As you may have heard, some prominent scientists have called for the criminal investigation, no less, of scientists and other advocates who cast doubt on the global warming “consensus.” From the Daily Caller:

The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming. The scientists repeated claims made by environmentalists that groups, especially those with ties to fossil fuels, have engaged in a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on global warming.

The list of a signers includes two of our Seattle neighbors over at the University of Washington, Edward Sarachik and Michael Wallace, both in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences. It would interesting to ask them candidly what they think when they cast their eyes across town at us.

Other signers represent the University of Texas, Columbia University, University of Maryland, Florida State, University of Miami, and more. As academic affiliations go, these people are not obscure slouches.

The logic of RICO applied to science outliers is sinister and absurd. That should be obvious, but, frighteningly, it isn’t to some smart, influential people. Beyond the immediate context of the climate controversy and putting climate skeptics in the same basket as the Mafia — it’s hard to see what would prevent extending that logic to include intelligent design advocates and other skeptics of Darwinian theory.

Why would that not be justified, given a couple of relevant (and grossly mistaken) premises? After all, many ID critics would agree with the statement that we “have knowingly deceived the American people about the extent of a non-existent evolution ‘controversy,’ as a means to forestall the advance of science and science education.” A clear falsehood, but that’s what some hardcore Darwin believers think, against all the evidence. The same folks refuse to confront our documentation showing that Darwinian theory is indeed contested on key points by mainstream scientists.

Once you embrace the idea of silencing debate, where does it end? What begins as scientific disagreement shades over into social, then employment, then legal pressure, culminating in the threat of imprisonment.

I hesitate to even articulate this, for fear of putting an idea in someone’s mind. On the other hand, Darwinists don’t need me to help them cook up schemes for striking out against dissenters.

Image: Charlie “Lucky” Luciano, “father of modern organized crime,” by Remo Nassi ([1] & [2]) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.