Cancel Culture Censors 'Consensus' Critics

Albert Einstein knew a thing or two about reasons to be skeptical regarding excessive faith in scientific consensus.

When attacked in a 1931 German publication regarding his theory of relativity, “A Hundred Scientists Against Einstein,” he responded, “If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”

Einstein also famously said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong.”

And then there’s the matter of special motive agendas frequently entering the fray … when so called “consensus” science becomes political science.

The only scientific agenda should be to get facts right; to explain what is known and provable, and what is not; and to clarify replicable testing methodologies that apply a tried-and-true “scientific method” to advance building blocks of understanding.

The scientific method also fundamentally involves ideas that haven’t been proven, can’t be proven, or are simply wrong: theories; observations; possibilities to be explored and far more likely than not, to be discarded through lengthy and elaborate processes of trial and error.

There’s a big difference between thinking we’re likely right — having opinions — versus telling others what to believe under pain of moral peril, while smugly and disdainfully demonizing, misrepresenting and/or entirely censoring unbelievers.

Sometimes these attacks on free and open discourse entail factual omissions, sometimes exaggerations, and sometimes downright fabricated frauds.

We’re witnessing many of each such occurrences happening recently. Spectacular examples involve COVID and climate reporting posing as faux science with enormously — even dangerous — consequences.

Crisis of COVID Confusion

The entirely unexpected deadly and traumatic COVID-19 pandemic has led to enormous public confusion regarding how best to minimize mortal risks to ourselves, our loved ones and those most vulnerable.

Caught medically off guard with this new virus strain, reasonable people shouldn’t have expected “experts” to immediately and accurately determine its origin, diagnose its mechanisms of contagion, nor prescribe effective preventive safeguards, therapeutic interventions and critical-case remedies.

Nevertheless, we’re since learning that much of that vital information we have depended on hasn’t been scientifically competent nor honest.

There is growing evidence of a protracted political coverup of a fact that the human-engineered virus escaped from a laboratory — rather than from a wet market — in Wuhan, China as dozens of international scientists first published in a statement in the distinguished medical journal Lancet in “solidarity” with claims by Chinese colleagues.

Solidarity is a social authoritarian category, not a scientific judgment.

We have now also learned that the top medical guy in charge, Dr. Anthony Fauci, hasn’t been truthful in claiming last June, “a lot of what you’re seeing as attacks on me, quite frankly are attacks on science.”

Fauci admitted that he first disingenuously stated that masks were ineffective in part because there was a shortage and wanted to preserve the limited supply for medical workers who needed them most … hardly a scientific or honest position.

And after repeatedly stating under oath before Congress that his National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has “unequivocally” never funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan laboratory that may have contributed to the pandemic, a letter to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) from NIH’s principal deputy director, Lawrence A. Tabak, clearly says otherwise.

We’re now expected to believe, based on “following the science,” that a nonsensical and unprecedented federal mandate should be allowed requiring all government employees, including military personnel, to be vaccinated with Fauci’s previously discredited Trump Project Warp Speed timetable miracle regardless of whether they have already gained natural immunity, work from home or have religious or medical reasons for refusal.

Moreover, why should those vaccines now be pushed upon young children with extremely low COVID morbidity risk, and yet also with no possible data to assess documented, and potentially even greater, long-term inoculation health consequences?

Climate of Controversy

Based on a new nearly 4,000-page report perfectly timed with a Halloween launch date, the UN’s current Climate Change Conference in Glasgow will proclaim once again that we are facing the very last chance to save the planet from an imminently hellish human-caused fate.

Our only final last chance hope, it seems, is to immediately provide hundreds of billions of dollars in reparations to other countries for climate damage our CO2-belching smokestacks and SUVs are causing, and get on board with switching America’s entire energy grid from hydrocarbons to reliance on windmills and sunbeams.

Things are, in fact, so dire that the preamble of this long-awaited draft summary release of this sixth IPCC assessment report feverishly warns that “no one is safe” from a warming planet.

Why?

Among other things, Session 13, for example, addresses a previously unchronicled new area of crisis, “Climate and Gender.”

All of this is purportedly based upon “science,” and don’t dare disbelieve any of it at certain penalty of being labeled a “climate denier.” The “climate debate is settled,” they will tell you.

And what has really changed since the previous 2019 IPCC scare fest in Madrid?

Not much.

There is absolutely no observational evidence of dangerous warming, more extreme weather, flooding of coastal cities, or any of the other horrors that the global warming alarmists attribute to increasing CO2 concentrations.

Real data shows, for example, that U.S. land-falling hurricanes and droughts are actually less frequent and severe than in the past, and the global prevalence of forest fires have actually declined about 25% since 2003.

And although the report says the rate of global sea-level rise has been increasing over the past 50 years, it fails to mention that it was increasing almost as rapidly 90 years ago before decreasing strongly for 40 years.

One thing hasn’t changed a bit since Al Gore admitted on PBS regarding an October 2018 IPCC report: “The language the IPCC used in presenting it was torqued up a little bit, appropriately. How do they get the attention of policymakers around the world?”

As for saving the planet from climate change … maybe not.

Quoting Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s former chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti in 2020, “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all … Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? ... Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

In summary, that pretty much says all about the science you really need to know.