In September, Tucker Carlson of Fox News hosted a segment about the movement to suppress climate change deniers in our country. In brief, there are some in the United States who think that one person expressing their personal views that run contrary to the opinions touted by a biased mainstream media should be censored from publication and presentation. As Carlson reported, some even say that climate change deniers should face criminal charges for their work.
Yet again, we see the sensitivities of the left trying to commandeer what should be state’s rights issues as federal issues.
There is too much left-leaning bias in the publications we put into our schools and in (much of) our mainstream media. Today, we see many platforms arguing to eliminate free-speech protections for the sanctity of “safety zones.” In this regard, the debate surrounding climate change is no exception. Why should we shame scientists who, through their research, decide that issues of “planet-warming” are not quite as dire as the media will have them seem? Planet Earth has a history of heating and cooling patterns— recall the ice age— that differ drastically from age to age. And aside from the fact that our scientific knowledge as it concerns our future, according to this period of global warming, may be limited by the ecological and meteorological “norm” of the last century, we also must admit that the government should not have a right to federal oversight in the area of environmental concerns and policies.
The environment is a states-rights issue. How can it not be? States have their own ecological concerns and their own economic industries to consider. Why should the Capitol Hill swamp try and regulate the coal emissions of this country instead of those in coal mining country who would face significant financial hardship with the dissolution of the coal industry? Good and hard-working American citizens lose their jobs when the government moves labor out of the country or completely suffocates industry through their non-investment or (what is even more dangerous) undue and arbitrary regulations. Interventionist government practices and policies do not end with industry and other regulatory concerns as shown by recent events. The government has decided to make it its practice to sequester off large cordons of public land as “protected areas” without a care for those who live on or adjacent to the property. It is federal oversight to new heights.
Finally, we need to think about the impact of silencing climate change doubters in our schools and classrooms. There is a practice of restricting the beliefs of those who do not fully believe in the doctrine of an end-all-be-all global warming in the 21st century that is touted as absolute fact without room for citizens’ dissonance and scientific disagreement. We should leave it up to states and state-level education departments to decide what curriculum about climate change they will include in their public school curriculum. It would be even better to allow the final and specific curriculum decisions to occur at the level of the individual school, parent, and child, but I know such policy aspiration will never happen in today’s divisive political culture that dismisses the concept of personal liberty in favor of federal overreach. While the United States must renew its commitment to preserving First Amendment freedoms in all spaces, it is so crucial that our places of learning— especially our schools— protect and reflect the free speech ideals and aspirations of our Founding Fathers. In the case of climate change education, our democratic commitment to free speech means that all our schools must take great cares to include materials from climate change deniers and climate change believers, just as they should for Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution.
I believe the climate is getting warmer, but I also believe that those who don’t should have equal opportunity to express their views and should not be belittled out of their right to free speech. I also think our curriculum in public schools should reflect the diversity of scientific opinions concerning climate change in the United States.
A Concerned Citizen