Suppressing Climate Science Speech Violates the First Amendment Too!

by Steve MacDonald

Simpsons The end is nearThe left is keen to suppress speech they oppose in any way they can, and the politicization of science and climate has played a vital part in this effort.

“Climate change denial should be a crime,” declared the Sept. 1 headline in the Outline. Mark Hertsgaard argued in a Sept. 7 article in the Nation, titled “Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us,” that “murder is murder” and “we should punish it as such.”

But you can’t, and not just because of your so-called “Consensus.”

We can choose to ignore that consensus is a political term not a scientific one.

We can disagree on whether Climate “science” is less about science and more about politics and politicians funneling taxpayer dollars into it.

We can agree or disagree about any or all of it because the moment someone spent tax money it became subject to scrutiny by anyone in the United States complete with First Amendment protections.

Be they scientist, layman, blogger, author, press or pundit. Criminalizing dissent is not an option.

And while the idea of using the criminal justice system to silence opposing scientific “thought” is bad enough. Using it to silence people asking questions about how the government spends its money on science and the results of that research is unconstitutional.

And that, ladies and gentleman, IS a crime.

And while you can prosecute for fraud, you can’t charge people with crimes for publicly denying your science, and a lot of people disagree. Even to advance your progressive socialist takeover of energy and by extension everyone that uses it.

Leave a Comment

  • Bruce Currie

    Fact: The oil companies were told by their own scientists beginning in the the 1970’s that global warming was likely caused by CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Beginning in the early 90’s, those same oil companies began a concerted disinformation campaign (i.e.: “lying”) about the science of global warming. Since that time, the scientific evidence that the warming is real, and the primary culprit is man-made emissions of CO2, has only gotten stronger. The causal link is about as solid as any that science can make. So at what point, if any, does lying cease to be “protected” speech?

    • Bryan W

      I love it when Bruce denies science!

      Data generated since the 70’s has shown there is no causal connection between CO2 levels and global temperatures. Fact: CO2 emissions increased dramatically after WW2, yet the globe cooled. Etc.

      • Bruce Currie

        Your post isn’t science, it’s “science”. It’s a selective editing of the facts to produce fake science–aka: lying.There was global cooling after WW2 for one reason: airborne particulates–aerosols– increased. Industrialization increased, and with it air pollution also increased. This coincided with a period of increased volcanic activity. Both caused cooling by blocking/reflecting sunlight before it hit the ground. The aerosol increase canceled out the warming that otherwise would have been seen from increased CO2.

        • Bryan W

          I see. So all our efforts for cleaner air has resulted in Global Warming.

          We can tell China that their huge coal plants outside of Beijing can continue to spew out all that particulate because it helps cool the planet.

          I get it now. Thanks for clearing that up.

          • Bruce Currie

            Leapin’ lizards of failed logic. In two consecutive posts. Quelle surprise. Of course, you could muster the intellectual fortitude to read about the science yourself. But that would pose a challenge for your beliefs. And beliefs always come first. The facts can be molded around them afterwards–they’re very malleable, after all.

            Evidently it’s much easier to just believe what the Kochtopus tells you. But had you bothered to, you wouldn’t be posting ignorant nonsense that any reasonably well-informed citizen knows is bull****, or swallowing the blather repeated here on the topic from ideological parrots who nestle comfortably between Ayn Rand and the JBS. But then, you know what they say about birds of a feather.

          • Ed Naile

            Hey Bruce – your religion is showing.

          • Bruce Currie

            Ed, Thanks for another pertinent, factual contribution. And as usual, you distort the issue, this time with another ad hom. But for future reference: religion doesn’t rely on facts and science to make its claims.

          • Ed Naile

            The inability to explain weather, climate, anything the human mind can not comprehend on a large scale leads some, naturally, to religion for answers. Whether it is conventional, the religion of their parents – or in your case Carbon Jesus
            it is all very natural for a human to feel this need.
            You shouldn’t feel ashamed or so angry.
            The feeling of superiority in an attempt to defend your religion is also natural.

          • Bryan W

            That’s what I was going to say!

            But I’ll add this, speaking of failed logic:

            Nowhere in the scientific method is there anything about “consensus” being proof of anything. Repeatability of results is considered a better indicator of fact.

            [Side note: I’ve noticed more pushing of “consensus” from the Marxist wing of the political spectrum as some kind of indicator of ersatz facts: Exhibit A – the canard of “17 Intelligence Agencies agree…” when we can’t see the full text of the report, and when the main source of the information is itself suspect.]

            I believe the climate is changing, just like it was changing a million years ago, ten thousand years ago, a decade ago, and will continue to change ten thousand years from now. I base this on multiple reports and documents from history of these changes. There is also other evidence of these changes.

            The questions in order are:
            1) Is the direction we are headed in any way catastrophic before the 5 billion year mark (when the Sun devours the earth, or whatever cosmic event destroys the planet first)
            2) how much of the change is caused by human activity?
            3) If human activity is a significant cause and we change the human activity now, will it make a difference?
            4) If it makes a difference, what is the cost and/or what other tradeoffs could be made?

            Since the Cult of Climate Change can’t even answer question one or two using facts and logic, why should we even entertain answering question 3?

          • Ed Naile

            There was once a consensus by scientists of their day that the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth.
            Bruce too shall pass.

          • Bruce Currie

            Perhaps in the nether region you inhabit, weather and climate are seen as actions of the gods, but science has a pretty good handle on both in the real world. And any reading of our respective posts shows which of us relies on facts and which relies on “feelings of superiority”. Or are they “feelings of supremacy”?

          • Ed Naile

            Real science doesn’t change. The experiment can be repeated with the same result.
            “Facts” change all the time – with more evidence.
            When a person believes his unprovable science so much he looks like a fool he slips into the realm of believing in the Carbon Jesus.
            And some people want to be teachers so, in their mind, they can always be the smartest guy in the room.
            Having either affliction is sad.

Previous post:

Next post: