debate, debate on climate | So

Steinar Jacobsen, a climate realist

Reader’s letter This is a discussion post, written by an outside contributor. The publication expresses the author’s positions.

Antonio Caetano de Abreu Freire Egas Muñez Motoc I 1949 Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine For her discovery of the therapeutic value of cloves in some types of psychosis. Norsk Lexicon Store Quote:

“Based on the daily treatment one encountered in the 1940s and 1950s, before antipsychotics became popular, many psychiatrists considered the procedure to have positive effects. But there were also psychiatrists who consistently distanced themselves from the method in the 1980s and 1990s. There has been much debate about the ethical aspects of this method. The debate led to this. Parliament In 1996 he did one show fairness compensation For people who have had their lobes separated. Then hundreds of lobes scientists received monetary compensation. ”

This shows that the Nobel Prize does not automatically guarantee that science has been decided. But the exchange of opinions, among professionals, ordinary people and politicians, eventually led to the discontinuation of this practice.

However, it does not seem that such a debate can take place in Norway today. We now have a climate of debate that stifles any debate that criticizes today’s politically acceptable “facts”.

In the climate debate, there is a lid on the exchange of opinions – the opinion police claim that “science has decided”. Terror of opinion follows activists, activist researchers, the media, politicians, and the bureaucracy. The academy is now filled with plenty of wage earners whose livelihoods are directly linked to climate hysteria and the associated economic revolution as long as the fiscal and government tax revenues and oil fund persist. Not only scientific, but to a very high degree also the social sciences and the associated political support for these processes is absolutely essential.

To protect this existence, over time, and through the social appeal of self-interest, a quasi-fascist climate defense has been formed which through platform bans, professional bans, incitement and harassment will create fear and frightening alternative knowledge that could lead to humiliating conclusions of the ongoing revolution. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s pure observations we see every day that represent a revolution in both economics and political values that we are witnessing now. Traditional Western scientific freedom, diversity, and the drive for pluralism in academia have been replaced by powerful authoritarian currents demanding unity and unification with strong fronts toward freedom of research, writing, and speech. The obvious fascist currents are back, dressed in green this time.

How long will it go on like this?

In fact, no one can assume that “science is stable”.