairman — Mr. Stupak, who’s the oversight subcommittee chairman — will look at it. But answer the question about costs, please.

GORE: It is on the front page of the New York Times today, by Andrew Revkin. They themselves conducted review and found a science about it’s valid. And to the point you made a moment ago: they verified in their own studies that man-made global warming is raising temperatures and causing this crisis. Like Bernie Madoff, and they lied about it in order to make money. And they themselves profited. The ceo of the largest got a onetime payment of $400 million. Now, again, those who have trusted them and believed them are due an apology. These corporations ought to apologize to the American people for conducting a massive fraud for the last 14 years.

14 Responses to “Bernie Madoff and Legal Liability in Climate Science”

    1
  1. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

    Here is Gore’s interpretation of the key statement from the GCC report that was reported in Revkin’s article:

    Gore: “The largest corporate carbon polluters in America, 14 years ago, asked their own people to conduct a review of all of this science. And their own people told them, “What the international scientific community is saying is correct, there is no legitimate basis for denying it.””

    Here is the actual key quote from the GCC report from Revkin’s article:

    “The potential for a human impact on climate is based on well-established scientific fact, and should not be denied. ”

    Here is is in context:

    ” The potential for a human impact on climate is based on well-established scientific fact, and should not be denied. While, in theory, human activities have the potential to result in net cooling, a concern about 25 years ago, the current balance between greenhouse gas emissions and the emissions of particulates and particulate-formers is such that essentially all of today’s concern is about net warming. However, as will be discussed below, it is still not possible to accurately predict the magnitude (if any), timing or impact of climate change as a result of the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Also, because of the complex, possibly chaotic, nature of the climate system, it may never be possible to accurately predict future climate or to estimate the impact of increased greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    Interesting. no?

  2. 2
  3. stan Says:

    Al Gore testifying about science is the same as the actress who played a farm wife in a movie testifying before the agriculture committee. Except she was likely more coherent.

    What in the world is Al claiming? That some corporations made a statement (14 years ago!) that is somehow an admission against interest and therefore binding against every person who questions AGW?

    Al clearly doesn’t have a clue. After he flunked out of Divinity school, he’s been looking to preach ever since. He may have found a faith to preach for, but he apparently hasn’t learned any more about science than he did about religion.

  4. 3
  5. David Bruggeman Says:

    Again, the allegations are not targeting the speech, but actions taken that may or may not have been facilitated by that speech. If fraud is to be proven, the claims will need to prove more than skepticism, but some kind of misrepresentation. This could boil down to the effectiveness in court of competing expert witnesses arguing not in a scientific forum, but an adversarial process.

    I’m a bit surprised at how easy it appears to be to conflate speech and consequences that may have relied in part on said speech.

  6. 4
  7. Sean_Wise Says:

    In his testimony today Gore said the legislation must “include adequate provisions to assist those Americans who would unfairly face hardship.” To me that sounds like he’s willing to offer you cab fare after he’s totaled your car.

  8. 5
  9. Jon Frum Says:

    If you asked Al Gore elementary questions from Science 101, he would embarrass himself. I can’t imagine giving him a scientific paper and asking him to present it, as any graduate student would have to. All this has nothing to do with the science of anthropogenic climate change, but the fact that climate scientists stay silent when Al tells his whoppers does.

  10. 6
  11. PaddikJ Says:

    Roger Pielke, Jr. Says, April 24th, 2009 at 3:04 pm:

    “Interesting. no?”

    No.

    What is interesting – and tragic – is that Al Gore has any credibility or audience at all, let alone, been called to testify before Congress.

    Also interesting, if laughably obvious, is how Gore dodged the question. When David Bruggeman observes that “. . . the effectiveness in court of competing expert witnesses arguing not in a scientific forum, but an adversarial process.”, I say, bring it on. Since the Scientific Method is all but absent in climate science, I would welcome a court case. At least weasely witnessnes could be compelled to answer the questions.

  12. 7
  13. michel Says:

    This is truly crazy stuff. Even at the level at which the argument is being made, there is no comparison.

    For the comparison to be valid, Madoff would have done due diligence on company prospects and situations. The evidence would have pointed to one way, say profitability. He would then have represented the situation as being another way, say gloom and doom. People would then on his assessment have taken investment action, say gone short, and lost money.

    This is obviously not what he did, he operated a Ponzi scheme which has nothing in common with the above.

    The alleged failings of the companies Gore is talking about were to misrepresent conclusions by their own analysts. But it happens all the time, for good and bad reasons, that a company management will depart from their own analysts recommendations.

    When Enron was flying high, I personally asked our best analyst to go through all the reports and tell me was it all on the level. He spent two or three weeks, read everything he could find, and told me it was all OK as far as he could tell. I knew no more about Enron after that than what he had told me. But for some reason, I was not convinced, and told my colleagues to stay well clear. This is what I was paid for. I was paid to get my best analyst to report, and then to disbelieve him for no concrete reason.

    AND TO BE RIGHT ABOUT IT.

    In the end, the buck stops with the management and not with their analysts. Management can have lots of reasons for not taking the recommendations, one of which is that they think the analysts are probably right, but the payoffs are so weighted that it is a bad risk to bet on them.

    As Taleb says someplace, he announced at a meeting that he was going to buy X. Oh, said the manager, you think X will go up. No, he said, I think it will likely go down. Its just that if it does go up, its going to rocket, and if it goes down, it won’t be by much, and so its a good bet.

    Management is paid to be right about decisions, analysts are paid to be right about the probabilities of the inputs that go into those decisions. You put analysts in charge of the decisions, get ready to pay them more, have lots of little analysts to help them, because they no longer have time to do the basic work themselves, and also, have them depart from their recommendations, because there is something they cannot say quite what that smells in this thing….

  14. 8
  15. Reid Says:

    On Wall Street they call what Gore is doing “touting his book”. Gore is trying to convince people to buy what his venture capital businesses are selling. Both Gore and the fossil fuel companies have a conflict of interest.

    The full statement from the oil companies in Roger’s comment #1 is remarkably level headed. Especially the part about chaos and climate predictions. It is far more accurate then any science summary statement from the IPCC.

  16. 9
  17. jae Says:

    I agree with PaddikJ. Gore embarasses himself by saying something absolutely stupid about every 3 months, but people still listen to him? Maybe they do it for a laugh?

  18. 10
  19. Maurice Garoutte Says:

    Yesterday on Fox Juan Williams was doing his best to defend Gore by saying “he was just engaging in a little hyperbole”. That makes sense if the House has a new oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and a few exaggerations.

    David,
    My best judgment tells me there are no consequences from my carbon footprint. Without consequential damages the only issue about my speech is the speech itself.

    Even in the tobacco suits the plaintiffs had already suffered damages. Allowing lawsuits for potential future damages based on disputed sciences is not reasonable. I know such suits have been written into a bill by the House of Representatives, but my point is about reasonable people.

  20. 11
  21. John M Says:

    So, assuming Al Gore truly believes that carbon emissions are dangerous, is he at any legal risk for lobbying for the release of the petroleum reserves in order to win a few votes when he was running for President in 2000?

    This was his quote.

    “You ought to have the choice to get in your car, turn on your engine, and go where you want, all at a reasonable price to you and your family.”

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-dec00/oil_9-21.html

    Did he or did he not believe at the time that “At stake is nothing less than the survival of human civilisation and the habitability of the earth for our species.”?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1534549/At-stake-is-nothing-less-than-the-survival-of-human-civilisation.html

    Just a few CO2 molecules among friends (and potential voters)?

  22. 12
  23. Rick Says:

    Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

    Here is Gore’s interpretation of the key statement from the GCC report that was reported in Revkin’s article:

    Gore: “The largest corporate carbon polluters in America, 14 years ago, asked their own people to conduct a review of all of this science. And their own people told them, “What the international scientific community is saying is correct, there is no legitimate basis for denying it.””

    I wonder if Al Gore can be sued for misrepresenting the Times article.

  24. 13
  25. jasg Says:

    Roger nailed it in his first comment. As so often, people are arguing over something that wasn’t even written. The comments on the Thinkprogress website are a graphic demonstration of just how much misinformation is actually out there – and while journalists (Revkin in this case) are responsible for much of it, the scientific community are deliberately stoking the fires.

    It seems the main idea being put forward by the Goreans is that the fossil fuel companies are responsible for the increase in CO2, just like tobacco companies are responsible for smokers. This presumes that fossil fuel consumers consume merely out of personal gratification or addiction, not at all to make their lives easier. The fossil fuel companies then become the pushers in this scenario.

    Yet the public demanded cheap energy. Were the fossil fuel companies supposed to then increase prices to discourage demand? Imagine the outcry! We’ve just seen large oil price increases and the oil companies were accused of profiteering. So they are damned whatever they do. In reality, they profit much more from scarcity than from a glut so exactly what can they being accused of if they make fuel abundant and cheap? Giving the customers what they want perhaps? The scientific information, flaky and contradictory though it is, is available to everyone and the CO2 causes warming argument had been out there for 20 years already when the Clinton-Chavez deal ensured oil at $30 a barrel. Yet everyone was happy in boom-land. So the hypocrisy now is just breathtaking.

    It’s symptomatic of today’s society that people always find someone else to blame – “it can’t possibly be us” – the lumpen public seem to say – “because we are obviously too stupid”. Well here’s a newsflash for you Goreans: You are still stupid. And your unwillingness to read beyond the headlines makes you lazy too. Get a life!

  26. 14
  27. Luke Lea Says:

    “Goreans” Love it!