“[M]aybe, too—before Congress takes you to the woodshed—you’ll decide to back off your potentially felonious conspiracy to ‘injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person … in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same,’ for which you could be fined or imprisoned up to ten years, or both (18 U.S.C. 241).”

Dear Attorneys General,

You’re not stupid. Stupid people don’t graduate from law school.

Neither are you generally ignorant. You know lots of law.

But the day of the “Renaissance man,” vastly learned across all fields of knowledge, is long gone. All intelligent and learned people are ignorant about some things.

So, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and members of Attorneys General United for Clean Power, take no offense when I tell you that your intent to investigate and potentially prosecute, civilly or criminally, corporations, think tanks, and individuals for fraud, under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) or otherwise, because they question the causes, magnitude, risks, and benefits of global warming, and the best responses to it, is a dead giveaway that you’re ignorant about climate science and related climate and energy policy.…

“Understanding government failure in the quest to address market failure could result in an optimal government policy of doing nothing in the face of a postulated negative externality from business-as-usual. But an activist policy expanding economic freedom in order to improve adaptation to climate change, natural or anthropogenic, qualifies as climate policy change too.”

Richard Mueller of the University of California at Berkeley is an important voice in the polarized climate-change debate. At the Huffington Post in mid-April, the physicist and philosopher posted “The Classifications of Climate Change Thinkers” with six categories (schools?) of thought.

His useful categories shortchange the political economy side where the scientist or citizen or politician must assess government failure along side market failure before deciding that the government should “do something,” as in pricing carbon dioxide or enacting a slew of surrogate regulation.…

Dear Mr. Koch,

Recently, at a Wall Street Journal forum, I heard from your company’s environmental, health and safety director, Sheryl Corrigan, that you believe that “the climate is changing,” and that “humans have a part in that.” …. [Let’s] stop denying there’s a problem and get to work solving it.

– Michael Brune, “An Open Letter to Charles Koch.” (May 5, 2016)

Does Michael Brune understand the argument of classical liberals against climate alarmism (neo-Malthusianism) and forced energy transformation (global government)? We understand the Sierra Club’s, so why not the Sierra Club ours?

Assuming that climate changes and humans are a factor in climate change does not assume that there is a global market failure. It does not assume that government can satisfactorily understand the nature of the problem or project the appropriate solution.…

Princeton scientist Michael Oppenheimer calls The Climate Hustle movie “dangerous.” Bill Nye, The Science Guy, gently mocked in the movie, Climate Hustle, says: “It’s not in the world’s interest.” (For more reviews, see here.)

Climate Hustle, the soon-to-be iconic culture-busting documentary that previewed last evening in theaters around America, pops gaping holes in the anthropogenic climate change monolithic narrative. It bares all about the issues that the other side does not want to raise, much less debate.

To read Michael Oppenheimer’s bio, you might assume he knows a thing or two about climate change. However, his condemnation of the movie, Climate Hustle, is curious as well as downright bizarre. Climate Hustle, after all, is full of humor, some slapstick, possibly “most important movie of the year,” and as rousing a debunking of climate change hysteria as possibly we have seen.…