Libraries define intellectual freedom as the public’s right to examine all points-of-view. These climate scientists are trying to stifle alternative perspectives. Part 2 of 3.
People who employ the word ‘denier’ in a climate context are silencing normal, healthy debate.
Unlike most journalists, Matt Ridley has done PhD-level work in the sciences. He has served as science editor for the Economist. One would think his views on the climate debate deserve a fair hearing. Instead, he is pilloried by climate extremists.
Bigotry and intolerance from scientific colleagues lead a Swedish scientist to resign from an advisory role with the UK’s Global Warming Policy Foundation. If exploring alternative climate perspectives is verboten, genuine scientific inquiry has ceased to exist.
An IPCC document produced for its meeting in Yokohama uses emphatically activist language. What happened to the scientific body delivering a scientific report based on scientific research?
20 years ago, scientific superstar Carl Sagan urged us to use our brains – to be actively skeptical.
A climatologist urges her community to stop defending Michael Mann.
When did “Question Authority” stop being applicable?
Nine new videos provide fresh insight into the climate debate. These reasonable voices, representing diverse perspectives, deserve to be heard.
Truth squads. Pushing “bitter pills” down other people’s throat. Democracy’s new enemies are green.
Are attempts to prevent climate change a colossal waste of money? An in-progress film makes that argument.
If a government minister thinks the media is paying too much attention to something, look closer.
Civilized debate appears to be an endangered species.
The World Wildlife Fund has organized an event this week in the United Arab Emirates. You know, one of those countries in which political parties are banned.
The German translation of my book is now in bookstores, readers of this blog are generous souls, and a troubling examination of free speech on university campuses sheds light on the climate debate.
Last week 18,000 people signed a petition demanding that a publicly-funded television station ‘never again’ report on a particular point-of-view.
Ideas being promoted by ‘climate scientists’ look increasingly scary.
Why does the climate debate elicit so much partisan sneering from the media?
My book is discussed in the Canadian Senate – and the David Suzuki Foundation behaves like a rabid dog.
People who want to save the planet are fond of more laws and more red tape. They talk of silencing their opponents and sending people to prison.
Why are the editors of leading medical journals trying to suppress climate free speech? Since this isn’t their area of expertise how dare they harass those with a different point-of-view?
When six police officers visit your home for three hours, confiscate your computers, and mess with your phone line it’s little comfort to be told you aren’t a suspect.
How funny would it have been had IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said that gays should be given a one-way ticket to outer space?
According to someone with a PhD from Harvard, my skeptical climate change views mean one thing: I’m intent on murdering his grandchildren.
Activists, politicians, and journalists love to play the ‘science says’ game when talking about global warming. But scientific facts are one thing. How best to respond to those facts is a completely different discussion – in which we all deserve a voice.
When did it become acceptable to pen violent fantasies about people with whom you disagree? When did it become OK to talk – luridly and out loud – about their death?
Climate skeptic pages on Facebook were recently targeted. Our content was alleged to be ‘abusive’ and the ability of readers to share it was temporarily blocked.
When environmentalists organize themselves, fund-raise, and try to spread their message this is considered legitimate democratic activity. Yet the minute climate skeptics do the same we’re accused of being doubt-mongers who manufacture uncertainty in order to mislead the public.
Any government body headed by eco-campaigner Tim Flannery cannot possibly be considered “independent”.
Those seemingly nice people brimming with such concern for the planet are actually profoundly intolerant.
Canadian teachers (who are employees of the state) are attempting to dictate how children’s lunchbox sandwiches get packaged. Intruding so intimately into people’s private lives is not an acceptable way to save the planet.
Should AGW proponents acknowledge critics? Or should they avert their eyes and block their ears?
The climate change debate is important. Human lives (and trillions of dollars) hang in the balance. We therefore need open, vigorous dialogue. We need to hear all perspectives. But this can’t happen when both sides are trying to shut down the debate by declaring other people’s views criminal.
Dan Kellar is a geography student at the University of Waterloo. He is writing a doctoral thesis under the supervision of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change author and already teaches climate change courses to impressionable undergraduates.
Last week Kellar prevented a journalist from speaking to a campus audience about her new book. He says that because (he thinks) she’s lying free speech doesn’t apply to her.
To a large degree the climate change story is a media story. Journalists are supposed to be guard dogs, not lap dogs. Instead, they’ve become arbiters of scientific truth – refusing to report on non-conformist perspectives.
Last of a five-part series.
As Vice President of PEN International, Margaret Atwood has pledged to oppose “any form of suppression of freedom of expression.”
But she sits on a board directors with a man who says some people have no right to free speech. She has written the foreword to a book by David Suzuki – who thinks politicians should be jailed for their climate change views. She has also encouraged her Twitter followers to visit a web page that says a TV station that hasn’t even begun broadcasting should be stopped.
The campaign against ‘Fox News North’ threatens the intellectual freedom of all Canadians.
An ethics professor thinks corporations that challenge climate dogma should be charged with a new kind of crime against humanity.
Strangely, he’s unconcerned that a representative of the violent & unsavoury Sudanese government fills one of the IPCC’s four most prominent positions.
The video in which people are summarily executed for questioning the need for emissions reduction is being denounced by prominent global warming activists. Organizations that have aligned themselves with the 10:10 Campaign – such as Sony, Oxford University, and UK local governments – also need to distance themselves from it.
A UK green group has produced an advertisement in which people (including school children) who exhibit insufficient enthusiasm for reducing their carbon footprint are blown to pieces. Yep, they are cavalierly murdered while those in the vicinity get splattered with blood and gore.
During the first half of this month, activist-scientist-blogger Joe Romm described other people as anti-science on 16 separate occasions. This is the equivalent of a toddler calling everyone from the babysitter to grandad a poopy head.
When a forensic pathologist testifies at a murder trial he describes bruises, lacerations & bullet holes. He does not decide whether the accused is guilty. Nor does he opine to the media about how such murders might be prevented.
So why do climate scientists think it’s their business to prescribe solutions – rather than telling us about their data and only about their data?
The American Library Association defines intellectual freedom as the “right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view.” Eco activists who attempt to silence the voices of climate skeptics threaten intellectual freedom as well as free speech.
American professors are encouraging journalism students to suppress certain kinds of news so that the public won’t be confused by climate skepticism. This turns journalists into arbiters of truth and treats the public like children.
The climate bible is the ultimate weapon in the global warming debate. Skeptics are told the experts have spoken and that carbon dioxide is the Great Satan.
Rather than competing against climate skeptics on an even playing field, out in the open, so that the public can make its own decisions, global warming activists are trying to cheat. They insist theirs is the only perspective that deserves to be heard.
A businessman who believes in a diversity of climate opinions, and who thinks a certain amount of hysteria has been associated with global warming is declared mentally ill by a green blogger.
Is climate change the most pressing problem facing humanity? When a Canadian audience was given the chance to witness a live debate, fewer people thought so afterward than prior.
Rather than working to persuade the skeptically-minded, global warming activists condemn. They name-call. They accuse. This isn’t the sort of behaviour one associates with an iron-clad case.
A 2-minute video about why it’s not OK for one party in a discussion to unilaterally declare that “the debate is over.” Full text provided.