You know if you get on a fast spinning ride, it can upset your equilibrium. The faster the ride, the larger the impact. It can be enough to make some people sick. I think the spin is finally getting to the Discovery Institute, at least that can be about the only explanation for this little ditty: "Refer Questions of Scientific Controversy to the FBI?". It's by that less-than-thoughtful davey 'klingy' klinghoffer. Does he really think that's what's going on here? Probably, it's not like he puts a lot of thought into his posts. He says this:
"Questions about global warming turn upon clashes of legitimate scientific opinion. The climate controversy is not a focus for us here, but preserving the freedom to debate unsettled science very much is."Sure, that's what the DI is all about, preserving the freedom to debate unsettled science. Are they sure about that? Evolution is settled science and people are still free to debate about it . . . although when you do what the DI does and drag religion into the discussion, no one takes you seriously. Climate Change is also settled science, just like the dangers of lead and tobacco. In each case there are deniers, but that's not illegal, not matter how much klingy wants you to think the government is about to make it so. That's simply not true . . . but when the truth isn't enough, the DI applies more spin until even they start getting dizzy.
OK, so what is going on? It's simple, and we discussed it once before in "Hey Discovery Institute, there is a difference between Criminal and Unethical". The actions of SOME climate-change deniers are coming under the heading illegal actions, like fraud, . . . but unlike klingy, I am capable of reading for comprehension. It's not the fact they are climate change deniers that is being investigated, it's the fact they are denying climate change for the purpose of making money and is doing so may be committing illegal acts! Much like the tobacco companies suppressed their own research and denied the dangers of tobacco for decades. What these select deniers are doing may well cross the line into illegal activities and if so, they should be prosecuted!
Klingy. and the DI, are of course trying to spin this as to letting the legal system decide what is science and what is not. And . . . of course . . . have to try and bring up Judge Jones and the Dover decision into it. So, let's recap for a second. The defense during the Dover Trial claimed that Intelligent Design is science and therefore they were well-within their rights to do the things they did. The Judge ruled that it wasn't science and therefore they were not within their rights. In all honesty, with the defense they put forth, the Judge had little choice but to rule on the issue. But since it was contrary to what the DI wanted and even predicted the result of the trial would be, they have been very unhappy since.
On the one hand the DI claims the ruling had little impact, but their actions show the decision hurt them greatly and have done everything they can to vilify the Judge and misrepresent his opinion. Later in klingy's article he says
"Referring huge questions of science to a federal judge for adjudication is bad enough."Now, if you read even the things klingy quotes, it's easy to see that the investigation is not addressing whether or not Climate Change is science, but . . . here, let me re-quote part of what klingy quoted:
"The similarities between the mischief of the tobacco industry pretending that the science of tobacco's dangers was unsettled and the fossil fuel industry pretending that the science of carbon emissions' dangers is unsettled has been remarked on widely, particularly by those who study the climate denial apparatus that the fossil fuel industry has erected, . . ."The Tobacco Industry was not indicted for claiming the science behind the dangers of tobacco was controversial, but because of the FRAUD they committed in fighting against changes in the regulation of tobacco products. The question at hand is not whether climate change is science, but whether or not climate change deniers, like the companies that profit from fossil fuel industry, are committing and abetting fraud.
Of course that makes klingy nervous, after all he's paid for doing something very similar . . . science denial. However, the difference is the DI depends on donations for their livelihood. That's different than the fossil fuel or tobacco industries. If it comes to pass that their science denial starts actually hurting people . . . then they might become a target themselves. But to date their denial has been much less effective and more entertaining than anything else.