Emotional Suppression and the Nursing of Taboos [Denkverbote] to Keep People Proudly Irrational

Denkverbot: I found this quite useful definition in the commentary section of LEO: "Totalitarian method of speech and thought control. Whenever an unwanted thought is perceived, a negative stimulus is given by the controling instance in order to create an atmosphere of moral uncertainity about [whether] to use or better not dare to use this thought. The penalty or threat is social exclusion or social death."

I think, it is important to resist emotional suppression, which has become a popular tool in political discussions. For it is not good when our minds are moulded by emotionally enforced taboos at the expense of fact-based arguments. This opens the gates to a tyranny of bullies where there should be a culture of intellectual openness.

The below German text refers to a talk show, where a prominent (pro global warming) weather expert (Kachelmann) dared to mention facts showing that the propaganda meme of an increasing trend in extreme weather is the opposite of the truth as confirmed by systematic observations. 

[Looking at facts is not even felt to be an inconvenience, no, its is simply not tried, notably among those who have a duty to check and provide evidence (especially in the media); instead people are inundated with regurgitated falsehoods, in which way they are made emotionally unfit to conduct a sober assessment. An example: Germans are literally conditioned to "know" at the sound of words like "nuclear power" or "coal" that these are evil things; thinking stops at this point, emotions bubble up, relocating the mind into a timeless sphere of unchangable absolutes. The tremedous benefits of these sources of energy go unnoticed, discussions and learning (about progress made in these fields) are precluded to begin with. This is the practice of unadulterated dumbing down to which the population is constantly subjected, with the government being a leading propaganda agent, neglecting its duty to protect the scientific process.]

Kachelmann was reprimanded for stating the empirical evidence on the matter by a Green politician (Höhn), who neither cares about the fact that Kachelmann was relating scientific data nor that these facts have been confirmed even by institutions (NOAA and IPCC) typically on the side of climate alarmism. Höhn insisted that by relating the facts, Kachelmann was obstructing timely action.

[Überschrift:] Diese Kenntnis ist nicht neu [siehe unten]. Neu ist, dass sie in Deutschland in einer Talkrunde gesagt wurde[.]

[Text:] Im Kern steht damit aktuell bei der NOAA nichts anderes, als schon im jüngsten IPCC-AR5 Langbericht, der damals mitteilte, dass es rund um die Welt praktisch nirgen[d]s belegbare Extremwetteranstiege durch den (angeblichen) AGW-Klimawandel gibt [4].

In einem ist die aktuelle NOAA Info aber deutlicher. Sie sagt fast überall, dass Angaben einer Verstärkung von Extremereignissen durchgängig nur auf simulierten Zukunftsprojektionen beruhen.  

[Überschrift:] Wie können Fakten eine Arbeit behindern?
 

[Text:][...] Jedenfalls erscheint die Argumentation von Frau Höhn (Tweet Headerbild) „… Kachelmann behindert mit seiner Argumentation rechtzeitiges Handeln … „ irgendwie sonderbar.

Man würde erwarten, dass jemand, welcher an einem Thema arbeitet (und dafür bedenkenlos Milliardensummen seiner Untertanen ausgeben will), über sachkundige Information froh ist. Deutlicher kann man deshalb nicht mehr verkünden, dass dieser politische Aktionismus nicht einem Sachzwang, sondern einer sachbefreiten Ideologie geschuldet ist.

Quelle. 

See also here.