Freedom of Environmental Speech

Two distinctly different events occurred in November regarding education and discussion about climate issues. One, in Florida, was a constructive effort to create an atmosphere where scientists could speak directly to a diverse cross section of non-scientist citizens, who by free will, came to hear about the controversial subject. The other, in Oregon, was a selective suppression of science effectively by an effete group seemingly afraid of even the appearance of not totally submitting to the politically based money train. If you think that previous sentence sounds harsh or extreme, then that whole freedom of speech idea may be lost on you. However, if it sends a cold chill down your spine, you are probably a person who actually understands ethics and appreciates the rule of law. It has been our experience that freedom of speech in the U.S. is severely limited if you even raise the idea that IPCC might not be a divine being. Likewise, globally, ethics has been often tossed out to make room for the climate mafia rule of terror.

Let’s first talk about the event where free speech was encouraged. The small city of Crestview, Florida has a citizenry that has a history of making things better in spite of the cards that were dealt. Once again they rose to the occasion when on November 3 the local businesses through the Chamber of Commerce, a few individuals, one scientific association chapter and about 125 average citizens were exposed to information about climate at the Crestview Environmental Symposium that was more than a little fascinating. Why fascinating? Because, so many of those who were not working in the field asked why has this kind of information been hidden for so long? Why was so much of what they were used to hearing/reading about this topic so very different from the well documented presentations of Dr. David Legates and Dr. Willie Soon? The answer may well lie in the media that covered this event…nearly none….. except for one brave radio station and one clear thinking community TV group- not one single print media or main stream affiliate showed up for the event nor for the media luncheon that was scheduled the following day. The other 20 odd media invitations that went out not only saw zero presence, but these so-called journalists didn’t even bother to reply to email or phone calls from the organizing committee, local elected city and county officials, and not even the business folks they sell substantial advertising to routinely. This one evening event garnered more attendees than several political debate forums did in the prior local election cycle! Let the record show, these two noted scientists did not make a dime for traveling half way across the country to speak. This was a refreshing difference from the establishment IPCC-tainted cheerleaders that so often demand big bucks (and fancy accommodations) just to show up and mangle the science. Now that’s news!

Because so many in the audience were not in the environmental science field, there was a lengthy introduction that framed the issues historically from the mid 1950’s to present. In that introduction was the following quote. “ How would the average citizen know which side to believe in a scientific debate? The answer is easy ……. see who debates the whole issue and see who wants to cut off the debate. It’s an age old problem that shows its evil face whether it’s property rights, racial equality, religious freedom or anything else dear to mankind. Climate science and the debate has never been anywhere close to being settled and yet it(the debate) has been stifled at every turn.” After two hours of fundamental science being delivered to this diverse crowd, the response was a standing ovation- literally. That too is news to have a general citizenry stand up and cheer a technical program. It is no secret that the politically correct, but flawed, position of AGW alarmism has enjoyed almost a monopoly, by design, at the podium . I suspect they felt it was the first time they had heard the truth with such clarity. Think about that result as compared to the travesty in Portland, Oregon where some in the scientific community wanted to open a wider discussion on the climate issue but the institutions of higher learning shut it down, some may say,ambush style. Were they so fearful of a loss of funding from on high because A SCIENTIFIC TOPIC WAS TO BE DISCUSSED WITH MORE THAN THE ONE ALLOWED (state approved) CONCLUSION? If you thought you may have just felt a seismic event, probably not, as it was more likely Galileo and Jefferson turning over in their graves. Both science and freedom were at risk this week in Portland in what some feel may be due to political whim and greed for money from the public trough.

Now some might think the Florida audience was less than authentically diverse average citizens. The good folks at the free speech version of a climate science discussion in Florida was not some hand-picked band of anti-environment goons. Instead, it was actually just regular folks who have been wondering for a long time about this issue but do not work in the environmental field…CPA’s, avionics engineers, small shop owners, retired folks, active and retired military, students, small service contractors, lawyers and so on. On the other hand, sadly enough, it was entirely necessary to have visible security for the gathering as too often the usual suspects that oppose free speech for science have a history of aggressive disruption instead of debating the facts. However, our comparative stories prove the point that disruption does not have to be only in the style of “ Occupy Science” radicals screaming in your face. Unfortunately even more effective disruptions can occur as was the case November 29th in Portland where no free discussion was allowed that night at one facility by the very folks who, you might think, would be pressing hard for open debate. There was scant coverage the story that credentialed scientists could well have been denied freedom of scientific speech? If true, that kind of behavior is inexcusable and unveils the lack of ethical behavior by those who make decisions for institutions or are in positions of public trust like the media. If the media wants to enjoy freedom of the press, they need to support freedom of speech! Oregon apparently needs to add one more endangered species to their list…. freedom of scientific speech.

If you like your science free from censorship( as most but not everyone does), you can view the Crestview Symposium in full( two parts) at www.cvctv.info . Click on the Community button and those files with the burning globes will be well worth the time to watch and gain some perspective. Each has the same introduction but Dr. Legates is Part 1 and Dr. Soon is Part 2.

__________________________

Dennis Mitchell is certified as a Qualified Environmental Professional( QEP) by the Institute of Professional Environmental Practice( IPEP) and is presently the chair of Ethics Committee for IPEP. He was a recipient of multiple wards for career long achievements in the environmental field. He was chair of the Climate Change Panel at the 104th International A&WMA Conference . He has been a member of Louisiana Society of CPA’s since 1985.

Muncelle Mitchell, Practicing Attorney ( Mississippi and Florida); Member of the Mississippi Military Affairs Committee. She is an active member of the International, Florida Section and the Coastal Plains Chapter of the International Air & Waste Management Association . She was a member of the Climate Change Panel at the 104th International A&WMA Conference.