As a physician and as one that has conducted research and published in peer-reviewed journals, I am intimately connected to the scientific world and the scientific process. The scientific process requires a complete objectivity, a complete reliance on the data. It does not rely on what politicians think, or what the supposed majority of other scientists believe, or even upon what was thought to be proven in the past. It requires continual scrutiny and a stubborn willingness to be critical of everything proven and unproven. At times this stubborn willingness to continually analyze and reanalyze established beliefs places the scientific world in disarray as new beliefs replace old. What marks someone as a true scientist is a willingness to let go of previously held beliefs when the facts turn in another direction, even at the expense of one's established research, reputation, and tenure.
A scientific dictatorship occurs when this willingness to follow the data is disregarded and replaced with political correctness, consensus, economic motives, or personal hopes and aspirations. This dictatorship which attempts to suppress alternative viewpoints or theories is merely an attempt to make a scientist's own selfish view preeminent at the expense of the scientific process and sometimes the truth. Inevitably, this dictatorship uses tactics like vilification, name calling, discrimination, and sometimes even threats of physical incarceration or violence in order to enforce the accepted dogma.
There are no greater examples of this than the ordeal of scientists that challenged the belief that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. The scientists that challenged the existing scientific aristocracy or dictatorship of the time were often incarcerated and even sometimes put to death. If true scientists like Copernicus and Galileo and their counterparts lived in a world filled with true followers of the scientific process they might have encountered some initial skepticism but would not have suffered like they did. True scientists would have evaluated the evidence that they presented and quickly have come to the same conclusion themselves. The fact that this didn't happen was evidence of an over-arching scientific dogma or dictatorship at that time. Their theories threatened the position, theories, and power of the existing scientific elite of their day.
The same type of scientific dogma or dictatorship exists in the world today. There are many examples of modern scientists that have challenged the accepted scientific dogma. Oftentimes, they have had to surmount tremendous obstacles and go to great lengths to prove they were right.
It was only twenty years ago that two Australian scientists, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall implicated a bacteria, Helicobacter pylori, as the causative agent in many intestinal ulcers. Prior to 1982, the predominant theory for the cause of ulcers was overproduction of stomach acid. The prevailing wisdom of the time was that if only stomach acid could be reduced then ulcers could be controlled. Of course, this would lead to lifelong treatments for acid suppression. When these two scientists proposed a simple bacterium as the cause, which could be eradicated with a simple antibiotic cocktail, they were more than met with initial skepticism -- they were mocked and ridiculed. It was only because of tireless persistence on their part, which included ingesting the very causative organism in question and testing their hypothesis on themselves, that eventually the established dogma began to subside.
Along the same lines it is within the last twenty years the cyclo-oxygenase type 2 (COX-2) inhibitors like the infamous Vioxx were touted as the new anti-inflammatory medications for this generation. They would replace similar medications like Ibuprofen and Advil. When evidence surfaced that these medications may be causing increased incidences of heart attacks and deaths, they were forced off the market. Unfortunately, because the company and its scientists had great reputations, profits, and careers at stake it may have taken 3 years after the associations with heart attacks were discovered before the drug was removed from the market. It is not clear how many people have suffered the ultimate consequence for scientists letting ulterior motives cloud scientific purity.
This brings to me to the most important issue of our day -- the debate over whether climate change is related to man-made green house gases or if it is related to natural processes such as sun-spot cycles. While it is not the purpose of this article to discuss the science around this discussion in detail, what can be illuminated is the presence of a dogmatic scientific bureaucratic dictatorship that has one particular view in mind at the expense of all others. This view contends that mankind is responsible for global warming, the inevitable consequence of which will be a collapse of the earth's vital ecosystems. In order to stop man and the collapse of the earth, the global scientific and political dictatorship would have the first world nations dramatically reduce their production of green-house gases. This will be accomplished by the cap-and-trade system, which would de-industrialize, depopulate, and subjugate the peoples of Europe and America and transfer their wealth to the third world and to the sponsors and ministers of the system.
As the EU President Herman Von Rompuy recently put it:
"2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet."
It is clear from this statement that the climate agenda goes hand in hand with the plan for global governance. In fact, it may serve as the key stone to the foundation of just such a superstate. It is precisely because the globalists are using this issue as the means for attaining their long sought after dominion that the climate change debate is the most important issue of this generation.
What about the science that is being used as one of the stepping stones to global governance? Has global temperature really been increasing in lock-step with carbon-dioxide emissions?
Climate change skeptics have recently challenged the assumption of climate change fanatics by pointing out that the global temperature doesn't appear to have continued to rise over the past decade or more, despite a continued surge in carbon-dioxide emissions. In fact, the temperatures may have decreased slightly. Yet, this information has fallen on seemingly deaf ears in the climate community. Fortunately, the question was recently answered by the climatologist global warming alarmists themselves. In emails that were leaked from the bastion of climate activism, the climate research unit (CRU) of East Anglia University, are some really startling yet somehow expected revelations about the real data, propaganda, intimidation, and fraud perpetrated by the climate change scientific community.
In fact, in response to a recent skeptical article entitled "Whatever happened to Global Warming" by Paul Hudson, a BBC weatherman, one of the lead authors of the IPCC report commented within the private leaked emails:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
In commenting about Hudson's piece, climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University added:
"extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
"We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?"
What is clear from the conservations in these emails is that not only is the science not settled but there was a systematic attempt by these scientists to keep any contrary viewpoints out of the media, published literature, and the political arena. Does this sound like people genuinely seeking after truth or just scientists trying to protect their own turf, reputations, and agenda - whatever the cost?
In another email, the director of the East Anglia climate center, Phil Jones, suggested that we:
"will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
This email highlights a very important but little understood point outside of academic circles. Central to life of an academic researcher is their ability to publish peer-reviewed papers in to the literature. Often times, the amount of published material they produce correlates with their ability to become tenured and to continue to receive grants. What is particularly disturbing about these emails is they demonstrate a willingness to destroy other people's lives by making it difficult for them to publish.
An example of this scientific shakedown by these supposed scientists occurs in email by Michael Mann that suggests destroying a journal that dared publish these alternative viewpoints. He writes:
"Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
In another of the emails, Tim Wigley says that pressure should be applied to a particular journal, Climate Research, to fall in line with the established climate change order. He writes that the publisher needed to be more concerned with how publishing alternative viewpoints, or as he puts it "misinformation," would be "perceived." He added: "whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about -- it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts."
This scientific witch hunt is vaguely reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition. It is not about the truth of their ideas, it is about the opposition. If it takes destroying their opponents' careers in order to perpetuate their climate fraud, then they seem perfectly willing to do it. Another excerpt demonstrates this career-destroying intention of theirs. In a comment about James Saiers of the Geophysical Research Letters journal:
"If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted"
In response to these vicious attacks, one of the subjects of some of the emails, Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute, said in response that: "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical."
To add insult to injury these very same scientists also write about their attempts to fraudulently distort their own data so they can continue the charade. In another email by Phil Jones the truth about the agenda comes out. It turns out they are more worried about the climate agenda going forward than what their data actually shows. If they have to distort the data then they will do what it takes. He writes:
"In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability -- that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us -- the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue."
In another email they write:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Here we sit on the verge of subjecting ourselves to the tyranny of global government in the name of protecting the planet. Now that the truth has been established and the hypocrisy and error revealed, let us press our congressman and senators before it is too late. In a matter of a couple weeks the most important conference of our lifetimes will convene in Copenhagen in order to decide our fate. I urge you with all the energies of my heart; let us pull down the global warming false idol worshippers and their climate dictatorship while we still have time.
"In a Democracy there is no right not to be offended. Anyone ought to be free to say whatever they like. If someone says things that are offensive, gratuitous and stupid, one has to assume there will be others able to demonstrate that what someone said was offensive, gratuitous and stupid."
"The holocaust is an ideological club, used to hold Germany in a vice like grip. In the early nineties these organisations discovered an opportunity to shake down European Governments and now they have run amok. They are pursuing blackmail and therefore they should be indicted and tried as criminals before the courts."
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. "
Below are links to various petitions we support. If you see one that interests you then please take action.
Make Congress Read Their Bills Before Voting
Make Congress read every word of every bill they create before they vote on it. Urge your Representative and your Senators to sponsor DownsizeDC.org's “Read the Bills Act” (RTBA).
TWIC - A Backdoor Real ID Card
Real ID is dying. But the Department of Homeland Security has a new plan to subject every American to a national ID card anyway. They plan to pick off one occupational field at a time, starting with the maritime industry. One man is fighting back. Meet him, and help stop this backdoor Real ID plan.
Make Congress pass DownsizeDC.org's “One Subject at a Time Act”
Most Americans probably believe a bill has to have majority support in Congress before it can become the law of the land. Sadly, this common sense expectation is totally wrong. Congressional leaders routinely pass laws that a majority opposes. DownsizeDC.org believes every bill should have to stand or fall on its own merits. Toward this end we have crafted the “One Subject at a Time Act” (OSTA).
End Bureaucratic "Legislation without Representation" with the "Write the Laws Act"
Unelected bureaucrats create tens-of-thousands of new dictates each year. Making rules is the job of Congress, not bureaucrats. DownsizeDC.org has drafted the “Write the Laws Act” to end bureaucratic “legislation without representation."
Bring John Shadegg's 'Enumerated Powers Act' to a Vote
t's time for Congress to, "Cite it, chapter and verse." Where do they derive their authority? When they pass new laws or spend taxpayer money, they should be required to point to specific language in the Constitution. The Enumerated Powers Act would require them to do precisely that. Help us bring this bill to a vote.
Top 11 Reasons You Should Fight Hate Laws
Unless we resist now, a thought crimes bureaucracy like those regulating Australia, Canada and Europe will soon rule America. In these nations, federal hate laws have destroyed citizens' rights to free speech. Punishment of politically incorrect bias is the ultimate goal of this legislation.
A national hate law would shatter Americans' First Amendment rights, which are now sadly unique among Western democracies. We would lose our precious freedom to express politically incorrect ideas, moral judgments, or whatever personal convictions the reigning thought police deem "hateful."
Think this can't happen in America? Think again.
Hostile work environment law and campus speech bans already severely curtail free expression in American workplaces and universities. A US federal hate law would follow the examples of Europe, Canada, and Australia where Christian pastors have been indicted simply for quoting politically incorrect Scripture in their sermons. Iceland's Orwellian hate law, for example, promises two years' jail if you verbally "insult" a person on the basis of their nationality, skin color, race, religion, or sexual orientation.
If a federal hate law were passed, free expression across the political spectrum would be threatened. What would happen to blasphemous art like Piss Christ or South Park, to Ann Coulter or Al Franken, to Christians protesting sodomy or homosexuals attacking the Bible? Every American, from left-leaning feminists to red state Republicans, should protest "anti-hate" legislation. If Rosie O'Donnell were an Icelander, she could have been prosecuted for verbal "assault" for her recent statement that radical Christianity is as dangerous as radical Islam. Political activists in nations with hate laws have already been indicted for criticizing Islam, Zionism, and homosexuality. Hate laws threaten your freedom to speak your mind, no matter what's on it.
Here are some of the most powerful, bipartisan reasons to fight this legislation.
1. Speech bans are a political weapon used by those in power to silence their opponents and politically unpopular minorities.
Hate laws empower the government to enforce the orthodoxy of whoever happens to be in charge. The government can define which biases or "hatreds" are unacceptable and which are okay. For instance, hate laws in our PC age allow women to derogate men but would silence men from legitimate (though possibly hurtful) speech like a discussion of biological gender differences.
In 2004 Swedish feminist Joanna Rytel wrote a hate-filled screed published in a major daily. Her article describes white men as arrogant, sex-obsessed and exploitative, explaining that Rytel just wants to "puke" on them. Stockholm authorities refused to indict Rytel under their hate law, saying it was passed to protect ethnic minorities, not white Swedes. This is one example of speech bans' uneven enforcement; they are used to punish certain kinds of hate and allow others.
Because almost every exercise of free speech offends someone, government officials would end up enforcing speech bans on the basis of their own bias. Speech bans simply can't be evenhanded unless everyone is shut up altogether.
In the real world, speech can and does wound. That's a cost of life. We naturally resent painful realities like economic competition, unfair comments, and hard work. But in each case, the cures we've tried were far worse than the sickness. Speech bans might censor some hurtful speech but would empower government to silence minorities and strip the intellectual marketplace of legitimate and needed expression-the kind that creates positive, social change precisely because it is minority and challenges the sins of the group.
2. Hate speech bans don't work.
Genuine racism and false hatreds exist in this world. Bans on hate speech, however, won't solve the problem. If you only break off a tick's body, its head will burrow deep beneath the skin. The only effective response to bad ideas is the truth. We should combat falsehoods with more and freer discussion, not less.
3. Hate laws aren't necessary.
ADL claims an epidemic of hate sweeps America that can only be fought with stiffened penalties for bias-driven crimes. Yet the FBI's 2005 Uniform Crime Report shows alleged hate crimes form a tiny 1/15 of 1 percent of all crime in America. Law enforcers' time would be far better spent fighting the 99.85 percent of crime that's happening every minute across our nation rather than getting entangled in discerning and testifying against the perceived motivations of a tiny minority of criminals.
Hate laws would require vast government bureaucracies, complicate law enforcement, and distract police and prosecutors from dealing with actual physical crimes. Government and law enforcement should focus on criminal acts, not words or motivations, in a nation where someone is murdered every 22 minutes, raped every 5, robbed every 49 seconds and burgled every 10 seconds. Discerning and prosecuting criminal motivations would only be a good plan if law enforcers had God's omniscience and time to waste. Ours have neither.
4. Hate speech bans are unconstitutional.
Because the First Amendment underwrites our most precious civil liberty, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against speech bans. In 1972 the Court declared, "[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its contents." (Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92)
Some forms of speech are restricted; these include threats and "fighting words" that incite "an immediate breach of peace." But these restrictions are (and must remain) extremely narrow and content-neutral-the government is not allowed to censor speech based on the viewpoint it expresses but only on whether it constitutes an immediate threat. Hate laws, however, would punish the viewpoints expressed in speech, in violation of the Constitution.
International use of ADL-designed hate laws shows that the first kinds of speech to be sanctioned are extreme right, white nationalist speech and Holocaust reductionism. The average person is slow to defend such speech. But hate laws quickly broaden to punish forms of expression the average citizen would never dream of stifling. Sweden's 2002 modified hate law, for example, explicitly exposes Christian sermons to prosecution!
All forms of controversial political and religious speech are potentially vulnerable to prosecution under hate laws. This contradicts Supreme Court Justice Holmes Jr. who said in 1929, "[I]f there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment [loyal defense] than any other, it is the principle of free thought-not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate."
5. Speech bans will be used against the very minorities they were meant to protect.
Speech bans silence some to protect the feelings of others. But when the government has power to silence expression that power can be wielded against the very people who once enjoyed its protection. Liberals, the champions of unrestrained speech in the 1960s, now vote as a bloc in Congress to support speech restrictions. Yet already in countries such as Canada, England and Australia, leftist critics of Islam have become the victims of hate laws, indicted for religious "hate speech."
Leftist artists Rowan Atkinson and Salman Rushdie realize hate laws don't just threaten white nationalists like David Duke but liberals as well- they recently fought for revision of Britain's hate law because it could be used to outlaw art that blasphemes or criticizes religion. Atkinson and Rushdie are just a few of hate laws' leftist critics who know that persons of all political persuasions have a stake in defeating this legislation.
6. Speech bans chill legitimate and valuable speech.
Under the threat of possible indictment, many people will refrain from discussing controversial but important ideas. Speech bans are often broad and vague, leaving citizens unsure what might get them hauled into court.
This is what has happened in American workplaces, where hostile work environment law has left many employees unsure what they can say. Many Americans avoid all controversial speech and voluntarily refrain from exercising First Amendment rights at work. Hate laws would extend this dangerous minefield to the national political scene.
Legal philosopher Edmond Cahn points out that speech bans would leave our bookshelves empty. "[T]he officials could begin by prosecuting anyone who distributes the Christian gospels, because they contain many defamatory statements not only about Jews but also about ChristiansThen the officials could ban Greek literature for calling the rest of the world "barbarians." Roman authors could be suppressed because when they were not defaming the Gallic and Teutonic tribes, they were disparaging the ItaliansThen there is Shakespeare, who openly affronts the French, the Welsh, the Danes" (Beyond the Burning Cross, E. Cleary, Random House, 1994)
7. Speech bans greatly reduce the possibility of healthy, democratic change.
Criminalizing speech that expresses "hate" or "bias" would require us to outlaw history's most valuable speech, especially the political and religious speech that threatens social stasis and ignites progress.
Aggressive speech is often the only tool available to political, social, or religious minorities whose access to government lobbying and mass media is limited. Those agitating for social change often need to use inflammatory and even "hateful" language to startle the public into hearing their message. Socrates compared himself to a horsefly biting the lazy flanks of his republic. We should certainly know enough by now to prefer the annoyance of stinging speech (even when we don't see its value) to a tyrannical majority that plods, unchallenged, toward slavery.
Americans are so used to our mudslinging, no-holds-barred political discourse that we find it hard to envision the way freedom of speech could disappear. But the freedom we enjoy is extremely rare in history, and quickly lost. Free expression for intellectuals is the first thing to go when tyrants rise to power; the history of oppressive regimes makes it clear that freedom of political speech is a delicate exception and the overarching tendency is for majorities or elites to get power and silence all opposition.
8. The government's interest in reducing violent crime does not outweigh our interest in preserving civil liberty.
Hate law advocates including the ADL argue that hateful speech incites violence, and appeal to the government's interest in reducing violent crime. But it would be unfair to ban, for instance, white racist speech or Christian sermons against homosexuality without also banning the plethora of other speech that might incite crime. Gangsta rap and videogames would be open to censure; we would also have to ban pornography, especially sadomasochistic porn, which certainly inspires violence against women.
Yet bans against these kinds of speech have been repeatedly declared unconstitutional. The government has an interest in lowering violent crime of all stripes but has always found the value of the First Amendment to be greater. It's unjust to argue that a few kinds of speech must be banned because they possibly incite violence (e.g., criticism of Jewish actions or homosexuality) yet permit huge categories of speech (violent sexual entertainment) that do the same. This would happen, however, under hate laws' unequal and partial enforcement. The ADL is not truly driven by the desire to reduce violent crime but rather to enforce a social and political orthodoxy.
Instead of passing a hate law that would shatter the First Amendment and impossibly complicate law enforcement, people concerned with hate-driven crimes should focus on improving our existing justice system and making sure hard crimes don't go unpunished.
9. Speech bans are offensively paternalistic.
They presume we can't think for ourselves, reject racist or hateful ideas for ourselves, or deal with the hurt caused by others' free expression. Are we such children that we need the government to cover our ears? Speech bans especially condescend toward the minorities they portray as helpless victims whose feelings must be sheltered from ideas they can't combat in a free intellectual market.
10. Speech bans permit government to do something an individual could not morally do.
Frederic Bastiat's classic treatise on The Law says government exists only to prevent injustice by defending our basic rights to person, liberty, and property. Government does not exist to guarantee our economic outcomes, redistribute our wealth, or protect our psyches. Speech bans would empower government to silence individuals by force. This is immoral whether it's one person silencing another person or the government silencing a fringe group of dissenters. Human fallibility requires at least enough humility to allow others to question, challenge, and dissent from our ideas. John Stuart Mill explains, "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
11. Speech bans deny self-determination and individual freedom by criminalizing self-expression.
By censoring speech, hate laws censor thought and restrict our access to ideas. This is the essence of mind control. They deny the personal growth that comes from sharing ideas-including hateful, prejudiced, or false ideas-and having them challenged in a free intellectual marketplace.
Hate law speech bans have been repeatedly declared unconstitutional and would rend the very foundation of our freedom and democracy. Far from combating hate, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is actually the most hateful and enslaving legislation to ever reach Congress; it would invade states' rights in law enforcement, enabling a hate crimes bureaucracy to police our thoughts and expression. Government could censor by force all speech that dissents from the reigning orthodoxy. Every American must speak up now in defense of the freedom for which our forefathers gave their very lives.
Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity. It is also one of the most dangerous rights, because freedom of expression means the freedom to express one's discontent with the status quo and the desire to change it. As such, it is one of the most threatened rights, with governments - and even human rights groups - all over the world constantly trying to curtail it.
Make your voice heard today or it will be silenced tomorrow.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government. . . lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle! Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
Edward R. Murrow
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it."
"“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists."
Martin Luther King Jr.
"An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. "