Free Minds & Free Markets

Barbara Boxer and the Democratic Party Hold Two-Day Festival Against Free Speech

Reason Foundation among the many groups targeted outrageously—and falsely—for global-warming thoughtcrime

Yesterday, as normal Americans were wrapping up their work day, gearing up for baseball's home-run derby, or playing cell-phone video games in the park, 19 senators from the Democratic Party began taking to the floor of the World's Greatest Deliberative Body to express their collective "disapproval" of the way 33 organizations speak about climate change, and to urge these allegedly "interconnected" groups to cooperate maximally with various ongoing government investigations into their uncorrect opinions. The purpose of this two-day name-and-shame exercise, the senators bragged in a press release, is "to call out Koch brothers- and fossil fuel industry-funded groups that have fashioned a web of denial to block action on climate change."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a co-sponsor of the concurrent resolution under discussion, embodied the spirit of the exercise yesterday by decrying oil companies' "huge secret contributions" to "fake-science think tanks," which are "so dangerous" because they enable politicians "to keep right on blocking meaningful action while the earth slowly chokes on its own filth":

The #WebOfDenial/#TimetoCallOut exercise, designed openly to criminalize one side of a public policy debate by using such grossly inappropriate statutes as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), continues into its second day with an attack that adds illiteracy to intimidation: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) this afternoon is scheduled to decry those scurvy climate denialists at…um, the Reason Foundation?

Even Jane Mayer's 2010 New Yorker hit piece on the Koch Brothers, the ur-text of modern Kochspiracy-mongering, knew well enough to keep Reason—on whose Board of Trustees David Koch sits—out of the whole, they're-just-into-libertarianism-in-order-to-pollute narrative. For the easily discoverable reason that calling Reason a climate-change denialist is like calling Barbara Boxer a Republican. Since the targets of this shaming exercise are not being afforded the courtesy to rebut the charges in the forum at which they are being smeared, consider this a prebuttal: Sen. Boxer, if you present the Reason Foundation as a climate denier on the Senate floor, you will be lying. About one of your constituents.

But make no mistake: This coordinated campaign would be an assault on free speech even if it were not drenched in conspiratorial inaccuracy. Democratic lawmakers, attorneys general, and activists are systematically singling out free-market think tanks for potential criminal prosecution and one-sided disclosure requirements based on the content of the think tanks' research and commentary. They are literally trying to criminalize dissent. If successful, they will establish as "fraud" or "racketeering" any future think-tank work that runs afoul of political orthodoxy. President Trump will have a helpful precedent to sic his Justice Department on groups that advocate for free trade and open immigration. George Soros will no longer get away with his current levels of foundation transparency.

Sadly, this heavy-handed act of government intimidation will likely go as unnoticed as Hillary Clinton's long track record against free speech. Why? Because generally speaking both the mainstream press and the organized left reserve their First Amendment outrage for politicians they disagree with. Their silence is shameful, and deafening.

The senators' action this week is no hyperbolic one-off: Prosecuting ungood climatology is baked right into the Democratic Party Platform. The two major Democratic nominees for president agree. There was a time when lefties at least pretended to be the political bloc that most favored free speech. The best you can say about this latest episode is that they've finally dropped the pretense.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    you will be lying

    Beating up on the tard.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Yeah Matt. Barbara Boxer is dumber than my cats' most recent shit. When I say she's retarded I'm not being disparagingly to the differently-abled, I'm saying she might literally be retarded in the clinical sense of the word.

    She makes Sarah Palin sound like Margaret Thatcher.

  • sarcasmic||

    I haven't met many politicians, but the few that I have met were indeed retarded. In the literal sense of the word. As in they had open minds because their brains had fallen out of their heads.

  • josh||

    there are several reasons this is true, but my favorite is because they spend so little time actually thinking about anything other than how to pass more regulation. they read briefing books, sure, but those are made up of ideas from people who contribute money to them. they talk to people with opposing points of view less and less, and exist in a profession that teaches them that being original is a career-killer. democrats and republicans are literally the two most successful lobbying companies in the world, and yet people think the other lobbyists are the problem.

  • ||

    When I lived in CA, this was the most poorly-kept secret in politics. Everyone was aware of this, but they pulled the lever anyway because Team Blue. And her stupidity was considered a feature, not a bug, because she would reliably do what her handlers directed without any of that messy independent thought shit.

  • Swiss Servator||

    That describes Dick Durbin perfectly.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    That describes 99.9% of politicians.

  • bacon-magic||

    I'm into vape advocacy, sent DICK Durbin a letter in support of vaping, his team sent me a letter back politely telling me to go fuck myself. He's a douchebag that can't be pried from the rotting corpse of Illinois. Voters in Illinois love to torture themselves.

  • ||

    And BTW, your cat is an asshole, which makes your comparison just that much more valid.

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    And BTW, your cat is an asshole

    All cats are assholes.

  • Haha, charade you are||

    Still nothing compared to this guy.

  • Brochettaward||

    When Reason wants to avoid the weasel words and get to the point, it sets Welch loose, apparently.

    "to keep right on blocking meaningful action while the earth slowly chokes on its own filth":

  • some guy||

    You can tell Welch took this one personally. I can't blame him. The only thing worse than being targeted for something you said is being targeted by an idiot for something you didn't say.

    Also, if it's the Earth's own filth, then why does Boxer keep blaming us humans?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Passionate Welch is awesome.

  • Paulpemb||

    When they talk about the Earth 'choking on its own filth', they are referring to human beings. Always remember that.

  • Paloma||

    Only certain human beings.

  • Ogier le Danois||

    Only certain human beings.

    Yes. Predominantly the poor and brown ones.

    It's like when PETA advocates that euthanasia of pets actually free them from slavery to humans.

  • Ogier le Danois||

    It has everything that a cult does:

    1. Predictions of doom and promises of salvation
    2. The call for followers to give up life and belongings, to gain salvation from the impending doom
    3. One or more charismatic leaders who take control of the followers' lives and belongings
    4. When the predicted doom fails to appear, it is rescheduled with excuses of human error

  • Sevo||

    A long time ago, I worked with and put the moves on a really attractive gal who was from a family of devoted Jehovah's Witnesses (heavy in the East Bay suburbs at the time); I never got in her pants and also never found out what *she* believed. But I once asked her what the JWs do when the world doesn't end on prediction.
    She: 'They claim a new date'.

  • sarcasmic||

    Just follow the money.

    This global scientific consensus on climate change is funded for the most part by politicians who desire power, and nothing gives them an excuse to grab power like scientists telling us that the world is about to end in fire.

    Oh, wait. Not that money. The other money. The corporate money. Whoops. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  • ||

    If I remember correctly The Rockefeller Foundation is funding a great many of these chicken little organizations; i.e. as usual the left is doing exactly what they accuse their enemies of doing.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    The Rockefeller Foundation, Soros, Warren Buffett... the left are masters of the art of projection.

  • CE||

    It's projection all the way down.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Exactly. It's classic projection. And then you have statements like "the earth slowly chokes on its own filth," which implies carbon dioxide, which humans and all other animals breathe out and all plant life breathes in, is somehow filth.

    It is these parasitic overlords who are the real filth. They pollute the public domain while draining everyone's resources.

    I wish our modern society would bring back the stocks. You know, the wooden restraining contraption whereby members of the public who had abused their fellows beyond all reason could be publicly bound and humiliated by everyone passing by on the town square.

    I can just imaging all the dog walkers who would gladly take the opportunity to empty their poop bags right on top of this sinister senator's pretentious head.

  • ||

    I am not seeing anything about this in the media, aside from here. Let me see if I understand the reasoning here: Disagreeing with us on public policy causes harm to society therefore you are an enemy of society and must be prosecuted.

    Is that really what these people are saying? That is just insane.

    Maybe they are taking this tack because they know it will fail? What court in the land would let that stand?

  • Deli-bro||

    Unfortunately, those in power have learned that you don't need a good court case to silence your opponents. Merely the threat of bringing charges or jail time will silence many, and having to lawyer up against an opponent with the resources of an entire nation is daunting.

    The process has become the punishment and until these loons are laughed out of congress it will only get worse.

  • LynchPin1477||

    But what we need is for someone with the resources to step and say "Not one more inch". It takes courage, for sure, but without that kind of person or persons this isn't going to stop.

  • GamerFromJump||

    The line must be drawn HERE!

  • Cynical Asshole||

    What court in the land would let that stand?

    All of them.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    This is hardly new. Scratch a Progressive, find a Stalinist. One of the nasty unspoken issues of "the anti-Communist witch hunt" is that many, if not most, of those 'named' to the HUAC and subsequently blacklisted in Hollywood were unrepentant political Stalinist bullies, who were 'named' by people they had been bullying.

    Peyback's a bitch.

  • CE||

    It's the new Inquisition. The Climate Change Inquisition will not be questioned.

  • Miley Heilman||

    "Oh, wait. Not that money. The other money. The corporate money. Whoops. Nothing to see here. Move along."
    Can not agree more)) I am too tired to read this custom writing.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    So, if knowingly spreading falsehoods in order to prop up your business model while continuing to pollute the world with your filth is now criminal, I assume that Hillary Clinton and the CGI will also be targets of this courageous bloc of Democratic Senators? No? I'd ask "why" but I suspect I know the answer.

  • Libertarian||

    Just when I think things can't get worse in the political arena, the Left pulls something like this. One would think that they have better and bigger issues to worry about, like, oh, I don't know, how the husband of the secretary of state was showered with money while she helped award millions of government dollars to her husband's employers?

    I guess the Left has to put a boot on somebody's neck, for something.........for anything. Since they're not making much progress trashing the Second Amendment, they'll see what they can do about the First.

  • sarcasmic||

    You forget that people on the left have no principles other than might-makes-right. Everything else revolves around who, not what. So when the Clintons engage in criminal activity, it doesn't matter because they are to be judged by who they are, not what they did.

    And when people disagree with the great climate hoax, they are evil because they are capitalist pigs in search of immoral profits. Again, who matters, not what.

  • ||

    One would think that they have better and bigger issues to worry about...

    Ha, ha. You assume they actually care about those. Or us. The point here is to manufacture a crisis to try to distract people from their own shortcomings.

  • CE||

    Next will be laws to punish religious teachings that run counter to science, then laws to punish political opinions that run counter to humanist tolerance.

  • Citizen X||

    As someone pointed out yesterday, there's way worse ways for senators to spend their time than clucking and tsking. For instance, they could be passing laws.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, effectively this probably amounts to nothing. But it's really depressing how little regard they have for the supposed principles of free and open discourse and free speech.

  • NYC2AZ||

    But if you deny climate change, you hate science! Therefore, climate change deniers are using hate speech and obviously hate speech is not free speech!


  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    California's Senate delegation really is the platonic ideal of the Democratic Party: in one seat you have pure, unadulterated evil in Senator Feinstein. And in the other complete and abject stupidity in Senator Boxer. Democrats go down one road or the other on any given issue in terms of motivation and reasoning.

  • ||

    Evil leads, stupidity follows. It is designed, not happenstance.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I'm sorry but when corporations who aren't people commit heresy the church must respond.

  • ||

    Time to start flooding their phone systems:

    Caller: So, what temperature is your office thermostat set to? Uh huh. And the thermostat for the [house/senate] chamber? Really? Turn that shit up; we've got global warming to fight and tax dollars to save.

  • Doctor Whom||

    They deserve and need something different. Charlie Rangel said so.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Is it too much to ask for these people to be impeached for violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution?

    I know, I know....but then how do you fight this?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "For the easily discoverable reason that calling Reason a climate-change denialist is like calling Barbara Boxer a Republican."

    Matt Welch,

    The link you've embedded in "easily discoverable" to America's Future Foundation appears to be broken.

    I might suggest a link to this instead:

    "In 2005, Bailey said that new data convinced him that the earth is definitely warming and that the likely cause is human activity. He has endorsed a carbon tax as one possible solution.[16] He has stated in the article "Global Warming — Not Worse Than We Thought, But Bad Enough":

    Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn't over before, it is now ... as the new IPCC Summary makes clear, climate change Pollyannaism is no longer looking very tenable.[17]"

    If checking the Wikipedia article on Reason's science writer doesn't qualify as easily discoverable, then what does?

  • Citizen X||

    The World's Greatest Deliberative Body ain't have time to do learning before they shoot off they mouths, fool!

  • Matt Welch||

    Thanks, will do.

  • ||

    I hold out hope that Bailey will eventually see through the bullshit.

    Do we actually have any data produced by an organization that hasn't been caught lying their ass off?

  • Zeb||

    See, it's not good enough to be convinced that the evidence indicates that people contribute to a warming climate. You also have to support the wasteful and economically destructive policies that they favor or you are a denier.

  • Cynical Asshole||


    It's not really about whether or not the Earth is warming or whether or not human activity is contributing to it, it's about supporting their policies: switching from fossil fuels to more expensive solar or wind (thereby causing energy prices to "necessarily skyrocket" and enriching their cronies), re-distributing wealth on a global level from "rich countries" to "poor countries" (after they and their cronies take their cut, natch), etc. No alternative policies will be considered. They know what's best, so just shut up and do what they say, prole!

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's the way I feel about it.

    I believe science is a consensus (hence the importance of publishing findings and repeatability to the scientific method), and the consensus should change as new data becomes available that wasn't available before and conflicts with what we thought we knew. In other words, the science is never completely settled. As a intellectually honest person, I predict Bailey's conclusions will change if and when new evidence becomes available tomorrow that warrants it--that's certainly what Bailey has done in the past.

    That being said, what we should be willing to sacrifice in order to combat climate change isn't a scientific question. It's a question of ethics. What is more important, the welfare of coal miners or polar bears? That isn't a scientific question. The answers aren't refutable with observation. Should I be willing to make sacrifices in my standard of living now for the benefit of future generations? Again, how can an ethical question like that be answered through scientific observation?

    Yes, please add to that the fact that authoritarian and socialist solutions are not the best solution to climate change. Also, there's the fact that the worst possible outcome is the one where we make huge sacrifices in our standard of living, but they aren't enough to prevent the catastrophe, anyway, so we end up suffering the worst of both our own sacrifices and the worst of climate change.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Consensus has absolutely nothing to do with science. Religion on the other hand...

  • Ken Shultz||

    Actually, science is consensus.

    That's what publishing results and having others repeat your experiments is all about.

    The important thing to remember is that science isn't truth.

    Science properly done can and does require scientists to believe false things--if and when the only available evidence should lead them to believe things that are false.

    Science is a consensus.

    The truth is not a consensus.

  • CE||

    Plus there's the minor detail that the proposed (and expensive) "fixes" won't work at all.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah. Isn't that the truth.

    There's also the question of what needs to be fixed.

    The appropriate fixes may have more to do with adaptation rather than prevention. Why let central planners make such important decisions?

  • DarrenM||

    Should I be willing to make sacrifices in my standard of living now for the benefit of future generations?

    When you look at the national debt, the apparent answer is "no way in hell".

  • Ken Shultz||

    The inflationary cliff I'm worried about may come any year. Right now, we seem to be in a deflationary spiral, but I don't know what the future will look like in two years or three. How long ago was it that Brazil, reasonably, had the brightest economic future of any economy in the world? A few years before that, they were an economic basket case.

    Anybody under 50 can reasonably expect to live through at least another economic cycle or two. My understanding is that even if we made the sacrifices necessary to prevent the worst case scenarios according to some alarmists' models, we might not see changes that were due to our efforts happen in our lifetimes.

  • Chocolate Starfish ( . )||

    "The inflationary cliff I'm worried about may come any year. Right now, we seem to be in a deflationary spiral..."
    Ah, I think this is close to explaining the apparent ignorance of government in this matter. If the Keynesians need to cause inflation they will have to do it with "helicopter money" this time around. And they need to do it globally. So ask yourself, if you were in their shoes, how could you spend enough to move an economy this big and with this much debt? You could spin a "sky is falling" story to justify huge cash dumps across the globe. An economic bubble bigger than every prior bubble.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If newborn babies need to live to be 100 before the sacrifices we make today make any difference in the climate, then that's a different ballgame. In that case, maybe making sacrifices of our standard of living isn't a reasonable course of action. However, there may be other things we could do--that we should be doing even if climate change isn't a problem--to promote economic growth.

    That's one of the things I wish environmentalists could get their heads around. If climate change is a real problem and people are mostly reluctant to address the problem because they're afraid of what the solutions will do to economic growth, then economic growth is an important environmental issue. It's a precondition for change.

    Meanwhile, how many people know that our CO2 emissions here in the United States have been declining since before the last recession--and our CO2 emissions continue to decline even as the economy continues to grow? The idea that declining CO2 emissions can only happen as result of economic sacrifice is so entrenched on the left, that the facts can't even get in the way of their thinking. They can't blame climate change deniers for that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Certainly, when people ask us whether we "believe" in climate change, it isn't always clear what they're asking. Do they want to know whether we think Jesus was an historical figure who said some interesting things, or do they want to know whether we're giving our hard-earned money to a faith healer?

  • ||

    Don't forget, Obumbles and Lynch had a conference to discuss the possibility of using this tactic on climate deniers just before these Attorneys General launched their attack. They are doing this at his behest.

    He really is a banana republic dictator totalitarian piece of shit at heart. It was always right there in front of our noses for all to see. After Fast and Furious there was no excuse for even the most ardent 'liberal' to support the man.

  • ||

    they're just into libertarianism in order to pollute narrative.

    Yep - that's the whole reason why I like much of libertarianism - the freedom for Koch to pollute

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There was a time when lefties at least pretended to be the political bloc that most favored free speech.

    How far back was that? Point to a time they defended speech they didn't agree with.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Point to a time they defended speech they didn't agree with.

    Unless you include the ACLU (defended Illinois Nazi's) as "lefties," never.

  • esteve7||

    So calling their opponents racist and sexist isn't working anymore. That's what leftists used to do when they were losing a debate.

    Since they don't have that to turn to, all they have is to criminalize speech they disagree with. Facists indeed

  • Lee Genes||

    Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
    Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL)
    Senator Jack Reed (D-RI)
    Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
    Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD)
    Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
    Senator Tom Udall (D-NM)
    Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
    Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
    Senator Al Franken (D-MN)
    Senator Chris Coons (D-DE)
    Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
    Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI)
    Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
    Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA)
    Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
    Senator Edward Markey (D-MA)
    Senator Gary Peters (D-MI)

    A Who's Who of Anti-Freedom Totalitarian Cargo Cult Assholes

  • ||

    Well, lookey here:

    The way was paved.

  • ||

    I wonder if a factor in this hissy fit is the fact that 'green energy' cant compete logistically, technologically, or economically?

    They keep throwing our money at green energy and nothing comes of it. They are frustrated because they really are ignorant enough to expect more than enriching cronies it actually will produce a viable source of energy superior to hydrocarbons.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    The thing that makes it most obvious to me that they are completely full of shit is their refusal to even CONSIDER nuclear as a power source. Never mind that there the technology is safer than ever (and it was quite safe to begin with) and modern technology recycles all the fuel right onsite so there is literally no waste produced. Never mind that some of the billions they pour into the pockets of cronies could instead fund the last stage of fusion development to bring that to market...nooooooo.

    The worst thing that could happen to these villainous wackos is that their pet issue (ostensibly, climate change caused by too much man-made CO2) would actually be SOLVED by moving technology forward. That would be as disastrous for them as say, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton waking up one morning and having to admit black people are pretty much equal to everyone else.

    Look, I understand that no one wants to be put out of a job. That includes senators and race-baiters. But if you get to a point where what you are doing is truly no longer needed and is actually just screwing things up, the honest thing to do is to move on. Find another field to work in. It's time for this people to GTFO and get over themselves.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    There is no onsite reprocessing of fuel. The closest you can come to that would be CANDUs which are expensive and uncommon. MSRs have a more complete burnup but there are no commercial reactors operating and I'm not aware of any experimental reactors right now either.

  • Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!||

    Jimmy Carter banned reprocessing of fuel so now we have tons of spent nuclear material that could be reprocessed but can't for political reasons and have to store in Yucca Mountain for millions of years. If we were to reprocess that nuclear material in the same way France does, we'd go from Yucca Mountain being overflowing to being more than 90% empty (per IEEE Spectrum). The greenies, naturally, can't have that. They need the massive nuclear waste to prove that nuclear power is dangerous and wasteful.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Don't worry, they'll be able to declare victory in about 10-20 years; at the fairly steady rates of technological progress over the last several decades, solar will be cheaper than the alternatives by then.

    Of course, the massive subsidies, crony capitalism, and fear mongering will have hurt, rather than helped, the process: if you subsidize overpriced and underperforming solar technology, you get more of it and discourage the development of better technologies.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    They will never declare victory! If they should find themselves in a situation where the "problems" they've identified show significant improvement, they will simply move the goalposts.

    Let's say that average temperatures actually started showing a downward trend and the arctic polar icecap became significantly bigger. Do you think these clowns would actually say, "Okay, folks, we are out of the woods. We call all relax a bit now and, by the way, we are scrapping the carbon tax effectively immediately." Yeah, not in a million years!!

    I'm sure they would rave about the impending COOLING disaster. They would declare that "climate change can move in both directions thanks to humans' filth " and of course the ONLY WAY to stop this is to give them even more power and more money.

  • NoVaNick||

    They would declare that "climate change can move in both directions thanks to humans' filth " and of course the ONLY WAY to stop this is to give them even more power and more money.

    They've already said this back in 2004 when the Northeast was having a rather cold winter.

  • kbolino||

    They will never declare victory! If they should find themselves in a situation where the "problems" they've identified show significant improvement, they will simply move the goalposts.

    See, for example, the ratchet of EPA regulations that went from "ok, those are doable if a bit onerous" to "no fucking way anyone can honestly meet those standards", the fallout from which will quite likely destroy Volkswagen as a major automaker.

  • OldMexican sine qua non||


    Just this past Sunday the "Business" section of the Houston Chronicle featured a piece decrying the slow pace at which Texas is shifting towards solar power compared to other states (as if we were running a race or something) but admitting that one of the reasons was cheaper natural gas. The cognitive dissonance was so loud it covered the sounds coming from Interstate 10.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    "Blood" and "Gore"? You couldn't make up better names if you tried.

  • NoVaNick||

    Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA)

    Surprised to see him on here. He openly supported coal and off shore drilling in VA. Guess he's trying to boost his cred with the proggies as Hillary's VP. Hope this happens so when she wins, we can replace him.

  • Hayeksplosives||

    Poor ol' Mark Steyn has been a victim of this BS for 5 freaking years waiting for his day in court. They hoped he'd cave to the social stigma and threat of legal action and were quite stunned when he said "Bring it on" so now they can only delay the court proceedings to bleed his legal fund to death.

    Whatever you think of Steyn's politics, you should stick up for him on free speech.

  • Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!||

    so now they can only delay the court proceedings to bleed his legal fund to death.

    Can he file a Sixth Amendment petition or is this outside the US?

  • Careless||

    It's in the US.

  • Anarcho-Woodchipper||

    Yup, just let it burn. All of it. Society - these little rubes running around on this blue marble - are too stupid to take care of Mother Gaia. We need Top Men (TM) with all the answers.

    Could one of these trigger happy cops just shoot me already? I wont have to deal with this shit anymore, and I get 5 minutes of fame. 241.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Sadly, this heavy-handed act of government intimidation will likely go as unnoticed as Hillary Clinton's long track record against free speech. Why? Because generally speaking both the mainstream press and the organized left reserve their First Amendment outrage for politicians they disagree with. Their silence is shameful, and deafening."

    The mainstream press is less influential than you think and becoming even less so all the time.

    Donald Trump won the Republican nomination, not in spite of the condemnation of "the mainstream press and the organized left"--but because of it.

    Besides, this Green Peace like sit in on the Senate floor isn't about the organized left ignoring those they despise--it's meant to bring this issue to the attention of the mainstream press. The scariest outcome would be if the press ignored their antics completely.

  • ||

    The scariest outcome would be if the press ignored their antics completely.

    Yes. Which they are. Nobody but Reason is paying any attention to this.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm seeing stories on US News & World Report, Breitbart, Town Hall, Daily Caller, and The Hill.

    . . . which means you're correct, the press is largely ignoring the story.

    Nothing on the New York Times, The WSJ, CNN, nothing on Fox.

    The blogoverse still tends to get way out ahead of the rest of the mainstream press. Let's give the mainstream until the afternoon, anyway, before we give up on them completely, but it isn't looking good.

  • Trigger Hippie||

    Warren and Boxer should lead by example and sell off all property that increases carbon consumption and move into a mud hut located at an egalitarian agricultural based commune.

    What's that? Their existence is more important than mine an it's necessary for them to use our resources at an accelerated rate in the pursuit of the betterment of us all?

    Well fuck off then.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I came across a quote the other day, that someone called "Robespierre's Law," to the effect that what you empower the government to do unto others, will [eventually, inevitably] be done unto you.

    I can not find a quote of the nature attributed to Max Robespierre, nor does it show up in general searches of quotations. If anyone can give me a reference it would be appreciated.

    Regardless, the foo shits on this one.

  • sarcasmic||

    Iron Law: Me today; you tomorrow.

  • R C Dean||

    I think that version is originally from Solzhenitsyn.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I do not think there was a quote from Robespierre, just the facts of his career as one of the architects if the Terror and one of its final victims

  • kbolino||

    Indeed. There's not much time to think while the blade of a guillotine is racing towards your neck.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But Trump's the fascist Porto-dictator.

  • Zeb||

    There is plenty of room for several fascist proto-dictators at the table.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    It's fascist proto-dictators all the way down

  • Agent Cooper||


    He's Italian?

  • Tyler.C||

    No, Portuguese.

  • DenverJ||

    Re: modern Democrats: you know who else was a fascist piece of shit?

  • Pathogen||

    Dean Wormer?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.

    1."Everything in the state". The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.

    2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.

    3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.

    The use of militarism was implied only as a means to accomplish one of the three above principles, mainly to keep the people and rest of the world in line. Fascist countries are known for their harmony and lack of internal strife. There are no conflicting parties or elections in fascist countries.

  • Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!||

    Mussolini wasn't the only one.

    Alexander Raven Thomson (British Union of Fascists) published The Coming Corporate State where he did outline how a fascist government in a corporate state would function and operate.

  • Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!||

    Mussolini wasn't the only one.

    Alexander Raven Thomson (British Union of Fascists) published The Coming Corporate State where he did outline how a fascist government in a corporate state would function and operate.

  • Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!||

    Mussolini would make the squirrels run on time.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Something something... woodchippers... mumble mumble... hope they all get Lou Gehrig's disease...

  • NYC2AZ||

    "Dan Marino Politicians should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell."

  • ||

    The Republicans control the Senate, so this is all a bunch of meaningless posturing, isn't it?

    Someone explain to me why I should care if a minority of Senators of one party make some symbolic denunciations of their political enemies wrongthink?

  • toolkien||

    Because there's a bureaucracy that is implementing the "process is the punishment", and if people call for a change to this blood thirsty fascism, they've set the precedent of where they stand, and how difficult it might be to make a legislative change to executive over reach. More than half the tyranny we live under isn't legislative, it's bureaucratic/executive. When over half the executive branch and even a minority of the legislative branch are on the same page, reform is not going to happen.

    Once again, IRS audits that used to take two days now take TWO YEARS. And if someone calls for legislative relief? Even a minority of Democrats, and few Rockefeller Republicans, and nothing changes.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The GOP has been permanently in the doghouse for supporting an anti-flag burning amendmen. The Senate Dems have voted to repeal speech/press protections for political discourse and now are out to criminalize dissent, and your reaction is "meh".

    I do not understand.

  • JWW||

    The proggies have all the best parties, you don't want to not get invited now do you?

    Although, your right, if the Republicans had proposed yes means yes sex contracts the left would laugh at and ridicule them non-stop. But they're actually the lefts idea, so everyone must pretend their stupidity is really really compelling and smart.

  • ||

    The Senate Dems have absolutely zero chance of voting to repeal speech/press protections for political discourse, and they know it. Which is probably why they feel more free to be absolutely ridiculous on the subject - it's meaningless symbolism that's all for show. If they actually stood a chance to pass it, you can bet that a whole bunch of them would suddenly be sane on the subject. And even if it actually passed , you can count on a SCOTUS overturn of it.

    So no, there is zilch chance of this actually happening. It's a bunch of stupid antics they are putting on as a show for the crazies in their own party, so they can pretend like they care.

  • Lord at War||

    The Senate Dems have absolutely zero chance of voting to repeal speech/press protections for political discourse, and they know it.

    Didn't you hear what RBG was saying? They will do exactly that if given a chance. Not that they aren't already- Lois Lerner at the IRS and the "Dear Colleague" letters from the DOE were quite effective at their goals. Not to mention the 19 Attourneys General and their lawsuits...

  • Careless||

    And even if it actually passed , you can count on a SCOTUS overturn of it.

    I regret to inform you, it is no longer 2015

  • toolkien||

    This is really just pushing along the vector that has been around for twenty years. The Federal government has mandated how "public" entities communicate with their shareholders. Annual reports have had to follow cookie cutter approach, contain certain language, make standard "prognostications" about the future. This has been so for 15-20 years. I don't recall anyone having a problem with it until now. I don't recall the Republicans busting up this insane bureaucratic overreach. I don't recall many, if any, Reason articles over the ridiculousness of Forced language in the average Annual Report of Publicly Traded Company X. Now it's simply being applied against a specific push back against being told what language must be contained (the possible harm to the shareholder for the insane public policy decisions by the Feds, in this case their climate change voodoo). The Feds have controlled the narrative of communication within "public" companies for years. Did anyone who was paying attention think this wasn't the next step? "When we do insane things with the public policy, eroding the wealth of your shareholders, you must communicate with them that if they invest their money in your company, they could lose it all when we implement a bat shit crazy piece of legislation". That has to be in the average Annual Report of a publicly traded company. The standard "we're always subject to damage possible by the stupidity of fascists" as a blanket statement doesn't suffice anymore.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The Left are totalitarian thugs who live to force their neighbors to submit to their will.

  • toolkien||

    To be fair, so can the right. Semantics go round and round. The function is Force, not who uses it. Unfortunately, we have "two" parties that are dyed in the wool statist. As far as Republicans, anyone showing any anti-statist ideals (tea party, Ron Paul, even all the way back to Grandpa Goldwater) has been cut off and clamped down. The major parties have never been this close together. The biggest problem is the plotted points between the two now have the Republicans to the left of JFK and Democrats to the right of Karl Marx, drifting closer every day.

  • Warren||

    That tiny car can't hold more than four or five senators. OMG They keep coming! One, Two, Three... How the hell did they fit nineteen senators in there?


  • Rational Exuberance||

    Sen. Boxer, if you present the Reason Foundation as a climate denier on the Senate floor, you will be lying. About one of your constituents.

    Barbara Boxer lying? That would be shocking! /sarc

  • JWW||

    Were her lips moving....?

  • Mickey Rat||

    Welch, Reason is in the climate denier camp because it will not support giving the government free reign to deal the supposed crisis. You are still an enemy to the Left even if you accept their premises but do not support the conclusion.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    "You are still an enemy to the Political Class even if you accept their premises but do not support the conclusion."

    Fixed that for you.

    Most of these pols, both left and right, are worthless, self-aggrandizing scumbags. Instead of being reelected, they should be turned out of their jobs, publicly flogged, tarred-and-feathered and then run out of town on a rail.

    I am fed up with these so-called "public servants" who are actually just our modern-day overlords. You think the days of the Aristocracy and Church calling all the shots and killing anyone who opposes them are long gone. They are not -- the tyrants just don't labels themselves as aristocrats and clergy anymore.

  • CE||

    Free rein. As in riding a horse.

  • satta||

    Just the latest manufactured crisis designed to wrest the means of production under "democratic" control. It will not be the last.

  • Mickey Rat||

    If it is a manufactured crisis does that mean it should be ignored?

  • Sevo||

    "...Sen. Boxer, if you present the Reason Foundation as a climate denier on the Senate floor, you will be lying...."

    I'm quite sure Ms. Boxer and truth are but passing acquaintances.

  • Bob Meyer||

    Odd, isn't it, that clear cases of deliberate deception revealed by the "Climategate" emails didn't result in any disapproval letters from the Senate?

    Every single climate model used by "real" scientists back in 1998 greatly over estimated the warming that occurred over the next 18 years. These models use a climate sensitivity of 2.5 to 4.5 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere but attempts to measure this sensitivity fall in between 0.8 and 1.8 degrees C.

    For tyrant wannbes like Boxer "real" science is anything that 1) justifies increases in the power of the state and 2) sends government money to their friends. Correspondence to reality is irrelevant.

  • Mike Laursen||

    They might want to look at the carbon footprint of our foreign military escapades.

  • Pathogen||

    By destroying the infrastructure and reducing the populace of select foreign nations, we ween them off of their sick fossil fuel co-dependency, and reduce their carbon footprints. This, in turn, offsets our own carbon footprint as well. Think of it as a "Global Carbon Credit Exchange", with our nation's military as the key broker.

  • You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)||

    Oooh, is it time to break out our "Je Suis Reason!" t-shirts again?

  • JWW||

    Surrrre Reason has done enough to not be labeled deniers. In your dreams. The ones who spout just enough of the party line will also be destroyed.

    This brings into question the entire endeavor. If their data were so strong and the lies of the deniers so obvious, they wouldn't need to stifle speech.

    The real truth is the lukewarmers are right and this is 1) Not as big a problem as being claimed, 2) warmer weather actually has some benefits. But again, this not being a catastrophe, doesn't enable the Democrats to call for moarrrrrr powwweeeeerrrr.

  • BigT||

    " calling Reason a climate-change denialist is like calling Barbara Boxer a Republican."

    Very sad that this is true. Reason fails at logic.

  • Tankboy||

    Climate Change (nee Global Warming) is the ideal political crisis. We are all victims, even the perpetrators. Everything you measure about the climate can be used as evidence if viewed appropriately. The fact that none of your predictions have come true is not held against you. Unlike other causes where you might not feel sympathy for the victims, we're saving the whole f-ing planet here. How many of your precious, and mostly unused, freedoms would you be prepared to give up to save the whole f-ing planet? All of them! Take everything, but please, please, save our planet!

  • Dread Pirate Roberts||

    Who the fuck do you think you are to stand in the way of the Democratic Party's agenda?

    Know your place, peasant!

  • questionmark||

    "Sen. Boxer, if you present the Reason Foundation as a climate denier on the Senate floor, you will be lying. About one of your constituents."

    Problem is Matt, unless you define "climate change" in the manner they wish it to be described today, and change your definition to whatever the approved verbiage becomes tomorrow, and promote only and all dictated solutions, you ARE a denier.

    And a wrecker.

    And a hoarder.

  • NoVaNick||

    What bugs me the most about the Klimatechange Kult is that they do not seem to be interested in solutions to this problem, such as geoengineering or actually removing CO2 from the atmosphere, they only want to punish the evildoers and shove solar panels and windmills up everyone's ass.

    Reminds me of the pants shitting we are seeing over e-cigarettes.

  • kbolino||

    The lack of any real traction on nuclear power is most telling. Even more telling is that many so-called "forward-thinking" countries like Germany and Japan are closing/have closed their nuclear plants (and replaced them mostly with coal, for now). It is a cult of human impoverishment.

  • NoVaNick||

    I forgot to include their knee-jerk opposition to nuclear power as the most obvious sign of their recto-cranial inversion.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Removing CO2 will consume more energy than was released emitting it.

  • NoVaNick||

    Not necessarily, a company started by a Columbia prof has a system working that can do this, and if it is scaled up, the energy costs of extraction should come down. See MIT Tech Review 10/7/14 - Can Sucking CO2 Out of the Atmosphere Really Work?

  • CE||

    The High Sparrow will have no more of this talk.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Soon we will all be taken to atone in front of the Crone.

  • Brandybuck||

    You would think with all the power they have to control politicians, that the Koch brothers would have seen fit to control Elizabeth Warren too. Hmmm, I guess absolute power does not necessarily confer omniscience.

  • Tweak||

    Okay, Sen. Warren. I'll bite. Anyone who supports causes you don't agree with are automagically corrupt, fed with blood money, and should be rejected outright. Well done, you've even got your own little religion goin' on there! Callin' out the heathen "deniers" like that is just music to my ears. Doin' the Lord's work there, Ms. Warren. Bill Nye, Our Lord and Savior, would be proud. I mean we all know there is a complete dearth of money flowing into the policy agendas that have the democratic party seal of approval slapped neatly on them. How dare they! Taking all of our white liberal guilt money, what little of it we do have that doesn't just get sucked back up into the corporate greeeeeeed wagon, and putting it to FILTH like science existing outside of a completely unbiased and untainted academic peer review process. No one can seriously expect to be deemed credible if they exist outside the academia glory hole, can they? I mean seriously, they've gotta pay their dues! When it comes to climate research, how can we trust *anything* that doesn't come back for careful editing* at least 10 times because the funding might get taken away if the paper doesn't say the things that the research investors want to hear?

    *Some peer review editing processes may involve ceremonial whippings, Pavlovian pandering, and disciplining with the Crux Decussata. Any true researcher must be broken, so that we may rebuild him to adopt a more proper form of bias. FOR SCIENCE!

  • Chocolate Starfish ( . )||

    WHAT IS THE POINT? What is the purpose of government?
    Is it to make us all more prosperous? Keep us safer? Well that can't be it, else, total fail.
    Or is it to keep the masses from going berserk and destroying the whole existing structure? If this, then they may be succeeding. (Keep on suckin' till you do suck seed.)

    Every comment I read here is right in line with the misdirection. You argue that the government should do better on this issue but that's off point. They get paid to guard the gate.

    "We have seen the enemy and it is us."

  • Rockabilly||

    Speak for yourself
    the role of the government is to protect individual liberty
    Not to force us to fund social security
    arrest us for taking some LSD
    or force us to buy some Obamacare or pay a tax.

  • [OMITTED]||

    Leave it to a witch to yell, "burn 'em!" first.

  • Number 2||

    How about a Bivens civil rights suit against each Senator participating in this action, and claims under 42 USC Section 1983 against each attorney general participating in this action?

  • Bob Armstrong||

    Interconnected by reason and unwilling to subjugate it
    to this Global Statist criminal cabal .

  • XM||

    Hee hee hee libertarian moment hee hee hee

    I think we should just stop saying libertarian moment.

  • Rockabilly||

    As my Cherokee people tell me - some moons ago female named Warren come to our tribe
    Said she was squaw in search of her elders and a brave warrior to lay next to
    Our medicine man, Running Thunder, said to her
    Come to me,
    as she did,
    Running Thunder gathered her hair and sniffed
    Hmm - he said - I don't smell Cherokee
    I smell white liberal guilt
    You are not Cherokee squaw
    Begone - Fakahontas!
    She did turn red but not red like Cherokee
    Our tribe laughed at Running Thunder's joke

  • Eeyore||

    When everyone gets up in the morning and starts their car, or turns on the AC or heat, aren't they saying, "I don't really care. I don't 'Really' believe."

  • GamerFromJump||

    When I hear about "science by consensus", I remember the "consensus" against Galileo Galilei and Ignaz Semmelweis.

  • D. M. Michell||

    Ah, totalitarians, ain't they cute? No, they are not. They are ignorant pieces of human excrement and wouldn't know climate change if it froze their sensitive bits off. Several solar physicists recently announced that due to the lack of sun spots we are heading into another Maunder Minimum situation that froze the Northern Hemisphere in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Fancy ice skating on the Thames River in London in the winter anyone?

    And then there's the story that human-caused global warming has given Colorado its best three ski seasons with lots and lots of snow.

    But, of course, with the totalitarians its not about CO2 and the human-caused global warming/climate change lie. Its about controlling the little people and maybe, with stringent enough restrictions on fossil fuels, having a couple billion of them die off and reduce the surplus population. The totalitarians will be protected, of course, because, well, they're the new aristocracy.

  • Whiteowl||

    Hold it right there, 'Pocahontas' Warren --you who lies about your own heritage-- You don't get to call anyone "climate denier" --whatever the hell that is-- and you don't get to call anyone "anti-science" for questioning what's being foisted off on Planet Earth by power-hungry radical leftists. Whine away all you want, but you also don't get to take away the right of free speech in your country, no matter what post you hold.

  • Whiteowl||

    Didn't mean to insult Pocahontas, of course. Should have said Fauxahontas Warren.

  • MaleMatters||

    If global warming exists, we may need only to paint white all artificial surfaces (roofs, black-top roads, parking lots...). If white would be too blinding (!), paint the surfaces in lighter colors: egg-white, beige, etc. See:

    "Does the 'fireplace-brick effect' contribute to global warming?" http://relevantmatters.wordpre.....l-warming/


    I do not own stocks in paint manufacturers.

  • patskelley||

    When one puts into context the fact that political parties are private enterprises, where Democratic and Republican party mascots the Ass and the pachyderm are fighting tooth and nail for position at the top of the American mountain, it should come as no surprise that the Porcupine has stunk up the fray and quite unwelcome interference in the scuffle.

  • patskelley||

    Also makes me wonder how many voters are leaving the main-stream losers to sign as Libertarian. Tells me the Dems are running scared!

  • ||

    The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
  • Tionico||

    fake-science think tanks," which are "so dangerous" because they enable politicians "to keep right on blocking meaningful action while the earth slowly chokes on its own filth":

    Pardon me whilst I wax blunt: I'd have to rate the likes of Warren, Boxer, and the others misusing their political positions to persecute any who disagree with them as some of the earth's most dangerous filth. With their ilk in positions of power there is no hope for reality to hold sway. Their fantasy world is the filth that portends our doom.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online