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.