Inhofe Wants to Prosecute "Criminal" Scientists

Read time: 1 min

The US Congress’s most ardent global warming sceptic is being accused of turning the row over climate science into a McCarthyite witch-hunt by calling for a criminal investigation of scientists. Climate scientists say Sen. James Inhofe’s call for a criminal investigation into American as well as British scientists who worked on the UN climate body’s report represents an attempt to silence debate on the eve of new proposals for a climate change law.

Get DeSmog News and Alerts


If you & Deep Climate show that Wegman was picked because of his known views against AWG, a case against the charges against Republican Congressmen Joe Barton and Ed Whitfield may be made under Federal statute 18 U.S.C. 1505. See the quote below from Inhofe’s aids.

United States Senate Report
‘Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy
United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Minority Staff
February 2010

“Federal statute 18 U.S.C. 1505 concerns obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, or committees, which includes Congressional hearings. Thus, providing false or misleading testimony could create liability under this provision.”

We need to change the language about what is happening here. Skeptics are genuine doubters, who seek to inform themselves by examining the evidence, settling on the conclusion supported by the overwhelming majority of the evidence.

Science proceeds on the basis of doubt - it is a skeptical and probabilistic discipline - it looks at all the evidence in an open and fair-minded way to determine the most probable outcome. Any probability over 95% is certain beyond statistically significant doubt, and is therefore certain enough to plan your future on.

Inhofe is no global warming skeptic. He is a global warming denier. It seems from his public profile that he has not examined the scientific evidence, nor heeded the consensus of the scientific experts, which, at about 95%, places dangerous climate change beyond reasonable doubt, and that he is ideologically committed to an anti-scientific doctrine in which truth is reposed with absolute certainty.

This is as far from the skeptical mind as it is possible to go, and forebodes something very far from the democratic principle of public accountability. From the relatively safe distance of Australia, the normalisation of racist and fascist sentiment in public discourse in America, even amongst ordinary Americans I personally know and consider good and moral people, is deeply worrying. One only has to look at how the fallout from the recent passage of the Health Care Bill and the attack on climate scientists are reflected in social networking environments, let alone the news and blogosphere, to see where this may lead.

Inhofe and others like him are not global warming skeptics. They are conscious, deliberate and calculating global warming deniers, pursuing their powerful interests by fanning the flames of the public uncertainty and confusion they have deliberately created.

Name Inhofe for what he really is, as do some of those scientists he seeks to intimidate.