Silencing Dissent On Science

George Will describes the latest attempts at censorship of those who deign to disagree with our intellectual and moral superiors (just ask them!) on the Left:

“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 9th century to the 13th century) 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.

That’s the problem with leftist opponents to limited government; there are never any limiting principles on anything.

32 thoughts on “Silencing Dissent On Science”

  1. But as we learned in that reddit thread posted the other day, the models work just fine after observations are plugged into them. Its pretty cool that no matter when data goes into them, that the predictive conclusions are always the same. If the predictions are wrong, it doesn’t really matter.

  2. Science is never “setteled”. Even conservation of momentum, something that has orders of magnitude more evidence to support it than Climate “Science” does, is now being questioned with the recent testing of the EM Drive. And while the EM Drive will most likely be found in the end to not violate conservative of momentum, real scientists are at least willing to investigate the issue. Climate “Scientists” on the other hand just want to silence anyone who even questions their dogma.

    1. That’s because “Climate Change” is not a science, it’s a religion. In a real science everything is debatable, nothing is ever settled and an argument on fundamentals is something to be relished. In a religion you have saints, sinners, holy men, scared texts, dispensations and evil opponents that much be crushed at all costs. Now which model more closely resembles “Climate Science”?

  3. This is Science, fools!
    Don’t Question Science!

    . . .

    New science may be revealed at a later date.

  4. Well when a conservative nominated Supreme Court Chief Justice decides that the US Government can tax you for being alive. There are no limiting principles on anything.

  5. Science is a process, not a result.

    To be anti science is not to question a result. Instead, it is anti science to interfere with the process of free inquiry.

  6. The hacker that got into the East Anglia University computers (where most of the computer data for the “Climate Change scientists” was kept at the time) proved these “scientists” weren’t even following the basic Scientific Method of Conducting Research: (1) They were discarding tree-ring and other data that was not helpful to the end result they wanted to obtain; (2) They refused to share their data with other scientists who were not on their “Climate Change Group-Think Team (CCGTT)” ; (3) they had only their reports reviewed by only their “CCGTT”; and (4) not only did they refuse to share their data with scientists who were NOT on the “CCGTT,” they refused to publish any papers by independent, free-thinking scientists who could challenge their “settled science theory” in any of their public publications.

    Global warming is a scientific scam! I am so disappointed that scientists care more about receiving funding from our government than they do about the scientific integrity of their research.

    1. The left believes this sort of comment should be punishable under the RICO statute. You might consider going underground if we get another president of that description.

    2. The East Anglia materials included the source code for their modeling programs. Aside from the fact that they were extremely amateurish they contained such things as a defined constant with the comment “Fudge factor”. In another program I found a constant array something like (1.2, 1.1, 1.35, …) which looks terribly like a series of fudge factors for annual results. It certainly appears criminal.

  7. The sun is NOT the center of the solar system I tell you.
    The science is settled.
    And all dissent is the work of earth centric DENIERS.
    They should be imprisoned.
    Oh.. yes, they did that to Galileo:

    Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy”, namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves. He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions.[81]
    He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.[82] On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.
    His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[83]

    I like the last part.. the DENIER Galileo was not to publish any dissent in the future and was put in prison for the rest of his life.
    THAT is what they want, isn’t it?

    1. Actually, the house arrest of Galileo is far more complicated and less a religion vs science event than the history books lets on. Galileo while brilliant was an egomaniac that routinely showered contempt on his colleagues while often taking credit actually due to others.

      The Catholic church at that time was actually relatively friendly toward scientific advancement. The Church asked Galileo to delay publishing his findings while they worked on a way to adjust church doctrine to minimize the fallout of his announcement. Galileo being an uber dick refused and essentially that was the last straw since he had alienated so many people with his shenanigans over the years. So his house arrest was more a payback for asshole behavior covering decades than contempt for religion doctrine.

      If the church really wanted to play hardball, they could have executed him rather than house arrest.

      1. “was the last straw since he had alienated so many people with his shenanigans over the years”

        An then he ran for President?

      2. “So his house arrest was more a payback for asshole behavior covering decades than contempt for religion doctrine.”

        Does that make it right? Is there a statute anywhere that criminalizes “being an asshole”? Is house arrest condign punishment for the offense? Upon what objective criteria is the verdict based?

        “The Church asked Galileo to delay publishing his findings while they worked on a way to adjust church doctrine to minimize the fallout of his announcement.”

        When? Was a timeline offered? Or, was it just a way of diverting him while they shored up their position? Did they hope to run out the clock, knowing that, based upon mortality stats of the day, he likely wouldn’t live all that much longer?

        I’m sure they had “top men” looking into it.

    2. As a matter of fact Galileo was just as wrong as his condemners if he claimed that the Sun is stationary at the center of the Solar System.
      It is the center of mass of the Solar System which stays the same as the planets and the Sun move around. (The motion of the planets tells us nothing about motion of the center of mass.)
      According to Newtonian Mechanics, two bodies attract one another by an inverse square force law, which causes them to move in elliptical orbits about their center of mass. The mass of Jupiter is about one thousandth of that of the Sun, which means that if we ignore all the other planets, the Sun moves in a small orbit whose center is outside itself. When Jupiter and Saturn are near each other, the center of mass of Jupiter, Saturn and the Sun is more than 700 thousand miles from the center of the Sun.
      To a first approximation the Sun’s motion can be ignored, and the rotation of Jupiter is almost about the Sun, and similar statements hold about the other planets. However the planets exert gravitational forces on one another, and the orbits are affected by these forces, which distorts them so that they are actually not exactly elliptical. Anyway, the Sun definitely moves about as the planets rotate.
      Since the part of creation that we are really concerned with is that of ourselves, creation of the Solar System is a necessary part of that, but one that is far removed from what affects us as human beings. Thus there is no theological significance to these astronomical facts.
      Galileo was right in claiming, if he did claim it, that planetary orbits are much more easily described as ellipses centered about the Sun (correct only as a first approximation), than by orbits described by Ptolemy in terms of their relations to the Earth. If he said that the Sun was the center of the Solar System he was quite wrong. And he was wrong to insist that his claims had theological implications, if he did so.

  8. First, do NOT let the left control language.
    “Climate change” is a mere tautology, a dodge.
    Call it “warmism.” Force the left into a clear and therefore refutable position.
    If they still try to hide, remind them ” First you cried ‘nuclear winter’ which was so 70s. And wrong. Now you say ‘warmism.’ Let’s check the thermometer…”
    Note too that “warmism” has cult-like overtones. “Warmist dogma…

  9. When I was in medical school I was told that 50% of what I was learning today as fact would be revised in the subsequent decade. The problem was ascertaining which 50%. Over the decades I have certainly seen this prediction verified, often to my horror as treatments once lauded are later found to shorten life. I would rather believe in the fallibility of man and his science in order to maintain some healthy skepticism than persist in believing the earth is flat.

  10. Tell me if you’ve heard this before….

    “…unanimous voice of the scientists warning …..”

    “…no civil rights on a lifeless planet…’

    “…..the few years science says is left to us….”

    “…affluent America will almost certainly have to scale down it’s standard of living….give up having as many cars, as many children, …as many conveniences, …”

    Earth Day – a question of survival – a CBS news special

    Walter Cronkite


    A new ice age….

  11. What would prove climate change wrong? Where has that been tested? What were the results? If nothing proves it wrong, then it is not a rational belief nor science.

    1. Well, the IPCC did give a set of predictions in 1997, where the models produced various 95% confidence intervals. The measured temperatures since then have fallen outside those confidence intervals. According to Feynman, if the theory does not match observation then the theory is wrong. So that makes the IPCC models wrong.

  12. Some time back I read an article in which the author recommended replacing the term “scientist” with “some guy.” When you do these pronouncements begin to sound much more realistic. I would attribute but I can’t remember where I read it.

    1. Reminds me of the old guide to reading the literature that went around many years ago. A couple of entries were:

      “It is believed…” = I think
      “It is generally believed…” = A couple of other guys think so, too

      A few others I can remember:

      “Of great practical and theoretical importance…” = It’s the only problem I can solve

      “Typical results are shown…” = The best results are shown

      “While definite conclusions cannot be drawn at this time…” = These data are practically meaningless

  13. Medical science is the worst for this sort of stuff. Look at the amount of data on the dangers of smoking that is disregarded because it disagrees with the consensus. Seriously look it up with an impartial eye – the data behind this settled science is flimsy to say the least. Passive smoking for one has been proven a fallacy but yet you never heard that, did you?

  14. I want all of you at the next congressional hearing to testify on behalf of a beleaguered public.

Comments are closed.