Granting the State Plenary Power to Determine the Truth Is to Unwind the Enlightenment; the Platforms that Are Otherwise Given to Academics and Experts Are Denied to Dissenters, No Matter Their Credentials

Lavik argues (ibid.) that the utilitarian justification for free speech first propounded by John Stuart Mill does not apply to ‘a well-organised and wellfunded campaign by a person or group with authority in society, which keeps repeating the same untrue and damaging claims about climate change, without mentioning conclusive counter-arguments’. This is so because while freedom of speech generally advances the pursuit of truth, this is not true for utterances that are not sincerely meant.

Not stated is how it is that the truth of a claim, and the sincerity behind it, are to be judged. By what principle might a threshold of sincerity be set, above which speech is permitted and below which it is prohibited? The establishment of that standard is itself to make a truth claim and therefore to prevent debate about whatever is in contention.

In short, granting the state plenary power to determine the truth is to unwind the Enlightenment. No dissent from established truths could ever be tolerated.

For this reason, it is not an exaggeration to say that climate change alarmists are attempting to establish themselves as a kind of clerisy. If that sounds hyperbolic, consider the following argument, presumably made sincerely, by a pair of Australian academics (Shearman and Smith cited in Berg 2007):

[T]here is some merit in the idea of a ruling elite class of philosopher kings. These are people of high intellect and moral virtue … These new philosopher kings or ecoelites will be as committed to the value of life as the economic globalists are to the values of money and greed.

An elite class of people to protect unimpeachable truths, to proselytise the good word to the unconverted, and to tend to the needs of the initiated – climate change has taken on a quasi-religious quality. It shouldn’t surprise then that since climate change sceptics are dissenters from the high church of scientism, they must be silenced and banished.

The elite cabal of scientists who dominate climate change research have been militant in shunning those with whom they disagree. Their instinct is to protect their turf rather than to engage in free debate. This contributes to a powerful chilling effect that, in concert with the state’s campaign of harassment, discourages dissenters from voicing their opinions.

For example, the platforms that are otherwise given to academics and experts are denied to dissenters, no matter their credentials. Danish statistician Bjørn Lomborg came to prominence in 2001 with his book The Sceptical Environmentalist, in which he argued that many policies advocated by climate change alarmists would be ineffective and wasteful. In 2015, Lomborg agreed to move his research centre to the University of Western Australia, with funding coming from the Australian government. But under pressure from academic staff and student activists, the university’s vice chancellor pulled out of the deal. Subsequent discussions with Flinders University floundered immediately as staff and students reacted angrily to the idea that someone might ever produce research they disagreed with (Hasham 2015).

--Simon Breheny, “Free Speech and Climate Change,” in Climate Change: The Facts, 2017, ed. Jennifer Marohasy (Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs, 2017), e-book.