Climate of inquisition
ARCOM, the French broadcasting watchdog, has issued a warning to SUD Radio for “climate disinformation”. This announcement prompted a reaction from one of our readers who, given the climate of inquisition, wishes to remain anonymous.
What a wonderful age, isn’t it, when scientific expression finds itself muzzled by climate lobbies hungry for censorship.
Is science no longer that perpetual quest for truth, a series of temporary consensuses constantly called into question and confronted with new data, new hypotheses?
And yet here is Arcom, the so-called guardian of broadcasting, turning into a climate inquisitor, hunting down and condemning any dissent from the climate doxa.
Let us take a moment to savour the irony of the situation: a scientific consensus, by definition, can only endure if it withstands the contradictions and criticisms levelled against it.
If a theory cannot withstand being challenged, then it has neither relevance nor value.
That is how science has always advanced, purifying itself in the fire of debate and dispute.
But apparently, for the knights of ecology, any deviation from the path marked out by the consensus is a heresy worthy of censorship.
I am a jurist, and in my field, developments in case law are even more tumultuous.
We often speak of “reversals” of case law, where a court decision can overturn years of precedent.
These reversals are not only accepted, but are also seen as signs of the vitality and adaptability of the law.
In reality, these Arcom warnings are a blatant demonstration of the dogmatic character that some seek to impose on climate theory.
They want to turn scientific debate into a monologue in which every dissenting voice is silenced.
This betrays a deep insecurity, a fear that the very foundations of their ideology might be shaken by the slightest breath of dissent.
Let us remember that today’s truth could be tomorrow’s laughing stock, just as yesterday’s truth is often rejected today.
Science is never set in stone; it evolves, it changes, it contradicts itself, and it is precisely this process that guarantees its progress.
Those who seek to lock science into an ideological straitjacket only hinder this progress.
In short, if the climate lobbies were truly confident in the soundness of their convictions, they would have no need to resort to censorship.
Scientific truth, after all, has never been afraid of debate.
Those who seek to flee it, however, thereby reveal the fragility of their position.
Maître Isée[1].
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of BAM!
Title, standfirst and references by BAM!
Illustration edited by BAM!
