OPINION: Suppressing dissent on climate change is chillingly anti-American

March 17, 2025

Gary Abernathy

TEA Columnist

When Vice President J.D. Vance addressed the Munich Security Conference, he rightfully chastised Germany and other European nations for inadequately defending freedom of speech – including speech that is considered offensive or counter to official government doctrine. 

Vance cited examples ranging from German police cracking down on “anti-feminist” comments, to the British government charging a man with silently praying near an abortion clinic, to the Scottish government warning citizens that even private prayer inside their homes might violate the law. 

Vance didn’t hold the United States harmless, noting that the Biden administration had “encouraged private companies to silence people who dared to utter what turned out to be an obvious truth” about the origins of Covid. 

Nowhere has the effort to crush independent thinking and banish opposing views been more evident than on the topic of climate change. The tactics used to discourage alternative voices regarding the cause of climate variations have ranged from public ridicule on major news outlets to “climate disinformation police” on social media platforms – speech and thought suppression efforts that radical groups like Greenpeace still call insufficient. 

Al Gore, the former vice president who can be considered the godfather of the modern climate cult, began referring to his error-filled climate change theories as “settled science” as early as 2006. He has often insisted that the consensus is greater on climate change than on anything with the exception of gravity. The far-left (formerly mainstream) media has repeated that mantra ad infinitum, with journalists ridiculing all who dare to express views counter to “scientific consensus.”

Labels such as “climate denier” have been affixed to those who fail to bend the knee at the climate change altar. Mockery is directed at anyone who suggests that every tornado, hurricane, wildfire, snowstorm, cold spell or hot spell might not be the result of mankind releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. 

Of course, “climate change” was originally referred to by Gore and others as “global warming,” accompanied by dire threats about the Earth’s rising temperature. When many scientific  measurements began to show that the planet was periodically cooling, “global warming” was out, “climate change” was in, so that the theories could be applied to any variation, warmer or cooler. 

Gore and others have often claimed that 97 percent of scientists agree with his climate change theories. But as many point out, that number reflects a shared belief in a range of theories about human contributions to a warming earth, not necessarily in the “greenhouse effect.” Other means of manmade warming include, for instance, the construction of steel and concrete cities. Agreeing that manmade structures can lead to localized temperature hikes is entirely different than agreeing with carbon dioxide-based apocalyptic theories. Nevertheless, scientists are all lumped into the same stat for the benefit of the climate cult’s propaganda. 

There are some basic truths about our energy sources that we should never be ridiculed for believing or dissuaded from proclaiming: natural gas is clean, abundant, and affordable energy; capturing methane emissions from landfills and other sources can generate energy and improve the environment; tax dollars spent on wind and solar technologies should be redirected to building U.S. refineries that can handle shale-based light sweet oil; energy infrastructure permitting should be simplified at the local, state, and federal levels. 

Along with declaring those and other obvious facts, no one should be deterred from expressing opinions contrary to favored climate change theories.  Many scientists, for instance, have long believed that an increase in carbon dioxide levels is making for a greener planet and is particularly good for food production, helping mitigate global hunger. Saying so should not be controversial. 

Climate change has always been a naturally occurring feature of our planet, including at least five ice ages – the most recent of which is technically still underway, geologists say. 

Even a recent Washington Post story by weather, climate and environmental reporter Kasha Patel acknowledged, “Amid persistent and frequent record heat, it may be surprising to hear that Earth is currently relatively cool — at least in the geologic record. For some reason, modern humans have flourished during this unusual, colder period. As scientists learn more about the planet’s past, they’re unraveling details about why it’s so rare, and how humans have evolved through it.”

Regardless of where one stands on the climate debate, we should all agree that the ability to express opinions contrary to official government conclusions – or even so-called scientific consensus – is paramount in a free society. America has always embraced the notion that in the marketplace of ideas, the best and most factual ones will ultimately carry the day. 

Almost as chilling as our planet’s many ice ages is the ongoing effort to suppress free thought and expression on climate and energy issues. Such censorship efforts are the antithesis of the scientific principle to constantly question everything – a principle we should insist on the most when climate cult censors are shouting the loudest. 

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.