In 2009, just as it was in pre-war Germany, “science” has become extraordinarily politicized.  In the years leading up to World War II, that politicization was directed by the National Socialist Party.  Today, the politicization of science is something that Hitler could have only dreamed of.  Not only is science the lapdog of America’s Democrat Socialist Party, but also of Liberal Fascism all across the globe. 

Here is an example.  On February 14, Julie Steenhuysen (Reuters) wrote that “The climate is heating up faster than scientists had predicted, spurred by sharp increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries like China and India…”.  Steenhuysen was quoting Chris Field, a member of the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Field concluded that “the impact of climate change would be ‘more serious and diverse’ than the IPCC’s most recent predictions.”

There are many things to pay attention to in this latest scare attack by Liberal, Environmental Fascists.  First of all, they are now targeting developing countries.  One reason that Presidents Clinton and Bush opposed global environmental treaties was because developing countries are not held accountable for their contribution to greenhouse emissions.  Liberal Fascists ignored this fact until now.

Second of all, this admission actually negates much of their impact.  The United States has no control whatsoever on the actions of China and India.  Yet, in the past, the Environmental Fascists have blamed America (and other western nations) first for “global warming”.

Third, Environmental Fascists are now using a different term for “global warming”.  Now, they use the term “climate change”.  I believe there is a very good reason for that shift in terminology.  Now, whether the climate warms or cools, they are covered.  And this is not something to be taken loosely. 

On February 15 (Minneapolis StarTribune), George Will wrote the following:

“(Energy Secretary Steven) Chu told the Los Angeles Times that global warming might melt 90 percent of California's snowpack, which stores much of the water needed for agriculture. This, Chu said, would mean ‘no more agriculture in California,’ the nation's leading food producer. Chu added: ‘I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going.’”

Will noted a similar call to panic promoted by scientists in the 1970’s.  And yet the “evidence” at that time pointed in the opposite direction. 

According to Will, “In the 1970s, ‘a major cooling of the planet’ was ‘widely considered inevitable’ because it was ‘well established’ that the Northern Hemisphere's climate ‘has been getting cooler since about 1950’ (New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the ‘cooling trend’ could result in ‘a return to another ice age’ (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated ‘a full-blown 10,000-year ice age’ involving ‘extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation’ (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively).

“The ‘continued rapid cooling of the Earth’ (Global Ecology, 1971) meant that ‘a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery’ (International Wildlife, July 1975). ‘The world's climatologists are agreed’ that we must ‘prepare for the next ice age’ (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of ‘ominous signs’ that ‘the Earth's climate seems to be cooling down,’ meteorologists were ‘almost unanimous’ that ‘the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,’ perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, ‘The Cooling World,’ April 28, 1975). Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from central European forests, the North Atlantic was ‘cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool,’ glaciers had ‘begun to advance’ and ‘growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter’ (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974).

“Speaking of experts, in 1980 Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford scientist and environmental Cassandra who predicted calamitous food shortages by 1990, accepted a bet with economist Julian Simon. When Ehrlich predicted the imminent exhaustion of many nonrenewable natural resources, Simon challenged him: Pick a ‘basket’ of any five such commodities, and I will wager that in a decade the price of the basket will decline, indicating decreased scarcity. Ehrlich picked five metals -- chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten -- that he predicted would become more expensive. Not only did the price of the basket decline, the price of all five declined.

“An expert Ehrlich consulted in picking the five was John Holdren, who today is President Obama's science adviser.

“Credentialed intellectuals, too -- actually, especially -- illustrate Montaigne's axiom: ‘Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know.’

“As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.” (FYI, the latter data may be inaccurate.  Further investigation is necessary.)

The same scientists now predicting doom from warming were predicting doom from cooling in the 1970’s.  Either they are ignorant or they are politicized.  I predict that both are true.  And that is a prediction that I can make without fear of failure, unlike the predictions that have been made by those scientists over the past four decades. Unfortunately, president Obama has chosen one of the worst failures of all time (John Holdren) to be his science advisor.  But of course, that makes sense.  John Holden walks the course determined by Liberal, Environmental Fascists.  And that is the course being set by President Obama.