The debates and differing perspectives on the trajectory of the Earth’s climate (that is, man-made global warming) have long reached the point where much of the climate alarmist side refuses to acknowledge the existence of an opposite viewpoint.
To the extent some alarmists notice a different take, they want them ignored or silenced.
This is dangerous, and it goes beyond climate issues.
It’s bad enough for global warming activists and groups to attempt to silence opposition. A more problematic trend is when it comes to the media itself.
A free press is one of the pillars of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, along with freedom of speech.
Yet some in the media want to deny First Amendment freedom to others with whom they disagree regarding global warming.
One prominent media example is Chuck Todd, host of the NBC program Meet the Press. He announced last January he will never have as a guest anyone who questions or challenges inexorable global warming.
Mr. Todd, a former Democratic congressional staff member, seemed not to notice or care about the irony of being a professed journalist who declares one side of a prominent issue that affects peoples’ lives be deemed off-limits.
The Los Angeles Times and the magazine Popular Science announced several years ago they would no longer publish opposing opinions to global warming orthodoxy.
During CNN’s “Town Hall” on climate change with Democratic presidential hopefuls last August, the media figures were in full agreement with the alarmist dogma.
Moderators walked in lockstep with the claims of an overheating planet and the doomsday scenario espoused by the candidates. Rarely did a CNN host, for the sake of practicing basic journalism, utter a challenging question.
This is tantamount to silencing contrary findings.
There are larger extremes. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., self-proclaimed environmentalist, went so far as to advocate that climate “deniers” be jailed for exercising their free speech rights that oppose his extreme view of climate change.
He’s not alone in believing such lunacy.
One would think if you were so convinced of a point of view, why would you care about someone disagreeing? If you are on the solid, certain ground, why not debate to demonstrate it and humble the other side?
If Chuck Todd, for example, is so certain the climate is heating up, why not seize an interview opportunity to refute a skeptic?
Squelching opposing views is not limited to the climate change debate. It is surfacing in other areas.
Former Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris—both presidential aspirants and climate alarmists—are the latest examples of attempting to squash the speech of people with whom they oppose.
Vice President Biden’s campaign recently sent a letter to media news executives that demanded they refuse airtime to Rudy Giuliani, who is serving as President Trump’s personal lawyer, defending him against the charges involving Ukraine.
Giuliani also has been attacking Biden’s own questionable role with Ukraine.
Personally, I don’t think Giuliani is effective, but Biden must think so because he wants him off the air, free speech be damned.
If Biden were elected president, would we see more such requests of media moguls to silence others with whom he disagrees or dislikes?
Sen. Harris, whose once-promising campaign has been foundering, recently requested that Twitter “should consider suspending” President Trump’s account.
Strange. One of the criticisms I hear about the president, including from some of his supporters, is that his tweets are often counterproductive. Sen. Harris’ request indicates otherwise.
Debating issues like climate change are vital, despite its frequently contentious nature.
Polarization and verbal fights over issues or candidates enabled by the First Amendment can be unpleasant and ugly.
The alternative is worse: the silencing of an opposing side, if allowed to continue, is one giant step toward tyranny.
Read more at CFACT
They just don’t want the truth to be known that Global Warming/Climate Change isa big time scam Meet the Liberal Biased Press,Popular Junk Science Etc and those Eco-Freaks we all Watermelons Green on Outside Red Inside its all part of the New World Order and the Globalists
There is one and only one reason to not engage in the “deniers” to man-made global warming, er climate disaster. That’s because they can’t refute the actual facts those who question that man is causing any warming or changes in the climate.
Oh don’t worry. It is not just the subject of the Global Warming hoax that the media is not allowing free speech. It is any topic which does not fit their uber-liberal agenda.
It may not be enlightening and can certainly be irritating to hear opinions or positions on a topic with which you do not agree or know to be completely false, but are being fowarded as truth no-matter-what. But the mental midgets in the news agencies and the political pinheads who refuse to let the opposing views be heard are demonstrating that they not only don’t stand on solid ground with the issue of global warming, but they fear that such differing views might sway the thinking of people who still somehow have not made up their minds about it. I have learned to listen to the tripe about global warming and climate change with a frame of mind that lets me process their words as a form of comedy. The ideas they support are so incredibly not credible, they represent a complete lack of scientific knowledge and a refusal on their part to learn anything from someone else. It will become a dangerous world if we let these dopes have their way with the exchange of views and information.
When there is a concerted effort to silence one side of an issue, the side being silenced is usually right. Consider Galileo’s theory that the planets rotate around the sun.
Exactly the same as with established organised religions and doctrinaire politics (right wing fascism and left wing absolutism the same thing). “Heresy ” (from the Greek, meaning “choice”) is to be banned and punished. Hence “consensus” is a word which actually does not in any way mean “therefore true”. All creative insights start with “heretics” to an established “truth”. AGW theory is closely linked to political ideology, as even the UN IPCC admits: taxes from CO2 etc, to fund poorer countries. And of course to make money and profits for the “renewables” companies.
Compare
A Hundred Authors Against Einstein
A collection of various criticisms can be found in the book Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein), published in 1931.[4] It contains very short texts from 28 authors, and excerpts from the publications of another 19 authors. The rest consists of a list that also includes people who only for some time were opposed to relativity. Besides philosophic objections (mostly based on Kantianism), also some alleged elementary failures of the theory were included; however, as some commented, those failures were due to the authors’ misunderstanding of relativity. For example, Hans Reichenbach described the book as an “accumulation of naive errors”, and as “unintentionally funny”. Albert von Brunn interpreted the book as a backward step to the 16th and 17th century, and Einstein said, in response to the book, that if he were wrong, then one author would have been enough.