Posts tagged ‘intellectual freedom’
WWF Gets Into Bed with Oppressive Dictatorship
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.
Happy New Year!
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.
The Anti-Free-Speech Brigade
Last week 18,000 people signed a petition demanding that a publicly-funded television station ‘never again’ report on a particular point-of-view.
More on IPCC Chapter Head Neil Adger – & Stephen Schneider
Ideas being promoted by ‘climate scientists’ look increasingly scary.
Naked Intolerance in the Media
Why does the climate debate elicit so much partisan sneering from the media?
Canada’s Senate, David Suzuki & The Delinquent Teenager
My book is discussed in the Canadian Senate – and the David Suzuki Foundation behaves like a rabid dog.
The Authoritarian Impulse and Climate Change
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.
Medical Journals Spearhead Climate Lynch Mob
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 the Police Knock on Your Door
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.
Which Other Minorities Should Be Blasted into Space?
How funny would it have been had IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said that gays should be given a one-way ticket to outer space?
Fanaticism 101
According to someone with a PhD from Harvard, my skeptical climate change views mean one thing: I’m intent on murdering his grandchildren.
Science is Not a Tyrant
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.
Climate Change & Violent Fantasies
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?
Foul Play on Facebook
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.
You Doubt Monger, You
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.
How Do You Say ‘Independent’ in Australian?
Any government body headed by eco-campaigner Tim Flannery cannot possibly be considered “independent”.
Bill McKibben’s Bad Example
Those seemingly nice people brimming with such concern for the planet are actually profoundly intolerant.
Teachers: the New Green Police
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.
The Silent Treatment
Should AGW proponents acknowledge critics? Or should they avert their eyes and block their ears?
Appalling Rhetoric from a Climate Skeptic
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.
Suzuki’s Children (The Political Kind)
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.
Lest We Forget the Importance of Liberty
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.
Margaret Atwood Should Resign From PEN International
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.
Slaying the Unicorn
The campaign against ‘Fox News North’ threatens the intellectual freedom of all Canadians.
Speech Crimes & Ethics 101
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.
If We Are Not Free to Disagree, We Are Not Free
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.
Blood & Gore Against Global Warming
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.
Anti-Science Claim Is Devoid of Meaning
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.
Politicians Dressed in Lab Coats
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?
Intellectual Freedom
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.
Shielding Climate Orthodoxy from 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 Water Cannon of the Climate Debate
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.
Climate Skepticism is Free Speech
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.
If We Don’t Agree, You’re Crazy
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.
Why the Munk Debate Proves the Debate Isn’t Over
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.
Bullies Need Not Apply
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.
On Saying the Debate is Over (2-minute video)
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.
The Age of Regret
The Age of Stupid is a fictional film about the future. It says current humans are too dumb & self-absorbed to pay attention to the threat of global warming. I propose a different scenario: What shall I say to my grandchildren when they ask me why I did nothing as every facet of daily life became assessed, inspected & regulated by eco bureaucrats? What shall I say when they ask me why I allowed personal liberties to slip away?
This Is Not Fair Play (2-minute video)
We wouldn’t convict someone of a crime without hearing their side of the story. Yet we’ve listened only to the prosecution side of the global warming argument. Full text provided.
Global Warming and ‘My Cousin Vinny’
My Cousin Vinny isn’t just a great comic film. It does a stellar job of demonstrating the danger of listening to only one point-of-view, of jumping to conclusions before all sides have been heard.
On the Cusp
I believe in debate. I believe in questions. I believe anyone who wants everyone else to change their lives had better have a persuasive argument.
Good Girl, Bad Girl
We are all entitled to ask questions – about anything, but particularly about a topic that is rarely absent from the daily news. Yet according to a spokeswoman for the United Nations it is immoral and irresponsible to question climate change.
