“Statism – the subordination of the individual to the state – leads inevitably to the most hideous oppression.”– Andrew Bernstein Professor of philosophy, writer
On February 20th, the noted meteorologist, Dr. Roy W. Spencer, fed up with being called a “denier” of global warming, posted a commentary on his blog titled “Time to push back against the global warming Nazis.”
“When politicians and scientists started calling people like me ‘deniers’, they crossed the line. They are still doing it,” said Dr. Spencer. “They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.” The Holocaust happened, but global warming’s latest natural cycle ended about 17 years ago and, as a lot of people have noticed, it has been getting cold since then.
“Like the Nazis,” said Dr. Spencer, “they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause…” In the case of global warming, this huge hoax was put forth by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The UN would like to be the world’s global government, but that’s not going to happen. In the meantime, the IPCC provided scientists that cooperated with lots of money for their alleged research, all of which “proved” that carbon dioxide was dramatically heating the Earth. Others like Al Gore made millions selling “carbon credits”. Along the way, both Gore and the IPCC received a Nobel Peace Prize.
Dr. Spencer received a Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. He was a Senior Scientists for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center where he and a colleague, Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. He became a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001 and continues to advise NASA as a U.S. Science Team Leader. As he points out on his blog, his research has been supported by U.S. government agencies, so the usual claim by Greens that he is a paid stooge of Big Oil just doesn’t work in his case.
Dr. Spencer’s decision to call a Nazi a Nazi ignited a lot of discussion among the global warming hustlers and those whom they have been calling “deniers” for many years. I always found it particularly offensive, but I suspect those I called charlatans and hustlers felt the same way. The difference, however, is the connotation applied to the term, “denier.” Even today anti-Semites of various descriptions deny that six million Jews died in the death camps of Nazi Germany during World War Two along with millions Christians and Eastern Slavic Europeans
What makes this particularly offensive and horrid is the fact that those in the Nazi leadership under Adolf Hitler were all environmentalists, deeply committed to conservation and similar expressions that put the Earth above the value of human life.
This is all revealed in a book by R. Mark Musser, “Nazi Oaks”, now in its third printing. Musser was introduced to environmentalism at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, from which he graduated in 1989. In 1994 he received Master of Divinity and spent seven years as a missionary to Belarus and in the Ukraine.
Musser’s book is absolutely astonishing as he documents how “Green” the Nazis were from their earliest years until their defeat. It was Heinrich Himmler, the Reich Leader from 1929 to 1945, who was responsible for the “Final Solution”, the mass killing of Europe’s Jews. He led the Nazi party’s SS.
As Musser notes, “The Nazis were trying to eliminate both global capitalism and international communism in order to recover a reverence for nature lost in the modern cosmopolitan world.” The Nazis also held Judeo-Christian values in contempt.
“That this evolutionary Nazi nature religion was clothed in secular biology and colored by environmental policies and practices, is a historical truth that has been ignored and underreported for too long a time in all the discussions about the Holocaust,” writes Musser.
I am inclined to believe that it is no accident that the global warming charlatans began to use the term “deniers” to describe skeptics.
By 2011, a Gallup poll that surveyed people in 111 countries revealed that most of the human race did not see global warming as a serious threat. Still, worldwide 42% told Gallup that they thought global warming was either ‘somewhat serious’ or ‘very serious.’ That was down from 63% in polls taken in 2007 and 2008 in the U.S.
More than just a spat between scientists, in April 2012, the Congressional Research Service estimated that, since 2008, the federal government had spent nearly $70 billion on ‘climate change activities.’ That kind of money could build or repair a lot of bridges and roads. It could fund elements of our military. It could be spent on something other than a climate over which neither the government nor anyone in the world has any influence.
Bursting onto the national stage, Dr. Spencer’s decision to call the global warming scientists Nazis for their efforts to intimidate or smear the reputations of those whose research disputes their claims, Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. a Wall Street Journal columnist, wrote on March 1 that “Surely some kind of ending is upon us. Last week climate protesters demanded the silencing of Charles Krauthammer for a Washington Post column that notices uncertainties in the global warming hypothesis.”
“In coming weeks,” wrote Jenkins, “a libel trial gets under way brought by Penn State’s Michael Mann, author of the famed “hockey stick” graph (Editor’s note: an IPCC graph Mann created that asserted a sudden, major increase in heat has been widely debunked) against the National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, writer Rand Simberg and roving commentator Mark Steyn for making wisecracks about his climate work.”
Revelations of several thousand emails between IPCC scientists, one of whom was Mann, were christened “climategate” and demonstrated the efforts in which they engaged to suppress the publication of any papers that questioned global warming in scientific journals. As the climate turned cooler, they became increasingly alarmed.
What we are likely witnessing are the long death throes of the global warming hoax. Calling those scientists and others like myself “deniers” and other names simply reveals the desperation of those who are seeing a great source of money slip away under the spotlight of scientific truth, nor will they be able to impose their lies on the rest of us.
© Alan Caruba, 2014
National Secutity: The charman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warns of America’s future under a “smaller adn less capable military.”What happens when our enemies can burn our homeland, norr just or flag?
When we watch Islamist fanatics in faraway lands burning the Stars and Stripes and chanting “Death to America!” it might send a chill down our spines.
But we also remind ourselves that these images are on our TV screens; we sit in the comfort of our living rooms, protected by the mightiest military in the world.
Today, however, even prominent liberals in Congress wonder how long we can be protected. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., for instance, on Wednesday questioned whether President Obama’s Pentagon budget is “adequate to enable our military to meet its national security missions.”
All of us should be shocked by what Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told Congress Wednesday. In presenting the congressionally commissioned Quadrennial Defense Review, Dempsey made it clear that our ability to deter war, protect the homeland, and help our allies and friends across the world is in jeopardy.
Eagle Forum president and conservative author Phyllis Schlafly condemned GOP leadership efforts to compromise with Democrats on immigration, telling her audience that Republicans are “fools” to back any kind of deal that includes citizenship for illegal immigrants.
“Republicans are fools to to support any kind of amnesty, or to import foreigners who will support big government and big spending,” she said during a blunt speech at The National Security Action in Washington, D.C. “Why is anyone surprised that three fourths of Hispanics and Asians voted for Obama during the 2012 election? … Sixty-nine percent of immigrants support Obamacare.”
Schlafly cited a battery of polls that drew stark contrasts between Americans and naturalized immigrants — which didn’t include recent legal or illegal immigrants. While 67 percent of native-born Americans cited the Constitution as a higher legal authority than international law, only one third of naturalized citizens believed the same, a Harris poll found.
Immigrants tend to vote Democraticre withdrawing their support from Republicans until the GOP works with Democrats on immigration reform, but because they benefit from generous social programs, she added.
“They’re not for amnesty,” she said. “They’re for the goody handouts of Democratic party… [A]mnesty is suicide for the conservative movement and the Republican party.”