Professor Roger Pielke upsets the ‘consensus’ among climate fascists

Professor Roger Pielke is the subject of an inquiry regarding his views on climate change.


WASHINGTON, March 6, 2015 – In the 1973 comedy Sleeper, Woody Allen plays a jazz musician/health-food store owner placed in a cryogenic state. Scientists awaken him 200 years in the future. Playing a cameo role as a security guard is renowned environmental scientist Stephen Henry Schneider, then working at the location for Allen’s film, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

“What kind of government you guys got here?” asks Allen. “This is worse than California!”

The scientists inform Allen that the America of 2173 is a police state ruled by “the Leader.” The Scientists who revived him are rebel freedom fighters. It is a comedy after all.

In reality, as creatures dependent on state funding the scientific community are more likely to be indistinguishable from, and therefore supportive of, other instruments of state power.

Like the German Nobel laureate Johannes Stark, who in 1934 wrote that the main function of science is to serve the nation, also attacked theoretical physics as inherently “Jewish.” He worked tirelessly to expel Jews from scientific positions in academia. And Stark was a fierce critic of Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity.

After escaping Nazi Germany, more than a few Jewish theoretical physicists helped America develop the world’s first atomic weapon, putting the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the receiving end of Einstein’s equation E=MC2.

After Germany’s surrender, Stark was classified a “major [National Socialist] offender” and sentenced to four years in prison, which was later suspended.

Climatology has become as unforgiving a field of study as was theoretical physics in Hitler’s Germany.

Take Roger Pielke Jr., who holds a degree in mathematics, public policy and political science. Like Stephen Schneider, who had a small role in Woody Allen’s film, Pielke was also a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research from 1993 until he joined the University of Colorado as a Professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.

It appears Professor Pielke (along with six others) is the subject of an inquiry launched by Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ), the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources. At issue are Pielke’s views on climate change.

In a letter to University of Colorado President Bruce D. Benson, Grijalva expressed concern that “The Koch Foundation appears to have funded climate research” and that Pielke’s testimony to Congress insisted it is “incorrect to associate the increasing costs of [natural] disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”

Grijalva goes on to say that the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren, fears Pielke statements conflict with “scientific consensus on climate change and his (Holdrend’s) position on the issue.”

In other words, the White House science Gestapo is upset that research funded by the Libertarian Koch brothers conflicts with the government position that there is no disagreement within climate science. In a variation of Johannes Stark’s claims in support of German Arian science supremacy, Democrat Grijalva dismisses Pielke’s scientific research as inherently Koch.

“Please provide information on Prof. Pielke’s sources of external funding,” Grijalva’s letter demands, including “consulting fees, promotional considerations, speaking fees, honoraria, travel expenses, salary, compensation and other monies given to Prof. Pielke that did not originate from the institution itself.”

There is just one problem. Grijalva’s claims are untrue.

“I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have,” wrote Pielke in his blog. “Representative Grijalva knows this too, because when I have testified before the US Congress, I have disclosed my funding and possible conflicts of interest. So I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically-motivated ‘witch hunt’ designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name… the Congressman and his staff, along with compliant journalists, are busy characterizing me in public as a ‘climate skeptic.’”

Pielke adds that he has “been contacted by only 2 reporters at relatively small media outlets. I’d say that the lack of interest in a politician coming after academics is surprising, but to be honest, pretty much nothing surprises me in the climate debate anymore.”

“The incessant attack and smears are effective, no doubt. I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject,” said Pielke.

And that is how government-sponsored climate research achieves unprecedented “consensus.”

Just in passing, Pielke supports President Obama’s proposed EPA carbon regulations and the scientific assessment of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

So, why are climate fascists targeting Professor Pielke?

In his book The Climate Fix, he argues there are only four methods for combating future climate catastrophes as predicted by computer models:

  • Reduce carbon emissions by reducing the world’s human population.
  • Reduce carbon emissions through less economic activity, thus, smaller economies.
  • Reduce carbon emissions by shifting from a carbon-intensive society to one fueled by wind, solar and nuclear power.

Then there is what Pielke calls the “iron wall of climate policy.” In a lecture given at The Australian National University, Pielke said, “People are willing to pay some amount for environmental objectives, including climate change, but that willingness has its limits.”

To prove his point, he asked the audience if they had to pay one dollar a year for climate policy, “how many of you would support it?” Nearly everyone raised his or her hand.

“If it was a million dollars a year, how many of you would support it or could support it?” The room erupted in uncomfortable laughter as no hands went up.

He told his audience, “If there is one ideological commitment… that is shared around the world in different cultures, [by] people of different religions, and different political systems, it’s a commitment to economic growth.”

The difference between Professor Roger Pielke Jr. and his climate-fascist detractors are the same that exists between freedom and totalitarianism.

Pielke politely asks his audience if they are willing to pay limitless taxes at the expense of their family’s well being and their society’s future economic growth.

That conflicts with the “consensus” among self-important, government-funded climate fascists that use their so-called “science” as a license to impose their will upon a skeptical world.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • ginjit.dw

    The one thing everybody who got past the sixth grade knows is that there are no “absolutes” in science. To suggest that “climate change” is a scientific fact is ludacris and just freakin’ wrong. To find out what is going on all you have to do is follow the money…billions of dollars..There is so much money to be made from this scam, they could wipe out world hunger with the profits, but nah….it’s about greed…These guys make Gordon Gekko look like a novice.

    When that whore, Soros, funds global warming research, this “representative” grivalja, has nothing to say… I do not have to wonder who he truly represents… Stupid is forever and seems to spread like the ebola virus among progressives….

    • go2green

      So Soros is funding global warming research, what has that got to do with anything? By the way who is making billions of dollars and where is it coming from?

      • 3GSimpleton

        The Sierra Club. Chesapeake Energy. Go figure.

      • ginjit.dw

        Do you think that there aren’t billions of dollars to be made from carbon credits????

        And yes, when the Kock brothers fund research the results are questioned and marginalized…Like Soros doesn`t fund research!!!

  • go2green

    Roger Pielke Jr., who holds a degree in mathematics, public policy and political science.
    Just how does that make him a climate expert?

    • 3GSimpleton

      Yes, of course, attack the credentials, attack the person, demean his comments, discredit his name.

      Of course, Pielke has not only a lot more class than you do, but also superior intelligence. Therefore, he can do things like conduct observation-based analysis of economic and other outcomes, and he can interpret the results in a meaningful way.

      What’s the matter…Pielke’s work too hard for you to comprehend? it that you DO get it, but simply don’t have any coherent arguments against the factual statements he has made?

      Or is it that you’re a paid-shill agit-prop cog in the Big Commie Machine?

      Me?…I think you’re just a Climate Reality Denier.

      • go2green

        Just asking a question but apparently you can only attack rather than answer the question. I will ask again, how a degree in mathematics, public policy and political science make him a climate expert?

        • 3GSimpleton

          Just asking…

          How does that relate to analysis of actual events and their economic impacts? Do I need to be a climate expert to understand this?

          Are you saying that a lack of competence on his part renders the facts inoperative? Are you saying credentials trump facts?

          What exactly are you saying?

          • go2green

            “Are you saying that a lack of competence on his part renders the facts inoperative”? Uh yeah, a lack of competence on his part would seem to make his facts inoperative when it comes to climate issues.

          • 3GSimpleton

            Then why don’t you explain the graph?

            Is the data wrong? Is it presented in a misleading fashion?

            Your point was:

            “I will ask again, how a degree in mathematics, public policy and political science make him a climate expert?”

            The issue is not climate, but flood damages, and while I know you would like to conflate the two, I will keep them separate for you. The analysis is assessing damage in economic terms, which involves mathy things like adding and making a graph. The relevance is implications for public policy.

            How is Pielke not qualified to address an issue that requires math and impacts on public policy making, according to your statement above?

            Or…do you simply not like the fact that this crystal clear analysis flies in the face of the claims made by True Believers from the Church of the Omnipotent Molecule, and showing them to be little more than opportunistic liars?

          • go2green

            The article is about revealing who is funding your research brought on by Willie ‘big oil’ Soon trying to hide the fact that he had been paid off. In fact what this investigation is trying to do is to discover who is behind the persons who are saying basically the same lies and distortions as he was trying to peddle. Revealing your funding is pretty standard for most researchers and it makes you wonder why deniers are so eager to hide theirs.

            Go back in time to where a handful of scientists were stating that lead in gasoline was not harmful to the environment. It obviously was very harmful so why did a couple of them lie about it? It’s because they were paid off by big oil, the exact same thing that is happening now.

            Yea that’s a nice graph about flood damages but it’s irrelevant to the discussion and has nothing at all to do with climate science. How does a degree in mathematics, public policy and political science make him a climate expert? Who is funding him and others? It’s a simple question that is easily answered.

          • 3GSimpleton

            I can hardly wait until the congressional investigation into Tides.

            I can hardly wait.

            Go Sen. Inhofe…Go!

    • Stephen Z. Nemo

      You miss the point. “Climate Change” is not a science. It’s a religion and climatologists are its high priests.

      • go2green

        Apparently this ‘religion’ has spread worldwide hasn’t it? A climatologist is a scientist – look it up.

        • Stephen Z. Nemo

          He becomes a priest the
          moment he demands empty-headed, blind obedience from his congregation. Science
          is not about absolutes. If it were, we would still believe the sun revolves
          around the Earth and that bleeding the sick relieves them of the “evil humors.”
          Scientific advances only happen when a real scientist questions the “consensus”
          and expands, for now, our understanding of reality. It is the superstitious who
          never question; even the superstitious claiming to be “scientists.”

          • go2green

            I have no idea what your point is.

          • Stephen Z. Nemo

            The point is that science is an instrument for asking
            questions and testing hypotheses, not arriving at truth. Especially “truth” provided
            by dubious computer models.

      • ginjit.dw

        He gets the point….. He thinks it’s a science…..

  • Hans Olo

    Hal Lewis’s take on the global warming scam is particularly interesting:It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS [American Physical Society] before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.

  • Tara Woodruff

    I Agree. The Climate Fascists would have us all Vaccinated to DEATH or Starving. The World Goes through Cycles.. Its Nature and We Can not stop it. What we can do is Be More present and Empathetic.. But the Climate Fascists remind me of the Worst of Humans

  • Allie Way

    The story of man-made global-warming is a story of science fiction.

  • Bruno’s Beach

    I’m not sure why, but Obama seems to truly despise this country.

  • Simplythefactsmam

    “If there is one ideological commitment… that is shared around the world in different cultures, [by] people of different religions, and different political systems, it’s a commitment to economic growth.”

    This is not true. People all over the world do NOT want economic growth at the expense of the environment and a sustainable future.

    “The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.”

    Roger Pielke Jr., in 2006 testifying in front of a House committee.