Justus For All

All I can tell is that Laurie David called him a “shill” because he accepted money from the fossil fuels industry, which he admitted, and he’s named in a lawsuit by other parties trying to find out exactly what information he provided the fossil fuels industries. How is that “demonizing” or “criminalization”? Sounds to me more like “whining.”

“We know that General Motors has been paying for this fake science exactly as the tobacco companies did.”

Calling your livelyhood “fake” seems pretty demonizing to me.

HP:

“whining” huh? I think that is a pretty quick dismissal of this. Do you see any similarities between this and say the activities of HUAC or McCarthy?

It would be one thing to conclude that Lindzen is a bad scientists and that any compaints and criticisms of him were appropriate and done in a correct manner. It seems to me to be entirely different to say he is just ‘whining’.

Do you see any similarities between this and say the activities of HUAC or McCarthy?

Not until this guy gets fired and get a job anywhere else.

Whoops, that should read “can’t get a job anywhere else”. Darn lack of preview function.

Oh, one last thing: I had mistakenly thought from reading the article that he had been sued. But what the article actually says is that he was “dragged into a lawsuit” to find out what information he provided to the fossil fuel industry, which I take to mean that he was served with a subpoena to provide plaintiffs with discovery material. Come on. Is the claim now that complying with discovery in a civil lawsuit is McCarthyism? Criminalization?

Heh. The article you link has caused me no end of trouble, Dave; an email discussion that began with this article spiralled out of control and ended with a Very Famous Climate Dude comparing me to a guy who claims HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. It was good stuff, and exactly the kind of behavior you rightly describe as damaging (and that HP seems to find untroubling).

On a more technical note, I think the article’s pretty good as far as the whole “stifling dissent” thing goes, but it’s more than a little disappointing that the author couldn’t find space for some of Lindzen’s substantive criticisms of the science involved.

HP,

I can’t believe in a conversation that compares what is happening now HUAC and McCarthyism you would say that the current situation is not a problem because the scientist is just being called to testify.

It seems to me that we are seeing an attempt to create a blacklist. No, it hasn’t fully happened yet, but we should be concerned about it before it succeeds.

Did a little bit of research, and it’s interesting to see how the Boston Globe columnist you linked to flagrantly misleads his readers (or mayeb he’s just sloppy). He states that environmentalists “dragged” Lindzen into a lawsuit. This characerization makes it sound like environmentalists are suing Lindzen, presumably to try to shut him up or something. Oh, the humanity!

It turns out that the lawsuit in question was brought by General Motors against the state of California challenging environmental laws of the state that presumably have an adverse negative impact on GM’s business. As environmental groups like the National Resources Defense Council have an interest in advocating on such matters, they have been granted leave to intervene as parties on the defendants’ side.

Normally, challenges to state laws turn on a question of whether the action in question is “rational” — that is, could a rational legislature or administrative agency have promulgated the statute or regulation at issue? If the plaintiffs in the lawsuit — who, I reiterate are not the environmentalists — make such a claim, then they need some expert opinion to back that up.

Anytime anyone uses expert opinion in such a lawsuit, it is subject to discovery. Meaning that lawsuits aren’t about a game of gotcha, they’re actually about a search for the truth, which means that each side gets the opportunity to scrutinize the other’s evidence prior to a trial or summary judgment motion. This scrutiny takes the form of document production, written interrogatories, and examinations before trial (also called depositions).

Now we are being asked to believe that the defendants in a lawsuit are somehow engaged in something akin to McCarthyism because they are exercising their rights as litigants to discovery regarding expert opinion on a factual dispute material to the case? They should instead unilaterally surrender and forego their rights as litigants to discovery? The trivialization of the real victims of blacklisting by placing them in the same category as this lawsuit boggles my mind.

Did you read what you linked to HP?

It appears to me that this is an attempt to frighten existing and possible future skeptics about global climate change into silence.

That seems very similar to anti-communist blacklisting to me.

Now, I can perhaps see that you might disagree that the actions in this is lawsuit is not an attempt to create fear. Obviously some of the other items listed in the original article are an attempt to end any dissent.

Leaving asside for the moment of whether the lawsuit is a legitimate example of this, do you think it wrong to pressure conformity in scientific exploration? Do you think such acts tend to advance or slow down scientific progress?

Serious scientists allege that various forms of pressure are being used to silence their dissent, including this lawsuit, and you dismiss it as ‘whining.’

I find that bizarre.

This lawsuit is brought by the global warming skeptics! The defendants are the ones trying to get the information every litigant is entitled to! How is that enforced conformity?

The lawsuit is brought by GM. From what I can tell, based on your link, GM’s position is that even with the numbers from those who support anthropromorphic global warming this particular measure will not have any effect on the problem. That is the reason for their lawsuit, that even with their numbers, the measure is not rational.

California is the party that chose to bring the ‘global warming skeptics’ into this, and is alleging that these scientists have been given visibility out of proportion to their stature, have purposefuly spread disinformation, and basically that they are bad scientists and paid shills. Due to this, California wants every communication between the companies and these scientists.

A court of law, in my opinion, is a very poor venue for resolving scientific dispute. It is not suited to that.