Free Speech and climate.
Klimarealistene is the major oppositon in Norway to the IPCC and the Climate crisis industry. This group, which includes many prominent scientists from the Nordic countries, has recently asked for funding from a foundation defending free speech. A small amount was granted but the importance here is the recognition that there is today in Europe a need to defend the right of free speech in the climate debate.
Lack of climate free speech in public space
We find that the media in Norway are almost invariably closed to anyone disagreeing with the IPCC and their supporters, due to complex reasons and that the climate field in very limited extent has had room for the free word in the public sphere. Whereas in the two major EU debates regarding EU enrtry in modern times it was unthinkable with a biased moderator and only YES supporters in the debate panel, this bias is the general rule in the current climate debate. The debate is characterized not by scientific arguments but unscientific authority building and control techniques abound. The main topic can not be discussed publicly – the question of how big the impact of increased CO2 actually is – the most obvious scientific research topic in need of clarification.
Our constitution should protect the right of free speech
In a democracy the people should have the correct information, this clearly means that the information must come from both the main scientific directions. Only in such a situation do the public have a sufficient basis needed to find the right policy, regardless of which side is correct. Government and management goes against the Constitution, with the impairment of free speech. That our counterpart largely argues anti-scientifically is another point which we shall return to later .
Media and democracy
We are applying for funding in order to shape a more balanced debate that strengthens democracy, where the social perspective is to focus on resource use without impact and scientific principles in the public arena at a time when so many actors argue under false flag but with a science -like rhetoric.