4.10. Thought Police and the Fledgling of Eco-Dictatorship «The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and buming of fossil fuels - the essence of the Greens' theory of global warming - has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science». Paul Johnson439 «Lord Kelvin’s understanding of the earth’s age was limited by his ignorance of nuclear interactions. The current debates about global climate change are complicated by our not understanding the physics of the sun or of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans well enough to dismiss them as major causes of climate change on the earth. Dramatic climate changes like the medieval warm period at the time of the Viking settlements of Iceland and Greenland from about a.d. 900 to 1250, and the subsequent “little ice age,” from about 1250 to 1700, which led to extinction of the Greenland settlements, were certainly not caused by man-made changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Subtle changes of the sun’s output and perhaps other poorly understood factors must have been much more important in causing those large climate changes than changing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide». William Happer Roger Revelle at the end of his life will co-author with Fred Singer (Singer at al., 1992) an article denouncing the extravagant predictions of climate alarmism; after the death of Revelle, Al Gore, then vice president will try by pressures, threats and legal procedures to make withdraw the name of Revelle from this article; Fred Singer will stand firm and win a lawsuit against the minions of Al Gore. But ecologists as Brendan Montague are ready to go as far as claiming that Singer abused Revelle who given his diminished physical ability could not pay attention for many minutes because his intellectual capacity was severely diminished. What an insult for Revelle, as reminded by Lindzen (2012) «To be sure, everyone who knew Revelle, felt that he had been alert until his death». Some as Lancaster (2006) go as far as claim that Revelle never agreed nor did work with Singer, but contradict themselves « My understanding, from conversations with Roger in 1991 and Christa in 1992, was that Roger was pressed and worn down in a single multihour session on a single day in February of 1991. This was a time when Christa and I limited our own working sessions with Roger to 15-20 minutes, because he would fatigue so quickly. Apparently the session with Singer was hours long. Shortly after publication of the Cosmos article, Roger showed it to me, saying, with clear embarrassment: S. Fred is a rather persuasive fellow» (Lancaster, 2006). Lancaster went as far as «He later added the charge that I had pressured an aging and sick colleague, suggesting that Dr. Revelle’s mental capacities were failing at the time. » as reported by Singer. A complete account of that shameful story is given by Andy May in his book, May (2020). Lindzen (2012) goes on and mentions that «occasionally, prominent individual scientists do publicly express skepticism. The means for silencing them are fairly straightforward. Will Happer, director of research at the Department of Energy (and a professor of physics at Princeton University) was simply fired from his government position after expressing doubts about environmental issues in general». His case is described in Happer (2003) «In my own case, I lost a federal position because of citing scientific research findings that undermined a politician’s rhetoric…, but my dismissal surely serves as a warning to other government scientists and, perhaps more importantly, to non-government scientists who act as advisers to the government, that politics can trump science even in purely technical topics ». Happer (2003) explains how dissident scientists are stifled and funds made unavailable to any idea that dissents from the mainstream «At the present time, it is very difficult to obtain funding, either from U.S. governmental sources or from private foundations, for research that does not presuppose impending environmental doom. Suggestions that moderate global warming may actually be a good thing for humanity are treated with ridicule and hostility». Of course, this is hijacking tax-payer monies and funneling it in an arbitrary manner so as to try to get the conclusions the power expects. But as recalled by Happer (2003) in his paper in the section dealing with Lysenko « The Lysenko episode shows that an entire scientific discipline can be destroyed if the attractions of false science are great enough and if its proponents are ruthless enough». Happer became director on the National Security Council under the Trump administration and has fought CO2 demonization as much as he could based on his exceptional credentials in Physics 440.
439https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_(writer) 440https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer
365
