The new intolerance: Attorneys general try to shut down free speech

eric schneidermanEric SchneidermanLast week more than a dozen attorneys general gathered in New York. You might think they were there to discuss how to combat crime, the heroine epidemic… maybe even terrorism. They weren’t. Instead they were conferring on how to use the law to punish scientists and researchers who question climate change orthodoxy.

That’s right—if your scientific research bucks the party line on global warming, you could face government-inspired lawsuits. The ringmaster of this legal circus, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, was not at all subtle about what he was trying to achieve. He vowed “collectively, collaboratively and aggressively” to investigate whether fossil-fuel companies have misled shareholders about the risks of climate change.

And it’s not just state officials who are itching to prosecute dissident scientists. A couple of weeks earlier, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch had told a congressional hearing that she had asked the FBI to look into this question of climate “fraud.” 

This is perfectly Orwellian. Put aside what you may think about climate change. Should government lawyers be threatening to punish scientists and researchers who may, for example, merely question why the results of some computer models don’t match up with real world events? Should the iron hand of the law be employed to enforce conformity in science, supposedly in the name of a “scientific consensus,” when in fact there is nothing approaching consensus as to whether human activity has us headed for global-warming catastrophe? And if money is such a corrupter of science, as Schneiderman and others argue, why are not the billions of dollars funneled into pro-climate change research, often through government subsidies, fair game for accusations of “fraud”? After all, there are documented instances of pro-climate change scientists misrepresenting evidence in the now infamous “climategate” case at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

You might think such nonsense is isolated, but it’s not. A new breed of intolerance is sweeping all across the land, and to the surprise of many it’s not coming from the right, but the left. Judges, prosecutors, government officials, politicians and activists are increasingly using public shaming rituals and the force of the law to impose their views on people with whom they disagree.  

Corporate leaders are forced to resign if they don’t toe the line of a particular political agenda. Religious people are punished with fines for their personal beliefs, while a city government (New York City) threatens to fine employers up to $250,000 for “misgendering” bathrooms (i.e., not allowing transgender people to choose which ones to use).

Courts routinely overturn laws and referenda over policy differences—a practice that is patently anti-democratic and in many cases unconstitutional. Colleges and universities across America have abandoned free speech and open debate in favor of “speech codes” and “safe spaces” where students need never hear a viewpoint they don’t already embrace. “Due process,” too, is in short supply on campus, where administrators send students accused of sexual assault to kangaroo courts.

Read rest…

Comments (4)

  • Avatar

    Steven Capozzola


    This is very troubling. Not only are there are obvious free speech concerns, but warming skeptics have valid scientific points (i.e. 20th Century warming being caused by increased solar output.)

  • Avatar



    Now now Steve allowing facts into the global warming scare is maybe taking things a bit to far .
    Is there anyone who doesn’t think climate changes ? Does anyone think we are not coming out of an ice age and were before humans started keeping ourselves alive while greatly improving living standards with those nasty fossil fuels .
    Does anyone think plants and animals would be better off in a cooling climate ? Well except of course those drowning polar bears . Oh they actually haven’t got an ice free Arctic as predicted ? Ok the polar bears are good for a little while .
    Does anyone think natural climate variables such as the sun don’t actually set climate direction, warm or cooling ?
    Does anyone actually think humans, by reducing the less than 1% of CO2 in the atmosphere derived from human sources is going to control the earth’s temperature at all let alone within 2 degrees ?
    Where are the adult scientists hiding ?

  • Avatar

    John Wilder


    Hey Amber
    It is MUCH LESS than 1%. In fact it is
    38/100,000ths of 1%. CO2 is not a pollutant but a life saving life providing gas. If we reduce CO2 we also reduce O2. Yes that is right, the alamists say that they want to reduce CO2 but for every part of CO2 they reduce they also reduce an equal part of O2.

    Remember The trees and plants suck up CO2 and release O2 in its place as part of

    Think about it, we have literally released tens of trillions of cubic feet of CO2 into the air and we only have 38/100,000ths of 1%.
    The scientists own estimate. This is the fractional equivalent of 380 PPM

Comments are closed