The United States Justice Department is considering taking on a new function: going after climate change deniers. Climate change deniers, or climate deniers, for short, are people (often scientists) and corporations who don’t buy into the theory of climate change, formerly known as global warming. It is true that the climate constantly changes, due entirely or almost entirely to natural and God-ordained forces. The most controversial part of the theory of climate change states that mankind holds great responsibility for it and a responsible society must force individuals and corporations to alter their behavior to mitigate it. Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee a couple of weeks ago, Attorney General Loretta Lynch was asked by Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse whether the Justice Department intends to prosecute those who “pretend that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled.” He said he was particularly referring to those climate deniers in the “fossil fuel industry.” The Attorney General responded that this possibility has been the subject of internal discussions at the Justice Department. She said she is actually referring the matter to the FBI to determine whether this climate change denial that’s taking place “meets the criteria for which we could take action.” The idea here is that the FBI will decide whether our federal government has the legal right to prosecute individuals and companies who disagree with the administration’s views on climate change and global warming. What happens to scientific inquiry and the First Amendment right to free belief? Senator Whitehouse suggests companies be sued under RICO, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization laws. RICO laws were designed to bring in murdering mafia bosses, not private companies and scientists who have looked into the matter and are skeptical about global warming. The science on the effects of humans on climate change is not settled. Yet the orthodoxy accepted by the Left and at the highest levels of government is that climate change is bad and caused by humans who must be punished for polluting the environment. Of this threat to prosecute climate deniers, the Heritage Foundation says, “Level-headed, objective prosecutors should not be interested in investigating or prosecuting anyone over a scientific theory that is the subject of great debate.” The problem is not the climate, it’s pollution, a fact of life on the planet. Science and observation can help us decide how much is acceptable. Should government encourage individuals and businesses not to pollute? Sure. Should government incentivize environmental protection? In certain cases. When the rights of others are being violated by activities that pollute, there has to be an arbiter. But laws protecting the environment should be based on real causes and effects, not theories. The false ‘boogeyman,’ climate change, does not demand government action, much less legal action. A government seeking to prosecute someone because they disagree with the government’s views is a government that is way too powerful.