The Tribune-Review's Colin McNickle - Climate Science Denier - Deceives His Readers. Again.

Take a look:

Coal might be dirty. But government is dirtier.

Witness the social re-engineering political machinations in which, through taxpayer funding, the government created a very large body of very shoddy “climate change” (formerly “global warming”) research — then, contrary to the scientific method, threatened to prosecute those who dared question its slipshod “science” — that set the dominoes in motion now killing America's coal industry.

Geez Colin, do we really have to do this again?

I guess we do.

Let's start in the middle and work our way out.  Colin touches on something that the science deniers usually think is a "gotcha" moment when he did this:

...“climate change” (formerly “global warming”) research...

You've seen it elsewhere, I am sure.  It's the "they changed the name!" myth.

Skeptical Science has a whole page devoted to the myth.  Interestingly enough, they actually use evidence to back up their assertions (something Colin and the other deniers conveniently avoid).

For instance, did you know that:

Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature, which you can see here:

'Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in precipitation patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather, etc.

They go on to show that the two different terms have been in use for decades (in fact there's evidence to show that the "new" term ("climate change") was in greater use earlier and has always been the norm in the scientific literature.

Not that Colin McNickle would know what the "scientific literature" is.  But let's move on to McNickle's second deception - that the guv'ment is threatened to prosecute those who dared question its slipshod “science."

Simply saying the science is "slipshod" doesn't make it so.

But Colin, if you have a problem with the science, I'll tell you what I tell anyone who's a science denier, namely take it up with:

• NASA
• NOAA
• Met Office
• Japanese Meteorological Society

They threw together this graph:

If you don't want to wrestle with those eggheads, why not these?

• American Meteorological Society: There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. 
• American Chemical Society: [C]omprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem. 
• National Academy of Sciences: Rigorous analysis of all data and lines of evidence shows that most of the observed global warming over the past 50 years or so cannot be explained by natural causes and instead requires a significant role for the influence of human activities.

Colin, mon ami, how much more do you need?

And about that prosecution?

It started with this letter to President Obama and AG Loretta Lynch.  In it there's this:

We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peerreviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done. [Emphasis added.]

That was the letter that was discussed in AG Lynch's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

From The Blaze:

During Lynch’s testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said that he believes there are similarities between the tobacco industry denying scientific studies showing the dangers of using tobacco and companies within the fossil fuel industry denying studies allegedly showing the threat of carbon emissions.

He went on to point out that under President Bill Clinton, the Justice Department brought and won a civil case against the tobacco industry, while the Obama administration has “done nothing” so far with regard to the fossil fuel industry.

Whitehouse concluded his comments by posing a question to the country’s top law enforcement officer.

“My question to you is, other than civil forfeitures and matters attendant to a criminal case, are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?” he asked.

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch answered. “I’m not aware of a civil referral at this time.”

And so Colin.  The threat you talked about would be where, exactly?

And how much more evidence do you need to see before you drop the "slipshod" and "shoddy" from your discussion of the science?

Unless you can explain how NASA, NOAA, et al are all wrong.  Go ahead.  Drop some science (actual real science) on us to explain why you're right and they're wrong.

We're waiting.