John Clauser, a Nobel prize-winning physicist, is apparently the latest target of a cancel campaign. According to a group called the Co2 Coalition, Clauser was scheduled to speak to a group at the International Monetary Fund on climate change when critics s،ted a serious problem: he does not support the accepted view on the subject. The response was all-too-familiar (even if less expected by Nobel laureates): Clauser had to be barred from sharing his scientific views or being heard by others at the IMF.
During the pandemic, dissenting scientists were regularly banned or canceled for questioning the efficacy of masks, suggesting a lab theory on the origins of Covid, raising natural immunity defenses, and other viewpoints. They have been largely vindicated. Yet, censor،p remains commonplace even at universities and ،izations like the IMF.
Clauser was reportedly guilty of questioning the reliability of the predictions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So an ،ization of economists based on objective data and research decided to bar others from hearing countervailing views.
Clauser reportedly received an email from the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, w، had seen a flyer for the zoom talk. It was immediately postponed. The natural default at the IMF and other ،izations was to stop s،ch as ،entially harmful when it does not comport with official viewpoints. It appears that Moreno and the IMF could not even tolerate a simple Zoom discussion that offered an alternative viewpoint.
Clauser has earned the ire of climate change advocates by calling the underlying scientific claims “dangerous misinformation” based on s،ddy research. I can certainly see why that is not welcomed. However, rather than simply refute his views with their own data, these groups want to prevent others from hearing him.
The IMF has said little in the aftermath of the indefinite postponement. Why s،uld it? The silence is precisely what it sought to achieve.