Georgetown Students Shut Down Forum Of Experts Opposed To Climate Change

I have previously written about the toleration shown by colleges and universities in students and faculty disrupting speakers with whom they disagree. This has included protests where students have been prevented from studying as other students accuse them of privilege or racism.  Administrators at schools like Dartmouth have allowed such abusive conduct to occur without disciplinary action, even apologizing to the protesters.  Students at Columbia University library prevented College Republicans from speaking at a meeting while students at Northwestern prevented a class from being held. The latest example occurred last week at Georgetown where the Georgetown University College Republicans were prevented from holding an event critical of climate change theories. It is precisely the type of diversity of opinion that should be welcomed on a campus, but student protesters stopped others from hearing these views. As with the prior incidents, there is no indication of any punishment for the students in stopping the exercise of free speech on the Georgetown campus.

Notably, the article on the event by the college newspaper is titled “College Republicans’ Climate Forum Rebuttal Met With Protests.” In truth, the forum was not “met” by protesters but prevented from being held by protesters.

The students brought together experts and advocates to criticize climate change views. I have long subscribed to the science of climate change, but I still support such a forum as a vital part of our educational mission. Protesters however refused to allow others to hear opposing views, but yelling and blowing whistles. Students were removed but not disciplined. They were threatened with school discipline if they returned. They did not have to. The forum could not continue. In other words, they succeeded in defeating the free speech rights of other students. Georgetown did little beyond an institutional shrug.

There is no indication of discipline even after police had to be called.

The use of the heckler’s veto is now being used to silence those who hold opposing views on issues from abortion to climate change to contemporary politics. By not taking action, universities like Georgetown are enabling this conduct and stripping conservatives students and faculty of the benefits of not just free speech but open intellectual engagement.

220 thoughts on “Georgetown Students Shut Down Forum Of Experts Opposed To Climate Change”

    1. Squeeky – Greta Thunberg and her father are going to be driving through Mexico to Central America. What are their odds of not being killed or kidnapped?

  1. Professor Guus Berkhout
    The Hague
    guus.berkhout@clintel.org

    23 September 2019

    Sr. António Guterres, Secretary-General, United Nations,
    United Nations Headquarters,
    New York, NY 10017, United States of America.

    Ms. Patricia Espinosa Cantellano, Executive Secretary,
    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
    UNFCCC Secretariat, UN Campus, Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1,
    53113 Bonn, Germany

    Your Excellencies,

    There is no climate emergency.

    A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors.

    The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power.

    We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.

    We ask you to place the Declaration on the agenda of your imminent New York session.

    We also invite you to organize with us a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020. The meeting will give effect to the sound and ancient principle no less of sound science than of natural justice that both sides should be fully and fairly heard. Audiatur et altera pars!

    Please let us know your thoughts about such a joint meeting.

    Yours sincerely, ambassadors of the European Climate Declaration,

    Professor Guus Berkhout The Netherlands
    Professor Richard Lindzen USA
    Professor Reynald Du Berger French Canada
    Professor Ingemar Nordin Sweden
    Terry Dunleavy New Zealand
    Jim O’Brien Rep. of Ireland
    Viv Forbes Australia
    Professor Alberto Prestininzi Italy
    Professor Jeffrey Foss English Canada
    Professor Benoît Rittaud France
    Morten Jødal Norway
    Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Germany
    Rob Lemeire Belgium
    The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley UK

    There is no climate emergency
    A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate polities should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.

    Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
    The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

    Warming is far slower than predicted
    The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

    Climate policy relies on inadequate models
    Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

    CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
    CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crop worldwide.

    Global warming has not increased natural disasters
    There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.

    Policy must respect scientific and economic realities
    There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.

    https://www.technocracy.news/climate-scientists-write-to-un-there-is-no-climate-emergency/?fbclid=IwAR0lRReD7_DoZuExCKK3fPLxIcUu88kYRfdhhyGOEdLmuZknnVyQqfqIZO4

  2. OT:

    Antifa Update: More Evidence of Democratic Collusion

    September 17, 2019Christopher Holton

    Two months ago, President Trump opined that perhaps the violent Leftist group Antifa should be designated a terrorist organization. Senator Ted Cruz called for the U.S. Justice Department to use RICO statutes to prosecute members of the organization.

    These calls followed numerous instances of Antifa violence, notably a firebomb attack on an ICE facility.

    Despite these violent acts, the Democratic party has failed to condemn Antifa and its violence.

    Some of the denials would be almost comical if the situation wasn’t so serious.

    Less than a month ago, BreitBart.com published a video and article of Democrat presidential candidates being asked to condemn Antifa violence. Here are some of the answers that were given:

    “I don’t know what Antifa is,” said Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).

    “Tell me about Antifa, tell me who Antifa is so I can tell you whether that person should be condemned or not,” said Washington Governor Jay Inslee, who later claimed, “I was thinking you were thinking of an individual,” and added, “I don’t know exactly this organization you’re referring to, but if it’s the one I’m thinking of, then yes.”

    “Thanks a lot for the question,” laughed Democrat primary presidential candidate Julián Castro in response to whether he would denounce Antifa.

    “No, I’m not denouncing anybody,” answered Democrat primary presidential candidate Marianne Williamson.

    Mayor Bill de Blasio (D-NY) refused to answer whether he would condemn Antifa.

    To say that these answers are troubling is putting it mildly.

    Then presidential candidate Senator Kirsten Gillibrand actually expects the American people to believe that she doesn’t know what Antifa is. In an age when elected officials are routinely called liars by their rivals, as well as the media, why has no one challenged her on this preposterous answer?

    The answers given by these Democrat presidential candidates range from cynical to absurd. Why are so-called “mainstream” Democrats so reluctant to condemn Antifa violence? Do they approve of the organization? Are they afraid to condemn Antifa?

    Antifa isn’t just a bunch of kids playing online in their parents’ basement. There are multiple examples of Antifa members among academia for example, like this professor in Iowa, who made violent threats.

    The organization presents a clear and present danger to the peaceful political process in America and a large part of our political establishment appears to approve of them.

    No one epitomizes this more than Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

    When Boston police arrested 36 people after a clash between Antifa and right-wing activists, 9 were charged with assault and battery on a police officer. Others were charged with crimes ranging from resisting arrest and disorderly conduct to assault with a deadly weapon.

    Rep. Ocasio-Cortez dutifully promoted the crowdfunding campaign which provided the legal fees for Antifa members arrested by the police.

    Imagine for a moment that the shoe was on the other foot. Suppose Republican elected officials refused to condemn right-wing violence or promoted a crowdfunding campaign in support of violent right-wing activists?

    Why are Democrat politicians not being held accountable for their tacit approval of leftist violence by Antifa?

Leave a Reply