Thoughtcrime or free speech? Oil companies face prosecution for climate change denial, but should they?

At what point does it become criminal to promote an idea? Can any idea actually be off limits? These are questions that must be considered as the U.S. government begins a literal witch-hunt against climate change deniers and their corporate sponsors.

LOS ANGELES, CA (California Network) - In March, the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands issued a subpoena to Exxon Mobil demanding they hand over all correspondence between them and as many as 90 political and policy organizations that perform research or advocacy concerning climate change.

The subpoena is just part of a clearly-coordinated effort on behalf of the U.S. government for seek evidence that Exxon Mobil is literally manufacturing climate change denial by sponsoring contrarian research and forcefully misleading the public with the false narrative that climate change is a hoax.

The fact the public remains bitterly divided on this topic shows how effective this campaign has been. It feeds into conservative narratives about government, the ambitions of liberal power elites, and the pathological desire of the government to micromanage the lives of millions of individuals.

But is it true?

And is it illegal?

Climate change may be a topic of debate in the American media, but there's no debate among scientists. They can actually read the data and tell which numbers are bigger. For them, climate change is as much a debate as the question, "is the pope Catholic?"

Virtually 100 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real, ongoing, and caused, or severely exacerbated by human activity. Among scientists, there's perhaps more consensus on climate change than there is on evolution, or the big bang, or vaccines. (Deniers dispute this mightily and have their own takedown of this fact, but it doesn't appear to hold up under scrutiny.)

So if we operate with the assumption that anthropocentric global warming is real, when does it become a crime to deny it?

The closest parallel to this discussion is the debate over cigarettes that took place in the 1950s though the 1980s, when Americans debated whether or not cigarettes caused cancer. German (Nazi) scientists discovered they were harmful as early as the 1930s, but for obvious political reasons the debate did not become widespread until the 1950s, and it wasn't until 1965 that anti-smoking advocates began to have any impact with the start of the surgeon general's warnings on packages.

Since then, it has been increasingly dangerous to suggest that cigarettes are safe, and in 1998 several large tobacco manufacturers agreed to a massive settlement in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Today, tobacco companies suffer from severe limitations on their advertising, and can only make very carefully worded claims about their products. They are also forced to spend substantial sums marketing against their own products, promoting anti-smoking initiatives and stop smoking campaigns.

Supporting FREE Catholic Education with Grass-fed Beef

On the one hand, the people, as well as corporations, enjoy a right to free expression. Furthermore, to stifle contrary scientific opinions is a very dangerous practice. Historically, Galileo was persecuted for his contrary opinion that the Earth revolved around the Sun. What''s popular isn't always true, and it's better to know the truth.

But we do not live in Galileo's Italy. Here in the 21st century, scientists from an incredible diversity of backgrounds almost universally agree, climate change is real, and it's being driven by humans. At some point, it becomes absurd to contradict the consensus, especially without any hard data in support of the counter-claim.

There's plenty of spin in contrary claims, with data skewed to the point it shows the planet is cooling, but clever manipulation of data doesn't change reality. Nor does it change common sense.

One satirist wrote, "Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies."

The clever line sums it up. The fossil fuel industry has much more incentive to lie than a loose collection of unaffiliated scientists around the globe.

But the question remains, knowing the truth, should it be illegal to lie?

In the case of Big Tobacco, it is illegal because the harms are so substantial. Smokers drive up costs for both insurance and health care and they also pollute the air non-smokers breathe. Global warming, is at least exacerbated by human activity, if not wholly caused by it, is extracting a substantial toll on human health and life. It's also destroying habitats and other important natural features from Antarctic glaciers to the Great Barrier Reef.

Given these costs, and the immense profitability of the fossil fuel industry, the parallels with Big Tobacco are exact. This suggests that a similar political approach may also be valid.

Individuals are entitled to opinions of their choice. Those opinions don't have to be supported by facts. In fact, many opinions have little basis in reality anyway, consider the passion many sports fans have for their teams and you'll understand. Nor are opinions entitled to any particular respect. Opinions are not people, they're ideas and some ideas are truly bad. A few are genuinely evil.

Promoting a position that deliberately harms creation itself in exchange for short-term profits is just about as evil as it gets. As such, it should be criminalized. Although, not for individuals, but certainly for corporations who have a responsibility to avoid harming the general public.

Give the Gift of Free Catholic Education This Christmas

A person with an opinion, such as a blogger, harms exactly nobody with their wrong opinion. On the contrary, a business that generates wealth by polluting the air, harms anyone who breathes. If part of the business plan is to mislead the public to preserve financial gains, then that agency is at a minimum, morally culpable, even if its dealings are perfectly legal.

So what should our government do?

Given the immense impact to public health, it is probably reasonable for the government to investigate the communications between Big Oil and their army of advocates and bloggers. Should their collusion be publicized? Yes, it should be.

The public needs to be informed of what's going on in the world. Only when armed with the truth can the public make decisions in their own best interest. Right now, it seems the truth is competing with a substantial array of misinformation, and that helps only one group of people, a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies whose fiduciary responsibility is to shareholders, not you.

The subpoenas are being issued under racketeering laws, and face challenge in the courts. Hopefully the people win and for better or worse, we finally learn the truth of what Big Oil is doing to shape public perception on this critical issue.