Who Should We Punish for the Fake Science Poisoning our Children’s Futures?

From Legal Insurrection

The celebrities and media who lend any support or comfort to those who manipulate the young to commit crimes based on flawed science are worse than those who encouraged flagellation to cure the Black Death in medieval times.

Posted by Leslie Eastman 

Today, I am going to add a mother’s perspective on “climate crisis” pseudoscience” to address an issue I think is essential: Who, exactly, do we punish for fake science upon which poor policy choices are made?

But beyond that, how can we crack down on science fraud poisoning our children’s futures?

Last October, we reported two women in their early 20s were arrested in London for throwing soup over Vincent Van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” painting during a protest against fossil fuels.

They both are now looking at over two years of jail time.

Phoebe Plummer, 23, and Anna Holland, 22, from the protest group Just Stop Oil were imprisoned for two years, and 20 months, respectively, according to PA Media.

These are the latest in a string of prison sentences handed to climate activists in the UK for engaging in disruptive protests against the use of fossil fuels. Two relatively new, controversial laws have boosted the powers of police and courts to crack down on protests that are disruptive, even when they are peaceful.

The sentences appeared to do little to deter Just Stop Oil: Hours after they were handed down, three more Just Stop Oil activists threw soup over two other Van Gogh paintings of sunflowers in the Poets and Lovers exhibition at the National Gallery, the same venue the 2022 protests was staged, according to the group.

Those years those girls are going to lose are essential. They are the years to complete an education or gain important work experience for a career. That is the time to make life-long connections and perhaps meet a future spouse. It is also the age at which many women are starting their families.

Because of climate hysteria driven by agenda-driven pseudoscience and pushed by a media that silences critics and ignores counter-evidence, progressive educators are enabled to push this dogma. Cult-like-leaders arise to encourage young people to ruin their futures to protect an Earth that is not in jeopardy from its carbon dioxide levels.

In his recent Substack, Glenn Reynolds asks a question I think should be pondered and answered: Should we criminalize scientific fraud?

As Reynolds notes, the issue is complex. Determining what real science fraud is versus typos and misinterpreting data can be difficult. However, as it relates to climatology, massaging data to produce temperature spikes and ignoring urban heat island effects to support the green energy agenda should have consequences. And, as we have seen with COVID-19, poor science used to promote disastrous rules and regulations isn’t confined to climate.

Reynolds reviewed a wide array of potential options to prevent science fraud. Based on his analysis, perhaps the best place to focus is “revising incentive structures.”

I like requiring researchers to specify ways of ensuring reproducibility in their applications, and evaluating researchers based on long-term reproducibility.

…Requiring data-sharing – and data “archiving,” as it’s surprising how often data for crucial studies turns out of have been lost in a move or a flood when requested later – would also help.

And – and this was suggested by a commenter to an earlier blog post – not relying on scientific research for public policy purposes until it has been successfully replicated by someone else is not a bad idea. That would slow down the connection between research and public policy, but would that really be such a bad thing?

This might be the best direction to head.  Currently, it seems science that gets social media clicks, softball interview questions, academic rewards, and generous funding is the science that can occur.  Research isn’t done for knowledge’s sake but for personal gain.

If punishing fake science is difficult, and completely removing incentives for fake science to be published is not practical. Preventing it from taking root by showing the data can be replicated before new rules are created would be the logical path forward.

Another option would be a return to the Renaissance approach to science, with those passionate about real research funding institutions specifically devoted to such study, as we clearly can no longer trust our elite universities and colleges to do so. For example, like the one SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has planned.

The charity, called The Foundation, plans to use a $100 million gift from Musk to create and launch a primary and secondary school in Austin focused on teaching science, technology, engineering and math. Once it is fully operational, the filing states, the school will focus on creating a university. The school intends to seek accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, a necessary first step to launch the school.

Finally, making pseudoscience cult leaders who brainwash young adults into committing crimes pariahs rather than making them celebrities would be helpful. Of course, the elite media (in this case, the BBC) attempts to make these villains into martyrs.

I give you its last report on Roger Hallam, founder of Job Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion.

When five activists who brought chaos to the M25 motorway were jailed last week, some thought the law had finally caught up with Just Stop Oil.

Celebrities spoke out in anger at the lengthy sentences – and a United Nations official described their treatment as “not acceptable in a democracy”.

With Roger Hallam, the architect of the modern environmental protest movement, and his co-conspirators now behind bars, this might have been “checkmate” in a five-year long game of legal chess between the state and a group of increasingly bold direct action environmental groups.

But at least for some Just Stop Oil activists, it doesn’t appear to have worked.

The celebrities and media who lend any support or comfort to those who manipulate the young to commit crimes based on flawed science are worse than those who encouraged flagellation to cure the Black Death in medieval times. At least the men and women in the Dark Ages hadn’t already learned germ theory and did not know how to apply the scientific method.

I must admit that I don’t have much compassion for eco-activists who commit crimes and disrupt other people’s lives.  But, as a mother, I hate seeing young lives sacrificed on the altar of pseudoscience, and I would like to save others from similar fates.

After all, “it’s for the children” is supposed to be a reason respected by progressives.