‘Progressives’ strive to silence climate debate

Guest Post by

Authoritarianism, always latent in progressivism, is becoming explicit. Progressivism’s determination to regulate thought by regulating speech is apparent in the campaign by 20 state attorneys general, none Republican, to criminalize skepticism about the supposedly “settled” conclusions of climate science.

Four core tenets of progressivism are: First, history has a destination. Second, progressives uniquely discern it. (Barack Obama frequently declares things to be on or opposed to “the right side of history.”) Third, politics should be democratic but peripheral to governance, which is the responsibility of experts scientifically administering the regulatory state. Fourth, enlightened progressives should enforce limits on speech (witness IRS suppression of conservative advocacy groups) in order to prevent thinking unhelpful to history’s progressive unfolding.

Progressivism is already enforced on campuses by restrictions on speech that might produce what progressives consider retrograde intellectual diversity. Now, from the so-called party of science, aka Democrats, comes a campaign to criminalize debate about science.

“The debate is settled,” says Obama. “Climate change is a fact.” Indeed. The epithet “climate change deniers,” obviously coined to stigmatize skeptics as akin to Holocaust deniers, is designed to obscure something obvious: Of course the climate is changing; it never is not changing — neither before nor after the Medieval Warm Period (end of the ninth century to the 13th) and the Little Ice Age (1640s to 1690s), neither of which was caused by fossil fuels.

Today, debatable questions include: To what extent is human activity contributing to climate change? Are climate change models, many of which have generated projections refuted by events, suddenly reliable enough to predict the trajectory of change? Is change necessarily ominous because today’s climate is necessarily optimum? Are the costs, in money expended and freedom curtailed, of combating climate change less than the cost of adapting to it?

But these questions may not forever be debatable. The initial target of Democratic “scientific” silencers is ExxonMobil, which they hope to demonstrate misled investors and the public about climate change. There is, however, no limiting principle to restrain unprincipled people from punishing research entities, advocacy groups and individuals.

But it is difficult to establish what constitutes culpable “misleading” about climate science, of which a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report says: “Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).” Did Al Gore “mislead” when he said seven years ago that computer modeling projected the Arctic to be ice-free during the summer in as few as five years?

A 21st attorney general, of the Virgin Islands (where ExxonMobil has no business operations or assets), accuses the company with criminal misrepresentation regarding climate change. This, even though before the U.S. government in 2009 first issued an endangerment finding regarding greenhouse gases, ExxonMobil favored a carbon tax to mitigate climate consequences of those gases. This grandstanding attorney general’s contribution to today’s gangster government is the use of law enforcement tools to pursue political goals — wielding prosecutorial weapons to chill debate, including subpoenaing private donor information from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank.

The party of science, busy protecting science from scrutiny, has forgotten Karl Popper (1902-1994), the philosopher whose “The Open Society and Its Enemies” warned against people incapable of distinguishing between certainty and certitude.

In his essay “Science as Falsification,” Popper explains why “the criterion of a scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.” America’s party of science seems eager to insulate its scientific theories from the possibility of refutation.

The leader of the attorneys general, New York’s Eric Schneiderman, dismisses those who disagree with him as “morally vacant.” His moral content is apparent in his campaign to ban fantasy sports gambling because it competes with the gambling (state lottery, casinos, off-track betting) that enriches his government.

Then there is Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, who suggests using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, written to fight organized crime, to criminalize what he calls the fossil fuel industry’s “climate denial apparatus.” The Justice Department, which has abetted the IRS cover-up of its criminal activity, has referred this idea to the FBI.

These garden-variety authoritarians are eager to regulate us into conformity with the “settled” consensus du jour, whatever it is. But they are progressives, so it is for our own good.

 

17
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
kokoda
kokoda

The political alarmists have already convinced the low-information public due to propaganda laced with a heavy dose of fear-mongering.

Also involved is the use of the phrase Climate Change (CC). It started out as AGW, then changed to Global Warming (GW) since they knew 50% of our educated population couldn’t pronounce Anthropogenic, much less even being able to spell it, the simpler GW fit the bill. We had GW thrown in our face for 10 unrelenting year. Then they knew it wasn’t warming and the PDO was flipping to the cooler phase so CC became the new phrase.

However, deniers (like me) and skeptics should not use CC in speech or writing, as the low-info citizens interpret CC as Natural Climate Change cuz they are just too fucking stoopid.

Thus, when referring to the CO2 Magic Molecule that causes every known calamity on earth, only use Global Warming. If someone else uses CC, ask them if they are referring to Global Warming CC or Natural CC. Watch for a blank expression.

Anonymous
Anonymous

Actually, I wouldn’t mind seeing this put on trial with any and all evidence from all sides put on open public display for all to see and consider.

I doubt it would be a successful prosecution if this happened.

kokoda
kokoda

Anon….the M. Mann lawsuit against M. Steyn is a little different, but it will wind up exposing the Decepticons if it goes to trial. IMO, Mann will settle (pay all costs) else the good guys will be able to get privileged info that will hurt the scare-mongers. This will be a big beat down.

Bob
Bob

Suggested terms/subjects to help keep inquiry alive and well:

1) Natural Climate Change (as kokoda suggests)
2) Solar Influence
3) Volcanic Effects
4) Magnetic Pole Fluctuations
5) Methane versus Carbon
6) Ocean Ecology
7) Atmospheric Variabilty
8) Soviet-Era Mind Control Efforts
9) Scientific Fascism
10) Criminalizing Scientific Inquiry

Westcoaster
Westcoaster

Isn’t it funny that George Will thinks he knows anything about any solution to any problem? I’ve been watching him for years and have never heard any solutions from his mouth, except to honor Ronald Reagan and cut taxes. He’s a pundit’s pundit.

Anyway this topic is over, folks. The climate IS changing and the major oil companies have been lying about it for the past 40 years. Now why do you think they would lie if not for the fact their product is at partially behind climate change?

kokoda
kokoda

Coast….”The climate IS changing…”

Yes it is. 1st intelligent thought from you. But, the climate is always changing, The climate has always changed. Try to get a grip on the geologic record. Oh, did you fall for the Ozone hole BS too.

Bea Lever
Bea Lever

Coaster is the poster boy for why California should be declared a insane asylum and have a wall built around it.

IndenturedServant

+1000 Bea!

Joey
Joey

The climate is changing.
Yeppers.
Now, tell us something we did not already know.
We are waiting. Please, information please.
Science, real science tells us that Earth was so enveloped with snow and ice at one time period that the term coined for it was Snowball Earth.
About 10-12 thousand years past, much of Canada and some of the N.United States was ice covered to a depth of thousands of feet.hat glacial mass melted without the assistance of the “major oil companies” or the minor slobs like me who drive still drive a gas guzzler or two.

Debate is already outlawed . In Canada, the CBC rules the air waves. For decades CBC has provided its faithful public progs with World Warming disaster scenarios . Never once have I heard an opinion allowed from a dissenter, or from a denier. All those years gone by. never—–not once from Mother Corp . CBC Radio and TV, the masters of BS Broadcasting INC.

Anonymous
Anonymous

Westy,

” The climate IS changing and the major oil companies have been lying about it for the past 40 years.”

Give an example of one Oil company and One lie it told about “climate change”.

Just to make it clear exactly what you are talking about.

Scooby
Scooby

Isn’t it funny that George Will thinks he knows anything about any solution to any problem? I’ve been watching him for years and have never heard any solutions from his mouth, except to honor Ronald Reagan and cut taxes. He’s a pundit’s pundit.

Anyway this topic is over, folks. The climate IS changing and the major oil companies have been lying about it for the past 40 years. Now why do you think they would lie if not for the fact their product is at partially behind climate change?

So Westcoaster,what is your “solution” to ” climate change”?
Please reduce you’re co2 levels to the ” sustainable” level won’t you?
I’m begging you westy,fuck off. Turn off your electric,gas,heat and stop driving and then …. stop breathing,really I’m begging you.

Uncle Charley

“Progressives” don’t want any debate on anything. They are always right. Like Moa in the Cultural Revolution. Anyone who disagrees MUST be destroyed.

Tator2
Tator2

I am still waiting on a SINGLE prophecy of the religious leader to come true. So far they have been wrong 100%. Not one has come true.

Dan
Dan

I would humbly suggest that all believers in the Great CO2 Myth put their $$, lifestyles, and in fact, themselves where their mouths are. First, if you actually believe this nonsense, you should not be driving a car…. too much CO2 “pollution.” Next is electricity… get rid of it… even solar panels create a lot of CO2 and other pollutants to make them. Next, you can only eat algae…. the carbon footprint from growing your food is enormous, to say nothing of the food that is imported from thousands of miles away. Finally, you must stop breathing! Your metabolism is LITERALLY KILLING THE EARTH!!!!

James the Wanderer

AGW is another attempt at a controlling lie – you cannot do X because it will cause Y, so we will legislate X out of existence. It’s just political control disguised in Gaia worship.

Once the Chicago grid goes dark, the riots will burn it down and add more CO2 than all the automobiles now operating. The only good side is that truth will suddenly dawn on a few million folks that think electricity comes from wires in the wall, light comes from light bulbs and heat comes from a furnace, all by some kind of energy-source independent magic.

Of course, next winter afterwards they will all freeze to death, so their enlightenment will be brief ….

Jack Lovett

The Kenyan bomber said it is so, so must be fact? Well not really. GWB was the worse slim to occupy the slaughterhouse, but now this pair of faggotts in the slaughterhouse are totally sick..

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading