What’s Next? Prosecuting String Theory Denialists?

March 13th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

loretta-lynch.jpgThe revelation that AG Loretta Lynch had discussions about bringing charges against climate change deniers (I’ve yet to meet a ‘climate change denier’) has led to a few questions about whether people like me (a skeptic of the view that the human influence on climate is either large or dangerous) should be worried.

What? Me worry?

Actually, I do tend to be a worrier. I’m a worrier about all kinds of things. My family. Health. The future of our country.

If there’s nothing I can think of to worry about, I just assume I’m forgetting something and keep racking my brain for it.

But worry about being prosecuted for some sort of cover-up of evidence that human-caused climate change is dangerous?


Even though my name was mentioned in a deposition.

I’ve said before: Al Gore might be right. Maybe we are headed for global warming Armageddon. No one knows…this is science, not truth.

But what I try to do is to show the evidence that supports the case that he is wrong. Because very few mainstream scientists are willing to do that. They risk losing their government funding, which is justified based upon the threat of global warming not the non-threat (Congress wouldn’t fund that).

The result is that the science on climate change has a decidedly alarmist bias.

If “fixing it” was relatively easy, then fine. Spend a little more as an insurance policy.

But it won’t cost “a little more”. It will destroy huge amounts of wealth, hurting the poor the most, potentially killing millions of people since poverty is the leading cause of death in the world.

But, I digress…

So, in answer to those asking: No, I’m not worried.

The very fact that politicians use terms like climate change deniers means they really don’t understand the scientific debate, anyway. The climate always changes.

The pertinent questions are: (1) by how much?, (2) how much is due to human activities?, (3) is it bad?, and (4) can we do anything about it without killing millions in the process?

Given the fact that CO2 is necessary for life on Earth to exist, and there is so little of it in the atmosphere, for now I’m going with the view that more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing — not a bad thing.

Comments are closed.