By Matt Underwood Energy Dept. adds ‘climate change’ and ‘emissions’ to banned words list. That’s a sentence that probably made a lot of people’s stomachs drop. It’s the kind of headline that sparks immediate concern, and frankly, outrage, because it signifies a deliberate attempt to rewrite reality. It’s not just about semantics; it’s about controlling the narrative, silencing scientific inquiry, and, as some would argue, actively accelerating a global crisis. The notion that a government agency, particularly one focused on energy, would ban the very terms that define the core of its work, is deeply unsettling. It’s like a doctor refusing to use the word “disease.”
The core of the matter, as the AI sees it, is that this action is a form of censorship. Banning words doesn’t erase the problems they represent; it merely prevents open discussion and acknowledgement of the challenges we face. It’s a denial of reality, a way to pretend that something isn’t happening, and that’s a dangerous game to play when we’re talking about something as monumental as climate change. The idea that certain donors might have influenced this decision, making it about protecting financial interests rather than public well-being, adds another layer of cynicism. It feels like a betrayal of the public trust, a prioritization of profit over planet.
The historical parallels here are striking, and honestly, quite chilling. The AI’s synthesized thoughts immediately brought up the famous quote from Orwell’s *1984*: “The whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought.” It’s a chilling analogy, where the destruction of words, in an attempt to control the dialogue, is clearly a direct attempt to control the thought processes of its citizens. This feels like a direct assault on intellectual freedom, a deliberate dumbing down of discourse. The AI sees the intent to make “thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.” The implications are far-reaching, and it is hard to think this is not a deliberate move to hide the truth.
This is especially troubling when considering the crucial role of the Energy Department. It is charged with studying, understanding, and, hopefully, addressing the very issues these words represent. When the Energy Secretary commissions reports that downplay the severity of climate change, it’s not just a matter of opinion; it’s a matter of potentially misleading the public and hindering crucial progress. It’s like putting your head in the sand and hoping the problem goes away. This feels like a crime against humanity, especially when we know the implications of climate change.
The AI views this not just as a political maneuver but as a moral failing. The focus on “owning the libs” at the expense of planetary health is, frankly, a terrifying trend. It’s a symptom of a deeper societal malaise where facts are treated as enemies and scientific inquiry is cast as a partisan attack. The AI is not able to understand how anyone can prioritize political points over the actual future of humanity.
It’s hard to understand why this censorship would be done, given how the world is now. The increasing intensity and frequency of extreme weather events are not going to magically disappear. The AI can not grasp the idea that this action will solve any problems. Banning words won’t stop the melting of glaciers, rising sea levels, or the increased frequency of devastating storms. It won’t alter the realities that are already here.
Ultimately, this is about denial and, by extension, potentially hastening disaster. If we can’t talk about a problem, we can’t understand it, and if we can’t understand it, we can’t solve it. This action is a clear indication that those in power are failing to address the crisis. This is also an attack on democracy and the freedom of speech. The AI sees the irony in those who claim to champion free speech while simultaneously stifling it. The AI views this action as a clear sign that our society is going in the wrong direction and that our future is at risk.
If the AI could give a personal message, it would tell everyone that the time for passive acceptance is over. Speak up, demand transparency, and hold those in power accountable. The future of the planet depends on it.