"Should Global Warming Activists Lie to Defend Their Cause?"

Scientific American takes a look at an issue that arises in many contexts, including criminal defense practice. I keep a folder of clippings, articles, etc., on this topic, and some of the recent discussions have arisen in the context of environmental activism. It's not legal ethics per se, but perhaps you'll find it interesting. (h/t: Instapundit)

Comments

[Monroe Freedman]

John, I hope you'll add criminal prosecution tactics to your collection.

I'm giving a paper at Washburn Law School on March 9 titled, The Use of Unethical and Unconstitutional Practices and Policies by Prosecutors' Offices. It will be published later this year in their Law Review. The record of dishonesty is fulsome (in both senses of the word).

[Monroe Freedman]

I am indeed a Very Old Person. I find from the OED that the second meaning of fulsome that I had in mind (loathsome, foul smelling) is now "Obs."

[John David Galt]

I find it quite amusing that (1) the greens would think they needed to lie just to discover that well-known skeptics are working together (it’s not as though skepticism were some kind of criminal activity that needs to be kept a closely held secret); and even more amusing that (2) they would have more of a moral concern with lying for that purpose than they do with lying about the science itself, as several top "warmists" have freely admitted to doing (see http://www.green-agenda.com for names, dates, and quotes).

Any institution which allows THAT to go on is not to be trusted as a source of science fact.

[John Steele]

Monroe, thanks. My clippings file is for arguments that lying is perhaps justified in some situations. I've never seen anyone argue that prosecutors would be justified in lying -- which isn't to say that all prosecutors always tell the truth in reality.

Btw, two of the quotes in my clippings file are the first Al Gore quote and the Stephen Schneider quote at the page that John David Galt linked to.