The View From 1776
Global Warming And Free-Speech Hypocrisy
Let’s all decry Islamic jihadists’ murders of Charlie Hebdo writers and cartoonists in Paris. Meanwhile let’s suppress open discussion of junk-science ideas such as global warming.
Read these links, courtesy of Benny Peiser:
- The alleged free speech inhibition of climate change deniers is about as real as the annual Fox News reports on the "War on Christmas."
Exhibit A, front and center, is Senator James Mountain Inhofe of Oklahoma, climate change denier in chief, who has been elevated by our Republican friends to the chairmanship of the United States Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Mr. Inhofe, author of “The Greatest Hoax, How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future,” is held up as a beacon of truth among those who share his distrust of evidence.
- J. Jay,
Once again, you have treated us to the counterfactual rendition of reality:
a) denying as real: actual attacks, threats, and inhibitions on free-speech which Thomas here chronicles (ergo, established as fact)
b) denying as real: numerous attacks, threats, and inhibitions on Christianity, Christmas, religious-freedom, &c which Thomas and others have documented elsewhere (i.e., abundantly established fact)
In rebuttal, you offer only that Inofe’s continued ability to refute [your] counterfactual, demonstrably unscientific warming nonsense somehow proves there has been no such speech infringement by anyone against anyone else, ever! This despite numerous attempts by the warming fanatics to muzzle Inofe and others by any means available short of violence. And, maybe even that as physically punishing and criminalizing skeptics is fast turning into an art-form and box-office bonanza (see http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/22/Splattergate-II-green-graphic-novel-celebrates-eco-terrorism-shopping-mall-killing-spree ; and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/30/a-murderous-act-the-kill-climate-deniers-theater-project/ ) which then fuels real-life violence. Pray tell, then, how does one Senator (someone with a bully pulpit and a lot of political clout and special protections most of us lack) demonstrate there is ‘no free speech inhibition on the subject of climate change – none, nowhere, nada? Thomas just gave you a handful of prime examples of actual suppression by people in power; and/or justifications, threats of and blatant calls for suppression by those having some means of influencing those in power:
Exhibit A – Judith Curry documents media (both parties) calling attention to: a) campus speech codes, b) enabling of Muslim extremists engaged in intimidation by media airheads, c) actual hate-speech laws, d) mob suppression, and e) polls indicating record numbers now favor speech suppression in some form (much of it to appease Muslim extremists)
Exhibit B – London Times Environmental Editor insisting climate sceptics shut up while advocating the BBC (a state monopoly) give them less air time and only then if accompanied by ‘health warnings’
Exhibit C – a liberal (pro climate-change) scientist is forced out of a new job working with a provably non-partisan group of fellow scientists and policymakers attempting to find common ground. The group is falsely portrayed as ‘climate skeptics’ (some are, but others are warming true-believers – see http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/ ) by climate hardliners unwilling to allow any kind of debate, however mild and compromising it may be
Exhibit D – Spiked-Online chronicling feminist harpies harassingly halting the publication of soft porn (wasn’t it the looney ‘sexual-liberation’ left and ACLU that went to bat for Larry Flynt’s free-speech right to offend?)
Now I ask you, which of us is the ‘denier’ here: us for questioning the warming hard-sell in a manner consistent with reasonably rational enquiry, or you for denying actual cases placed in evidence based on a purely subjective digression?
Further evidence of dissent suppression:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/books/review/the-harm-in-hate-speech-by-jeremy-waldron.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 – so-called ‘liberal’ law professor advocates hate-speech laws
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/ - and here is an Austrian ‘music’ professor demanding capital punishment for skeptics (all the while distaining capital punishment for ax murderers)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-long/2014/05/21/after-years-threats-prominent-climate-alarmists-still-seek-jail-climate-d - and this round up of CP-for-skeptics advocates
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/top-ten-federal-government-efforts-to-suppress-free-speech-1998-99 - article detailing numerous infringements, abuses, and attempts at suppression by government to that time.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/why-does-the-left-want-to-suppress-free-speech/article/2532270 - documents a clear case of speech suppression (by a Senator) and one case of attempted journalistic muzzling by a feminist group.
http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2014/02/10/using-the-irs-to-suppress-free-speech-n1791312/page/full - IRS’ targeting of conservatives is an undeniable case of speech infringement even the left no longer denies; IRS originally claimed it was a case of ‘misguided’ individuals only(http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/irs-admits-targeting-conservatives-for-tax-scrutiny-in-2012-election/2013/05/10/3b6a0ada-b987-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html ), but even that line has since been dropped as indefensible
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/little-bobby-now-in-full-backtracking-mode.php –RFK, Jr’s advocacy of criminalizing skeptics, and of giving corporations and think-tanks (those which don’t toe the PC warming narrative) the ‘death penalty’?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388595/robert-kennedy-jr-aspiring-tyrant-charles-c-w-cooke – here too. Note how several of the more negative respondents to this article brazenly support Kennedy’s proposition skeptics should be jailed for our skepticism (or worse). Mr. Chamberlain’s remarks are especially worthy of our notice wherein he writes: “Are humans capable of the war crimes, of crimes against humanity, of genocide, of ecocide the proposed crime of causing the extensive damage to the environment, to fish, forest, water, soil, endangered species, to our planet’s atmosphere?
We believe so and we intend to regulate or prosecute those committing ecocide?” What kind of sick mind equates reasonable skepticism and/or even ‘let’s take a step back to think this through’ caution to ‘war-crimes’. But, by all means J. Jay, ignore threats of this kind as the blathering of impotent idiots. You can be certain many an inmate of Nazi death-camps and Soviet Gulags regret those bullies were not taken more seriously too.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/little-bobby-now-in-full-backtracking-mode.php - skeptical think-tank sued for accusing Dr. Mann of diddling his data. Mann is one of the leading proponents of warming whose data-manipulation has been challenged multiple times, but who steadfastly refuses to allow anyone outside his close circle to even look at his original (unmodified) data to assay its validity and suitability.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-of-fear-global-warming-alarmists-intimidate-dissenting-scientists-into-silence/5294 - probably, nowhere is skepticism under greater attack and censorship than within the scientific community itself; for, whereas most ‘hardcore’, non-scientist skeptics will only be intimidated using draconian measures (threats of jail-time, lawsuits, and death), the intimidation of scientists (most of whom are or were quietly neutral on the subject until attacked or their work corrupted) is mainly against their livelihood and professional standing. Thus, climate-fascists get far more bang for their buck (and far less exposure) by going after them; and this has seriously stifled objective science.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2007/06/01/associate-state-climatologist-fired-exposing-warming-myths - and if you doubt that assertion, here is a case of an actual climatologist fired for undermining inflated claims of warming by a politician
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2010091/posts - then there was the censorship of Dr. Gray by CSU, eminent hurricane forecaster and expert IPCC reviewer
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1872116/posts another case of intimidation by a warming-promoter with clout; interestingly the EPA site has since been scrubbed of any mention of this particular embarrassment to its integrity (see http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=04373015-802a-23ad-4bf9-c3f02278f4cf ); and the guy accused of this bullying (Eckhart) appears to have graduated to bigger, more lucrative activities (see http://www.citigroup.com/citi/about/leaders/mike-eckhart-bio.html )
http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=265464 – a journalist justifying why he opposes giving airtime to skeptics; while not censorship if only Blakemore is doing it, the fact the vast majority of broadcasters now do the same thing amounts to censorial conspiracy by the MSM.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB116518745569439462 - anyone remember this bit of Senatorial over-reach against ExxonMobil?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/01/22/storm-hits-weather-community-over-climate-expert-global-warming-claims/ - and who can forget self-elected climate judge-&-jury Heidi Cullen demanding a Weather-Channel meteorologist be stripped of his professional credentials for the crime of ‘not echoing the mantra’.
My thanks (and kudos) to A.K. Dart’s website (see http://www.akdart.com/warming5.html ) from whom I borrowed a good many links (and here give due credit for same).