An attorney asks: Are Climate Skeptics Legally Liable for Criminal Negligence?

Attorney arguing his case

Guest essay by Roger E. Sowell, Esq. reposted with permission from Sowell’s Law Blog

In the past month, several articles appeared calling for the jailing of those who provide financial support for research into climate science with an objective of proving that man-made climate change does not exist.  An overview is provided at WattsUpWithThat (see link).  Responses to the call for jailing are numerous.

The background on this is that three sides exist in the climate change argument: one, the warmists, those who fervently believe that man’s activities by

burning fossil fuels will drive up the Earth’s temperature and cause all manner of horrible happenings; two, the skeptics, those who understand that the science simply does not support the warmists’ view, that any increase in global temperature is related to natural cycles but not to man’s fossil fuel consumption; and three, lukewarmers, those whose views fall in between the warmists and the skeptics.   Disclosure: my own view after long and careful study and based on engineering, science, and mathematics, is that of a confirmed skeptic with a full understanding that carbon dioxide, CO2, does indeed absorb and emit thermal radiant energy.

My previous articles on SLB outline my views.  (see My Journey, Warmists are Wrong, Chemical Engineer Takes on Warming, Cold Winters, Climate Science is Not Settled, and others). The leading climate scientists whose views most close approximate my own include Dr. S. Fred Singer of University of Virginia, and Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, who stated that “The claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a greenhouse effect, and that man’s activities have contributed to warming, are trivially true and essentially meaningless in terms of alarm.”

The basis for the jailing of skeptics is that many, perhaps millions, of human deaths will occur inevitably if drastic action is not taken immediately to prevent additional fossil fuel use.  By fossil fuel use, what is meant is the burning of coal and natural gas in power plants and process plants, plus burning petroleum products as transportation and heating fuel.   The supposed legal theory is that a person can be found criminally negligent if his (or her) actions cause serious harm or death to another.  In this particular case, the assertion is that those who promote research into climate change to show that no alarm is justified will cause the death of millions of people due to events such as ice caps melting, subsequent sealevel rise and coastal inundation, droughts, and heat waves.   It is criminal negligence, they assert, to try to prevent the alarm from being sounded when the consequences are so dire.

With that as background, it is necessary to examine the legal requirements of a criminal negligence case.   There are two possible crimes, first is Involuntary Manslaughter with criminal negligence as an element, the second is Voluntary Manslaughter.   Under existing California law, the following must be proven.

Involuntary Manslaughter

To prove that the defendant is guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter, the State must prove that:

1. The defendant committed a lawful act in an unlawful manner;

2. The defendant committed the act with criminal negligence; and

3. The defendant’s acts caused the death of another person.

Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal negligence when:

1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury; and

2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk.

In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act.

With the legal rules for Involuntary Manslaughter set forth, it is possible to examine the claim that it is criminal negligence to support research into climate change to show no reason for alarm exists.

First, was there a lawful act?  The answer must be yes, conducting research into climate change is lawful.

Next, was the research done in an unlawful manner, meaning with criminal negligence?  To prove criminal negligence, two things must be proven: the acts were performed in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury; and those acts caused the death of another person.

The act of conducting climate research from a skeptic view might be held to be performed recklessly and to create a risk of death or great bodily injury, but only if the research chose only data that confirmed the pre-conceived conclusion, or improper analyses were performed, or unwarranted conclusions were drawn from the data and analysis, or some combination of all the above.   It is notable that the peer-review process exists to eliminate, or at least minimize, such research techniques because they lead to bad science and poor policy decisions when those policy decisions are informed by the bad science.  The trial attorneys would identify and present evidence to show what the skeptic climate research used as data, the analysis techniques, and the conclusions.  It seems more likely that the skeptics have an excellent claim to performing good science, with the many hundreds of peer-reviewed publications that support the claim of no alarm is justified.   Indeed, the NIPCC reports show exactly such skeptical publications.

Third and finally, the research must have caused the death of another person, but in this case, as discussed below in Voluntary Manslaughter, linking any human deaths to research into climate change is extremely unlikely.  Even though the concentration of carbon dioxide continues to increase in the atmosphere, severe weather events are declining in number and intensity.

The crime of Involuntary Manslaughter, by criminal negligence, would very likely not be provable beyond a reasonable doubt.  First, there are no deaths that can be causally linked to such research, and second, the research has not been conducted in a reckless manner designed to create a risk of serious bodily harm or death.

Voluntary Manslaughter

In California, Voluntary Manslaughter has the following elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, for a conviction to be had.

1. The defendant intentionally committed an act that caused the death of another person;

2. The natural consequences of the act were dangerous to human life;

3. At the time he acted, he knew the act was dangerous to human life; and

4. He deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life.


In California, an act or omission causes injury or death if the injury or death is the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act or omission, and the injury or death would not have happened without the act or omission.  A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes.   In deciding whether a consequence is natural and probable, the jury is to consider all the circumstances established by the evidence.   There may be more than one cause of injury or death.   An act or omission causes injury or death only if it is a substantial factor in causing the injury or death.   A substantial factor is more than a trivial or remote factor.  However, it does not have to be the only factor that causes the injury or death.

See: California Pen. Code § 192(a); People v. Rios (2000) 23 Cal.4th 450, 463, 469 [97 Cal.Rptr.2d 512, 2 P.3d 1066].

With the legal rules above set forth, it is possible to examine the claim that it is criminal negligence to support research into climate change to show no reason for alarm exists.

First, did defendant, who supported climate research to show no reason for alarm exists, intentionally commit an act that caused injury or death to another person?

It must be determined if there were any deaths.  If no deaths exist, then there is no need to examine any of the additional elements.  At this writing, first quarter of 2014, there appear to be no human deaths that are attributable to man-made climate change.   However, a World Health Organization study from 2009 concluded that 140,000 human deaths per year are attributable to increased warming since the 1970s.  The events that caused the deaths are rather vague, but it appears the WHO claims events such as floods, severe storms, and a 2003 heat wave in Europe. Yet, the same organization admits that measuring the health effects of climate change can only be very approximate.   WHO also states that there are benefits to human life from warming, as fewer deaths occur that can be attributed to cold weather. see link

Allowing for the WHO estimate to be true, that is, 140,000 deaths occurred each year from various weather events, the question to be answered is then, is there a causal link between the severe weather events and the almost trivial increase in global temperatures?   A jury would be presented with expert testimony on the subject, most likely that no credible scientist holds the view that there is any link between the trivial amount of warming and weather events.  In fact, almost every form of weather event can be shown to be either decreasing, such as tropical storms or hurricanes, or to be no worse today than those that occurred in the past.  Droughts, floods, heat waves, all have been much worse in the past compared to today.

From the definition of Causation above, “an act or omission causes injury or death if the injury or death is the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act or omission, and the injury or death would not have happened without the act or omission.”

Two questions then must be asked, first, were the 140,000 weather-related deaths the direct, natural, and probable consequence of research into climate change to show that no cause for alarm exists?  And, second, would the 140,000 weather-related deaths have happened without research into climate change to show that no cause for alarm exists?

To answer the first question, on deaths being the direct, natural, and probable consequence of climate research, it must be established whether those who died did so because they had no idea that the weather events would be more severe, more intense, and more deadly.  If the only word issuing from the climate researchers was that there is no cause for alarm, that proposition might be true.  However, the alarmists from above have for many years clogged the media, the airways, and the internet blogs, with dire predictions of doom.   The fact is, and this would be introduced in a trial, that warmists claim almost a consensus exists that global warming is not only real, but man’s fossil fuel consumption is the cause.  That alleged consensus is found in print, in broadcasts, and electronically on the internet.  It is unlikely that a jury would concluded that any weather-related deaths were the result of skeptical climate research.   The fact that, for example, hurricanes have decreased in intensity and number over the past 40 years is not debatable, it is a fact.  Similarly for tornadoes, droughts, and heat waves.  see link and “Global Hurricane Frequency”

From the causation definition, the jury is to consider all the circumstances established by the evidence.   This means that the conclusions by the leading warmists, the IPCC, must be considered.  The IPCC admits that there is no conclusive evidence to link severe weather events with global warming.  Indeed, it would be hard to conclude otherwise, with the hard evidence that hurricanes are less frequent and less intense, and all the other severe weather simply not matching known events from earlier years.  The key evidence on this is the warmists’ admission that events that occurred before 1970 were not related at all to man’s fossil fuel consumption; instead, they were entirely of natural causes.  Thus, all heat waves such as the long and strong heat wave of the 1930s, all droughts including the severe drought of the 1950s, and the many strong hurricanes pre-1970 all were natural occurrences.

It must be concluded, then, that element 1 from above is not true; it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Even if defendant intentionally performed skeptical climate science research, that research could not have caused the death of another person.

In a criminal trial, the accused is acquitted if any element is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  However, the defense attorney cannot know which, if any, of the elements will be found not proven to that standard, so he continues on to the other elements.  One never knows what a jury will decide until the verdict is read.

Moving then to the second element, the State must prove that the natural consequences of the act were dangerous to human life.  As above, the act is skeptical climate research.    What are the natural consequences of skeptical climate research?  As time has shown, skeptical climate research has produced many hundreds of peer-reviewed and published scholarly papers that show there is no cause for alarm due to man’s fossil fuel consumption.   Also, since there is no causal link between such research and human deaths, there can be no danger to human life.  The element, too, must fail in the State’s case.  (see link)  (and this link to hundreds of peer-reviewed skeptical papers)

The third element of Voluntary Manslaughter is: at the time he acted, he knew the act was dangerous to human life.  Again, the act is performing skeptical climate research.  The jury would be told that the results of the skeptical climate research is that there is no danger.  The reasons for that conclusion would be explained in great detail, with large and colorful graphs and visual displays to emphasize each point.  The defendant, who performed the skeptical climate research, would know quite the opposite: he would know that there was no danger to human life.  Element three then would also fail in the State’s case.

Finally, the fourth element is: he deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life.  On this point, the State must prove that defendant performed his skeptical climate research knowing that human life would be at stake, and consciously disregarded that threat to life.  Quite the contrary exists, however.  Skeptical research has shown that there is no cause for alarm, for the reasons outlined above.

The inevitable conclusion, then, would be a verdict of Not Guilty on a charge of voluntary manslaughter for those who perform skeptical climate research.  Each of the four required elements is found in the negative, that is, the State cannot prove the element exists beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is interesting, however, that those who seek an arrest and conviction for criminal negligence, or voluntary manslaughter, want the crime to be charged before the victims are dead.  The usual cry from the alarmists uses the future tense, as polar ice caps WILL melt, and sea levels WILL rise.  Or, more often, the conditional form is used, saying sea levels COULD rise by 20 feet in 100 years.

There are some crimes where a conviction may be obtained without a death, such as attempted murder, but there is no crime in California of conspiracy to commit murder ( People v. Iniguez (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 75).  There is also a crime of attempted voluntary manslaughter, but it requires the fact of heat of passion that does not arise in the climate research context (People v. Van Ronk (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 818).


The facts related to the conduct of climate research that results in a conclusion of no alarm is warranted do not yield a conviction on a charge of voluntary manslaughter, or criminal negligence as described above.   The facts show that, even if some people have died from violent weather events, those weather events are in no way connected with man-made global warming that results from the consumption of fossil fuels.  The clear evidence shows that hundreds of peer-reviewed scholarly papers have been published that show there is no reason for concern, indeed, the leading body of warmist scientists also conclude there is no link between global warming and severe weather.   For a criminal conviction, each element of a crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Here, each element of the charge would be shown to be discredited, not proven at all.   The exception is that a lawful act, climate research, was committed, however, that act was performed in a lawful manner.

The above is written to provide an overview of a general area of the law, and is not intended, nor is it to be relied on, as legal advice for a particular set of facts.  Specific legal advice is available from Mr. Sowell and anyone who seeks such advice is encouraged to contact Mr. Sowell.




newest oldest most voted
Notify of

More to the point….are climate alarmists responsible for the waste of time and money, as well as the stress they have caused, with their fear mongering?


When I first saw the “throw the skeptics in jail” meme I just wrote it off as the ravings of a loon that no one would listen to.
But after the last couple decades of government and academic lunacy you can’t be too sure.
What is happening to the people entrusted with governance and scholarship?


And now we look at the case that an elderly person freezes to death during winter because they cannot afford heating after green legislations based on flimsy science drove them into fuel poverty …

Is there a typo or error in “The third element of Voluntary Manslaughter”? The logic seems wrong : “The jury would be told that the results of the skeptical climate research is that there is no danger. [..] The defendant, who performed the skeptical climate research, would know quite the opposite: he would know that there was no danger to human life.”.

JD Ohio

The real issue is whether warmists should be liable for damage caused by their unscientific and inaccurate models as well as their policy prescriptions for an imaginary problem. Several thousand deaths in the U.K. caused by cold and the high cost of energy are the responsibility of warmists.


The statements I have seen refer to funding, so presumably the funding parties would be accused, not the actual scientists carrying out the research.
The law is a double edged sword. Much of the above could be directed against those that set out to prove global warming, if events prove them wrong. Just as much hardship and death could be laid at their doorstep due to ill conceived policies and taxation. And in their case causation is more direct and traceable.

Ted Beacher

Better yet, let’s bring a class action against all the alarmists (Mann, Gore, Obama, etc.) and the organisations that support them including the IPCC, UNEP and WMO under the civil RICO Act (racketeering influenced corrupt organisations)–never has a case been more appropriate, and it provides for recovery of treble damages and attorneys fees!!


Seems like we already have a very close analogy. Anyone remember the Salem Witch trials?
With less of a stretch one could prosecute alarmists for fraud, theft, and planned genocide as well as terrorist activities.


Not long ago, overpopulation was considered a worse problem than global warming. The popular solution was to limit the number of children a family could have to a maximum of 2
By the logic of global warming, if you had a third child you were causing the death of someone else. Your child child was in effect taking someone else’s seat on planet earth, causing the death of that other person. Thus in giving birth you were committing murder and the call went out to jail (or worse) anyone that had 3 or more children.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.


Since deaths from fuel poverty and the cold will occur now, its easy to prove the alarmists are causing deaths.
Deaths from warming are a long way in the future.
They should be careful what they are asking for


An attorney asks: Are Climate Skeptics Legally Liable for Criminal Negligence?
M’ Lord i would like to present my first witness for the defense.
if you would like to take the stand-
“now sir, swear on the bible , the truth , whole truth etc”
“have the deserts been greening around the world”
” well,
Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world’s arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research.
our findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa, according to CSIRO research scientist, Dr Randall Donohue.
“In Australia, our native vegetation is superbly adapted to surviving in arid environments and it consequently uses water very efficiently,” Dr Donohue said. “Australian vegetation seems quite sensitive to CO2 fertilisation.
This, along with the vast extents of arid landscapes, means Australia featured prominently in our results.”
“I rest my case m’lord”


What of all those who have died because they could not afford to heat their homes?

Louis Hooffstetter

Hopefully the people calling deniers to be jailed will read this and realize the alarmist researchers are the ones guilty of malpractice & manslaughter.

Doug Ferguson

“Nik says:
The law is a double edged sword. Much of the above could be directed against those that set out to prove global warming, if events prove them wrong. Just as much hardship and death could be laid at their doorstep due to ill conceived policies and taxation. And in their case causation is more direct and traceable.”
Certainly people in third world countries who still suffer high mortality rates from lack of modern energy to provide clean water, light, refrigeration and a prosperous economy that have seen their food costs go up as a direct result of the western world’s attack on global warming could make that case right now.


Poor naive lawyer. Do you suppose that current laws have, or would have, any bearing on the matter?
Those who grasp for power sow hate and fear against their opponents. If they are successful, they rise in power on the back of popular support for their hate. They then seize power on the promise to do something about all those hated people.
Current law has nothing to do with matters such as these. Counter the hate mongering because if it takes root, all the lawyers on the planet and all the laws as they currently stand will do you no good.

I’d rather like to see a full and reasonable accounting of the amount of money pissed away on climate alarmism. And then I’d like to see a class action lawsuit against the top 50 or so players.

Nancy C

I think if someone were murdered with a gun, the person who shot the gun should be the first person to go to jail. If it turned out that someone on TV or the internet made a public disinformation that it was okay to shoot people — everyone does it, chinese are for sure gonna do it, and anyway there’s a good chance people won’t die when shot anyway — and that was a direct influence on the murderer’s decision to murder, then maybe a case could be made for that person being punished in some way as well. Probably the same standard should apply to murders committed using weather. The first person jailed should be the person who burned the fossil fuel the victim was murdered with. Then we can talk about whether Anthony Watts talked them into burning that fuel or not.

What is happening to the people entrusted with governance and scholarship?
When it cost millions of dollars to wage a political campaign to win an office that only pays thousands, who in their right mind would run for office?
Rational, law abiding people don’t spend millions to receive thousands. So what you are left with are crazies and crooks running for office. In the US one set is called Democrats and the other Republicans. The crazies are incompetent and waste your money. The crooks are competent and take your money for themselves. Either way your lose.


With the added death’s from the cold in England. Couldn’t the case be made against the alarmist, and with much grater possibility to succeed?

William Handler

Two things:
There is no such thing as skeptical science, there is just science. And many alarmists have been guilty of not doing science, hence the current situation.
There is a precedent, to use a legal term, for complete idiocy regarding science and loss of life, I refer to the seismologists recently jailed in Italy. I know it is a different jurisdiction, but it holds itself up as an example of how ignorant a legal system, or government can be.

Certainly people in third world countries … could make that case right now.
They are. Led by China the third world is demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in reparations for the climate damage done by the West as a condition of any climate treaty.
The Law of Unintended Consequences. Prove that Global Warming is caused by industrialization and that this has harmed the Third World and the Industrialized World becomes liable for the damages.
The EPA in the US has played right into the UN’s hand in this matter, by accepting the IPCC as a scientific authority for US policy. US policy thus becomes subservient to the UN. With the industrialized world far outnumbered at the UN by third world countries, when it comes to a vote it is guaranteed who will lose.

Dear Lawyer
Since when did any government bother with the law if it got in the way of what they wanted to do? (US & UK invading Iraq, NSA spying, US exporting Saudi nationals post 9/11, The recent Russian invasion, et al.)

Craig Loehle

Though a lawyer, I believe you are missing a step here. The accusation of causing future deaths assumes that the sceptics are in control of the power plants and economies and governments and are directly making government policy and law. This is hilariously false. The sceptics are a tiny minority and have no power at all, no newspapers at their disposal, no governments in their pocket. The elephant is claiming he can’t go out in that field because there is an ant there which is totally thwarting his purpose and actions. If the case for alarm is so strong as to be unassailable but Steve and Anthony single handedly have prevented the world from being saved, then this is the most remarkable David and Goliath story ever told. Furthermore, any government policy, no matter how many people it saves or good it does, is opposed by some people. 100% unanimity is never achieved. To say that anyone who opposes a good government action is guilty of treachery is to move to North Korea, where even the allowable haircuts are determined by the government.


It seems to me that somewhere in the chain of causality between the research and the alleged harm are (1) A petitioning of the Government for a redress of grievances and (2) government action or inaction as a result.
I never did any criminal work, but my guess is that precedent for applying involuntary manslaughter in a fact situation such as that is, well, scarce–independently of whether the alleged harm actually occurred the actor’s belief was insincere.


The question is where do you live. In a Free country or in a country like North Korea.The big problem we face is that the ‘Free’ world everyday that passes looks more like North Korea.


Are the climate alarmists liable for participating in a corrupt organization, taking funds under false pretenses, or inciting a riot?

Mike M

Meanwhile, bio-fuel is actually causing death and destruction around globe. Third world families that used to have to spend 80% of their income on food are now spending 100% and coming up short on getting enough food. That leaves them the option of watching all their children starve a little or abandoning their youngest ones so the rest will have enough food.
Rich people burning food in their machines, (or any other crop taking away resources that could have been planted as food), will only keeping raising the price of food. Rich people can afford the resulting higher price of food – poor people cannot. That is what makes bio-fuel evil and it should banned worldwide.
I’d like to see Roger E. Sowell’s opinion on the culpability of those pushing bio-fuel in this regard.
We recently saw liberals all turn a blind eye when Obama waved his hand to allow the slaughter of bald eagles in the name of “sustainability”. What will liberals say when he and the UN do the same to allow the starvation of third world children in the name of “sustainability”? And even if they finally wake up to realize the evil it will be too late because there will no court to convict them.


Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Jim Pellerin

How about prosecuting communists and socialists based on the tens of millions who died at the hands of or through the policies of such in previous generations?


I find it incredible that the UN etc predicts the world population to be 9 billion by 2100 , half of this number to be African. For this to happen the weather and agriculture will have to be in complete synch, almost perfect as the weather was for agriculture in the US in 2004.
They cannot have it both ways ,talk of armageddon and increasingly bad weather and at the same time say the worlds population will increase.


So, in practical terms, what is this drastic action that we should be taking but are being prevented from taking due to the very existence of sceptics?

R. de Haan

Roger, thank you very much for your excellent article.
At te same time I would like to ask you if there is a case to take on the UN and all in support for abuse of science and scare mongering promoting punishing caps, taxes and restrictions of fossil fuel use and social behavior manipulations to execute their UN Agenda 21 which in principle is a centralist take over (coup) of the entire world, it’s economies, it’s financial system, it’s resources, you name it.
Now this would be a productive move that would bring us forward instead of defending our views with our back against the wall.
I have come to the conclusion that we have arrived in a mortal struggle for the survival of our western civilization and thought it was better to check for legal options before we blow up the world because that’s where we’re heading if these idiots continue to push their insane plans.
In fact we already have numerous human deaths as a direct result from the US and EU bio fuel mandate which triggered the Arab Spring Revolution started as food protests and energy poverty is already killing numerous people, even in the Western nations.
The practices of the totally corrupted UN is going to turn very ugly soon if we don’t undertake something more structural than trying to establish a dialogue with the warmists, an initiative I gave up years ago.
I know this question is in the same category as ” Could a lawyer have stopped the Nazi’s from starting WWII and root out the Jews” but still.
Here we have a bunch of crazies destroying Western civilization by raping science and bribing politicians, NGO’s and scientists while they completely wreck our economies leaving written and physical evidence all over the place.
I am looking forward to your response.

Chris B

They’d lynch Atticus Finch, before finding out his client was innocent.

We could approach the legal question in another way. To commit any crime there must be an act (“the actus reus”) plus there must be the intention to do the actus (“the mens rea”). So a person who was out hunting and who killed his friend because he mistook him for a deer committed the actus reus (homicide) but did not have the mens rea, (intention).
Negligence can take the place of intention if the person acted in a reckless way, with disregard for the consequences of the actus reus or with insufficient care to avoid harm to others.
In regard to climate skeptics, whether or not the act of promoting climate skepticism causes harm is a question regarding the actus reus and would not be sufficient in itself to qualify as a criminal act.
The question also must be asked whether or not the person accused intended to cause harm or was negligent concerning the risk of harm that would occur to other persons, for example by not reading the relevant reports by climate experts and economists.
A defense would be: The accused person believed that efforts to mitigate the effect of CO2 emissions will cause more harm than the global warming effects of CO2. His intention in promoting skepticism was to promote public welfare (pro bono publico).

Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
Catastrophic Climate Change Believers or Warmists have put humanity on trial for the crime of destroying the earth via their use of fossil fuel and found humanity guilty. Humanity’s sentence is rolling back the Industrial Age and reverting back to the Dark Ages when life was short and brutal. The reason the Warmists are now using threats of legal liability for opposing their views that humanity are evil pests who deserve to be punished for the sin of destroying the earth; is that if their misanthropic beliefs were put on trial they are the ones who would likely be held criminally liable for all the pain and suffering to humanity and to Nature their beliefs have already been responsible for. Perhaps this is why Warmists are ramping up a Climate Of Fear to attack anyone who dares to expose the basic foundation of their beliefs is fear and loathing of humanity.. As the so called “science” of Climate Change crumbles via exposure by so called “Deniers” the Warmists defense is to intimidate the “Deniers” into silence before the whole house of Climate Change cards collapses and their true agenda is exposed.
The IPCC and EPA Should be investigated for Green Climate Crimes:
IPCC Climate Report has led to EPA regulations that are All Pain For No Gain:
The IPCC and EPA Facilitates the Rich Getting Richer for example in the US
While the Poor Get Shafted with “skyrocketing” fuel costs they cannot afford to pay for that condemns the poor to a life time of poverty.
IPCC Climate Report lead to EPA regulations that:
Destroy Nature with Bird and Bat killing Wind Turbines/Solar
and Biofuel crops that
Destroys vast areas of natural habitats and
Land that grows food crops for people
Produces a fraction of the energy fossil fuel does at very high costs that hurt the poor the most
Are weather dependent and do not work in severe weather.
The IPCC and EPA Use politics (not science) to form their reports when the empirical data contradicts their doom and gloom findings:
How the Global Warming Scare Began

Coach Springer

I’ll file this under “The Titanic is unsinkable” “that’ll never happen” and “works-in-progress.”

Owen in GA

Stonyground says:
March 31, 2014 at 7:21 am
So, in practical terms, what is this drastic action that we should be taking but are being prevented from taking due to the very existence of sceptics?

Ahh there’s the rub in it all. If you read the literature of some of the players, the answer is to MURDER 9/10 ths of the world population, destroy all industrial conveniences and live as our stone-age ancestors did. (Except for a small cadre of “elites” who would have all the modern convenience to better “guide” over the stone age remainder.)
I wish the above was sarcasm, but it is the unfortunate reality of what we are up against.

This from headline on Drudge:
How to combat this idiocy…this is what WUWT is up against…

The real crime that the alarmists are so upset about is best described as “Lese Majeste” – insulting the Majesty and Dignity of those who consider themselves to be our natural born rulers.
And for that, Death has always been the most favored punishment. As the Red Queen said; “Off with their Heads!!! Off with their Heads!!!”


There is a slippery slope to linking scientific research and predictions to legal culpability.
Just imagine the possible litigation from a weather report that understands or overstates the level of precipitation.
Of course, the horror of horrors would be to extend this level of culpability to political promises.

John Boles

So then warmists who use coal/oil/gas are defacto guilty.


Don’t the AGW people have to prove they are correct before anyone can be tried? To date, the proof is the AGW advocates have been wrong – their models are highly inaccurate, their science shoddy, and their predictions have not come true. And because of their advocacy, hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted, lives have been lost and many thousands live in misery. So if anyone should be tried, it should be the AGW advocates. A good start would be Gore and Mann tried for crimes against humanity.


And here in the UK they are trying to impose a “Cinderella Law” to control emotional abuse of children.
Won’t be long now before it will be a criminal offence to tell a child that ‘global warming’ is not true.

Rod Everson

AnonyMoose says:
March 31, 2014 at 7:01 am
Are the climate alarmists liable for participating in a corrupt organization, taking funds under false pretenses, or inciting a riot?

About half the comments thus far go to the point that it’s the alarmists who should be fearing incarceration, but for corruption and the resulting chaos, not manslaughter.
When the Left is up to something, say voter fraud, or a war on women, their favorite tactic is to accuse the Right of the same, as a means of distracting from their own efforts.
Similarly, the alarmists are now coming to realize that they’ve committed crimes against humanity with their ludicrous fear-mongering resulting in higher energy costs, blatant misdirection of government resources, and outright scams to obtain research funding, etc. Fearing eventual jail time as the population comes to realize the magnitude of the waste and scams, they misdirect as usual, claiming that skeptics are the ones that deserve to serve the time, or worse.

Joe G

Well if the earth didn’t rotate there wouldn’t be any hurricanes. Perhaps we should sue the earth. Of course we wouldn’t be here if the earth didn’t rotate but at least there wouldn’t be any hurricanes.
On another note didn’t Italy send some scientists to prison for not predicting an earthquake (or something like that)?

Tom J

Years ago, in a desperate attempt to acquire at least a minimum degree of protection from my sister, my fiendish older sister, I purchased a voodoo doll with her likeness – terrifying though that was. (Do you get the idea she was a pain in the a.. to deal with?)
Anyway, compelled by self preservation, I proceeded to stick pins deep into everyplace imaginable on that voodoo doll. I was just an innocent child with his voodoo doll. She was an older monster.
Now, a half century later, she is in her 70s and ludicrously complains that her stiff back, sore knees, irritable bowel syndrome, frequent urination problems, lack of libido, and uncontrollable flatulence are the result of my voodoo doll pin sticking days. I tell her it’s old age.
Who do you really think’s gonna win in a court of law if she presses charges against me for willful malice?
Oops, let me rephrase that question: Who do you think’s gonna win so long as she doesn’t press charges in a court in Berkeley?


Can’t do I think there is a bit of a problem. To go to court and claim skeptics are a danger for humans by dismissing climate change they must proof there wright. On the other hand skeptics get the change to proof there wright to.
Don’t think models stand a change a gains real life data so there must be a real stupid judge out there for the alarmist to win that one.


There is no court action. The Obama administration’s EPA has decided that CO2 is the problem and are now regulating and enforcing those regulations. There is no skeptic position other than subservience in this administration.


I see the call by climate alarmists that skeptics should be imprisoned as simply another indication that CAGW is a religion for them. Skeptics are the heretics of the CAGW religion and the call for imprisonment is a modern Inquisition.

Mike M

John Boles says: March 31, 2014 at 7:51 am “So then warmists who use coal/oil/gas are defacto guilty.”
Yes all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.