The “fascification” of science

52222747_fascism_xlargeEarlier this afternoon, while grading on-line assignments and answering last-minute student emails, I was listening to our local talk radio when the hourly ABC news broadcast came on around noontime.  One of the news stories was a feature on White House adviser John Podesta and his comments about how Mr. Barack Obama, as President of the United States, fully intends to tackle the issue of man-made global warming global climate change global climate disruption.  He basically bragged during the interview that there was nothing that Congress – mainly the Republican Party – could do to stop the new environmental policies.  He even stated that the debate about man-made climate disruption was over and that those that challenged the theory had arguments that were not based in real science.

Since 2005, there has been an increasing fascification of environmental issues such as climate change. What I mean by “fascification” is that one side has now claimed the debate to be over and anyone that continues to challenge the analysis of the data must be discredited and proven wrong.  In the end, there can only be one correct narrative, there cannot be any debate.  Intellectual fascism is dangerous and not only discourages unbiased scientific research, all research becomes focused to “prove” the sanctioned scientific discovery.  Scientific research simply becomes another avenue to support the official state position. Within the fascist system, nothing exists outside the state; without the official sanctioning of the state nothing can exist.

One of the major issues facing those who support the concept of man-made climate change is what should humankind consider as normal?  If we use the environmental conditions of Earth that existed in the Cretaceous Period, we know from fossil data that the Earth was significantly warmer than it is now.  If we use the environmental record of the last 22,000 years, the Earth was in the middle of an Ice Age.  To any rational thinking being, that would mean that perhaps climate change is a natural occurring phenomenon.  Current environmental models used to predict man-made global climate change often do not factor in the sun or even the heat generated by the Earth’s core.  Again, to any rational thinking being, if a true model of the Earth’s climate was to be done, it must include these as factors as well. Also ignored are the contributions from volcanoes; while leading scientists claim that the largest volcano that contributed to global warming was the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, they fail to correlate any recent volcanic activity to current climate models.  Mount Pinatubo violently erupted over a period of 27 days; Mount Kilauea has been steadily erupting over 27 years. None of the other dozen active volcanoes are considered in current climate predictions.  Again, any logical and rational being would consider all sources of global warming and not focus on any one specific cause if wanting to accurately study the causes and trends in global climate change.

While humankind may be contributing to global climate change, by no means is humankind the only factor that causes it.  However, the angry environmentalist, the angry liberal, and the angry Democrat have joined forces within American politics with the goal to silence opposition and to declare the debate over.  Lawrence Tortello, an assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, was actually praised by many on the American Left for his calling for all deniers in the “science of man-made global warming” to be imprisoned.  He stated that “the charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers…” If allowed to have his way, anyone daring to question the data would be imprisoned.  Unfortunately he is not the only one supporting this concept.  Pentti Linkola, described as a Finnish environmentalist guru, advocates re-education camps, much like what were operated in the early days of the Soviet Union or even China to properly educate those who disagree with the theories of man-made global warming.  Again, in the mind of these leftists, there cannot be any honest debate.  There can be no tolerance. There can only be the consensus that all of humanity, its activities, and its achievements from this moment forward must all be scrutinized and approved by the environmentalist, the leftist, and the socialist – in the case of the United States – the Democratic Party.

One of the basic rights that man has is the right to reject another’s point of view and it is one of the things that has made our nation great.  At the cornerstone of American exceptionalism is that we have always encouraged the open debate on differing points of view.  The debates have been fiery at times, while at others, cooler heads have prevailed. There have been times that various factions have attempted to outlaw dissent only to realize that without the influence of opposition a tyranny can form out of the most honest efforts to transform American society.  What makes the global believers so different is that America’s children, typically allowed to remain out of such issues, has been made a pawn in a game that threatens to undermine parental guidance as a means to force conformity with the “state sanctioned” policies surrounding man-made global warming.  Schools now teach it in science classes of all grades as if the debate is solved and man-made global warming is scientific fact – even though there is sufficient evidence to make the most rational person realize that there may be room for legitimate disagreement. Opposing viewpoints, if not legally discouraged, are being socially discouraged through the use of carefully selected words, phrases, and names called to those who question the science behind global warming.

In the 20th Century, the world witnessed a nation willing to put people to death based on their heritage and religion.  As the middle of the new century is rapidly approaching us, we now begin to hear the calls to rid certain people, not because of their heritage, but because of their rejection of questionable scientific conclusions based on less than complete and questionable data. Could radical environmentalism rise to the extent where it becomes a totalitarian force much like Hitler’s NAZI Party? Make no doubt about it, the seeds for its development into something so vile and hideous are being sown by our political leaders, those in positions of authority within academia, and even within the entertainment industry.  It is only a matter of time before those who are willing to challenge the officially sanctioned and sponsored concept of man-made global warming not only are publicly chastised, but face criminal sanctions as well. When science is bought and paid for exclusively by the government, it becomes another means to an end.

Alan Simmons

Alan Simmons is an adjunct instructor of history at Henderson Community College. He has been teaching at the college/university level since 2004. Within the scope of his degrees, his areas of emphasis are U.S. foreign policy, public policy history, political history, and U.S. history.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookLinkedInGoogle Plus

Comments

comments

Comments are closed.