Wednesday, 2 October 2019

Freedom of Speech: Benjamin Franklin

Cliff Mass (source: Wikipedia)
Clifford F. "Cliff" Mass is a professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of WashingtonMass maintains a popular weblog (Ed: aka blog) in which he posts regular articles on meteorology, Pacific Northwest weather history, and the impacts of climate change[8] written for the general public. According to Mass, "Global warming is an extraordinarily serious issue, and scientists have a key role to play in communicating what is known and what is not about this critical issue.[9]"

Note that Cliff is from the alarmist side.

Global warming is an extraordinarily serious issue, and scientists have a key role to play in communicating what is known and what is not about this critical issue.
Most alarmists shut down debate; don't approve of free speech.

However, this week, when sites like "The Conservation" have decided to censor "denialist's" comments, Cliff has come out on the side of free speech: (link)

The University of Washington Should Not Censor Faculty Social Media

This (Cliff's) blog will describe a series of serious violations of freedom of speech and academic
freedom at the University of Washington.It will describe how a highly partisan Dean and her senior staff at UW’s College of the Environment (COENV) have suppressed diversity of viewpoints and censored the social media of faculty and staff, including this blog.  I will review apparent violations both of the faculty code and constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

What I will describe should concern you, no matter where you are on the political spectrum.  Progressive or Conservative, Democrat, Republican or Independent, you should care deeply about the suppression of viewpoint diversity and the restriction of freedom of speech in favor of the partisan agenda of a group of university administrators. 

Their actions are a direct threat to the very nature of the University of Washington and our democracy.  
And I need your help to rectify the situation. 

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of 
speech.” Benjamin Franklin


  1. I will say this much about the idea of open debate. If I believe in what I am saying, I should be able to defend it. If I believe that "bad stuff" is going to happen, I should be able to SHOW you why I believe that. I agree with the principle of debate because you CAN win me over to your side if you can show me why what you say is right and what I believe is wrong.

    That has always been the crux of my disbelief in AGW or whatever you want to call it now. Al Gore walking down the length of two "similar but unconnected graphs" and implying that one causes the other, and it does, but in reverse. But by not connecting them in anyway, he shows you nothing but says "believe," and closes debate. It has been the obvious displays of flawed data and the refusal to come to the table and discuss the issue that has placed me firmly on the side that believes its all natural variability.

    When that was followed by an obvious attack on the quality and continuity of the lifeblood of society, electricity, the only thing that made sense was a willful attempt to force depopulation by Mother Nature when the weather turns cold, and the power turns off. It casts those pushing for this in a whole new light. One that no moral or ethical person would want shining on them.

    1. Excellent comment Anonymous. I know exactly what You mean. I lost my job (in the coal-fired electricity generation industry) thanks to the evil Malthusian agenda you refer to which is hidden within the UN's invented AGW Trojan Horse.
      The whole thing is really about: 'How to destroy Western civilization by stealth'. The scientifically illiterate plebs still cannot see the huge (red) elephant in the room. And just when I thought these humanity loathing goons couldn't stoop any lower, they're now hiding behind innocent children to do their bidding.

    2. You have to understand something. This really isn't about destroying "Western Civilization," it is about destroying the civilization that the world currently knows, and it really isn't a "communist" takeover, although those that might be behind it may be closely related to communism in many ways.

      Should there be an oncoming ice age, which there is every reason to believe to be the case, this is about destroying the civilizations and the populations in those regions that will feel the full effects of the cold - northern hemisphere, northern countries and to a degree, Australia, southern South America, and possibly south Africa. It should leave intact, for the most part, those "third world nations" that are essentially being suppressed by not allowing them to move forward. they will be the perfect lower caste society to maintain the upper caste of the elite.

      The use of "the children" in this war on civilization is because we are all told that the children are the future. That is not the case. When they attain rational responsibility, which we euphemistically call "grow up," they will be the future. As children, they are not since they reactions are mostly emotional reactions to everything. Tom O

  2.  I love your article and may you'll find interest about Justin Bieber's Life Story


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!