The point I made – about the criminal enforcement of state ideology – has since been reinforced by the disgusting behavior of 20 (so far) attorneys-general from California to the US Virgin Islands ganging up to investigate and charge “climate deniers” for the crime of holding a different opinion and exercising their First Amendment right to express it. As I noted in my testimony, a group of lavishly enriched climate scientists led by Professor Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University recently urged the President to prosecute climate dissenters under RICO racketeering laws. In fact, the behavior of Shukla and his gang more closely resembles that of racketeers – as does the conspiracy of state attorneys-general. The freedom-of-information release of Shukla’s emails is most instructive. As one professor, Alex Bozmoski, cautions his colleagues:
It’s just an impossible topic to not scream hard-core left. You’re talking about prosecuting conservatives.
Quite. This is the pitiful state to which “settled science” has been reduced: show trials for apostates.
Senator Ed Markey from Massachusetts did not take kindly to the presence of dissenters in the world’s most augustly august body. Here’s me and the very courageous Dr Judith Curry pushing back against the extraordinarily ill-mannered Bay State brute: More.
Not to delude ourselves: Many science bureaucrats will find such a state of affairs convenient. In science, as in religion, the ability to just shut up critics can stand in for achievement. It’s especially helpful if there haven’t been that many achievements to boast of recently.
It will take time, after all, to undermine falsifiability and to institute non-evidence-based science. Shutting up small groups of dissenters work much faster.
See also: Bill Nye and jail time for climate change dissenters
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Why the case is important: Because it puts the courts in the position of adjudicating science as such: