Climate Change Lobby Wants To Kill Free Speech

greenThe editor of this newspaper received a private letter last week from Lord Krebs and 12 other members of the House of Lords expressing unhappiness with two articles by its environment correspondent. Conceding that The Times’s reporting of the Paris climate conference had been balanced and comprehensive, it denounced the two articles about studies by mainstream academics in the scientific literature, which provided less than alarming assessments of climate change. Strangely, the letter was simultaneously leaked to The Guardian. The episode gives a rare glimpse into the world of “climate change communications”, a branch of heavily funded spin-doctoring that is keen to shut down debate about the science of climate change. –Matt Ridley, The Times, 25 April 2016

Then there’s the Climate Coalition, the Campaign against Climate Change, various publicly funded climate-communications groups inside universities, plus the green multinationals, such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF, with their nine-figure budgets. And so on. Against this Goliath, one little David stands alone: the Global Warming Policy Foundation, with its budget of about £300,000, all privately donated and none from the fossil fuel industry. –Matt Ridley, The Times, 25 April 2016

Some of the world’s most eminent scientists have written to the editor of UK newspaper The Times to complain about its coverage of climate science. They suggest the newspaper may be unduly influenced by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which, despite its name, denies humans are causing climate change (sic). Baron John Krebs, a highly decorated biologist is behind the push, writing that the newspaper has become a “laughing stock” for publishing poor quality science. –Sara Phillips, ABC News, 21 April 2016

Authoritarianism, always latent in progressivism, is becoming explicit. Progressivism’s determination to regulate thought by regulating speech is apparent in the campaign by 16 states’ attorneys general and those of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands, none Republican, to criminalize skepticism about the supposedly “settled” conclusions of climate science. –George F. Will, The Washington Post, 22 April 2016

As Americans observe Earth Day, Gallup finds 42% of Americans identifying themselves as environmentalists, down from an average of 76% in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The results are based on Gallup’s annual Environment poll, conducted March 2-6. When last asked, in 2000, 47% of Americans identified as environmentalists, which in turn was down from 63% in 1995. In 1991 — one year after Earth Day became a global event celebrated each April 22 — a high of 78% of Americans described themselves that way. —Gallup, 22 April 2016

The cost of Denmark’s renewable energy policy has been too high, according to Denmark’s climate and energy minister Lars Christian Lilleholt [Left-Liberal Party]. The minister made the statement in response to a report by the climate and energy ministry to parliament which shows that subsidies for offshore windfarms – which are paid by businesses and citizens via their electricity bills – have increased dramatically compared to what was originally expected. —Jyllands-Posten, 22 April 2016

The US sided with emerging economies on Thursday against proposals to set a greenhouse gas emissions target for shipping. In contrast to President Barack Obama’s urgent rhetoric on climate action, the US envoy favoured an incremental approach at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London. –Megan Darby, Climate Home, 21 April 2016

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (4)

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    For a moment consider the following fairytale scenario. The earth is warming rapidly and it is all caused by mankind’s emissions. If we don’t make drastic changes soon the results will be apocalyptic. If this was true and the facts were on their side, the climate alarmists would be encouraging free speech and healthy debate on this issue. However, the reality is that the facts are against them. This provides the motivation to silence anyone expressing these facts.

    A similar concept can be found in NOAA and NASA altering historical data. If the raw data supported the anthropological climate change movement, there would be no reason to alter it. Since the true data doesn’t support this movement, it must be altered to support the cause.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pete

    |

    Ottmar Edenhofer (UN climate official): when asked “So what is the goal of environmental policy” said, (quote) “We redistribute de-facto the world’s wealth by climate policy” This is the One World Agenda, or NWO. It’s enforcing false science to bring in their cause

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    [quote name=”Pete”]Ottmar Edenhofer (UN climate official): when asked “So what is the goal of environmental policy” said, (quote) “We redistribute de-facto the world’s wealth by climate policy” [/quote]
    [u]This must never be forgotten[/u]. Sometimes the eco-left becomes so full of themselves they forget to lie.

    Truth bites.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pete

    |

    “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we do deceive” (Sir Walter Scott)

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.