Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Sunday, December 27, 2015

"Global warming" shares a lot in common with communist science

Is "global warming" communist science?

I realize that we have all been taught -- indoctrinated -- to believe that you cannot call anyone a communist (except Jesus); communists in Hollywood created the myth in the 1950s that there are no communists in Hollywood -- or anywhere else in the nation. And after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the same communists created the myth that the Soviet Union was not really communist because, duh, communism would not fail like that. But it did fail, and there are communists in Hollywood and elsewhere, and while they will not share their wealth, they sure as heck will share yours.

One of their beliefs is "global warming," a pseudoscience that holds activity by man is so powerful that it can cause permanent changes in the weather of the entire planet. "Global warming" causes floods and droughts, heat and cold, hurricanes and lulls in hurricanes, glaciers to melt and ice to pile up in Antarctica, and any unusual weather in which the temperature varies from the average for that date in the local area. "Global warming" also causes gravity to change, and the Earth to tilt.

In short, "global warming" is nonsense, but how did we get to the point where the "global warming" superstition is accepted by so many otherwise intelligent people?

The answer to that lay with Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, a communist scientist in the Soviet Union whose crackpot theory on genetics and agriculture nearly starved the Soviet Union and Red China. As director of the Soviet Union's Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Lysenko was in charge of communist crops for a generation. Government reports published in Pravda (the New York Times of Moscow) showed that Soviet Union agriculture boomed under Lysenkoism, despite all the starvation. This success on paper so impressed Chairman Mao that the Chinese adopted it in the 1950s.

Like James Hansen and Michael Mann years later, Lysenko was a lousy scientist but a great politician. He ingratiated himself with Josef Stalin. This gave Lysenko something better than a research laboratory or a Nobel; he had the political clout to make his science work.

Lysenko rejected the science on genetics discovered by Father Gregor Johann Mendel in the 19th century. Lysenko's plan was to alter the plants rather than the seeds. Thousands of Russian scientists protested, and Stalin killed or imprisoned them. Millions starved. That did not matter. Communist science prevailed.

This was taught in Soviet schools, citing government data that were forgeries. No one would dare say the emperor wore no science.

Writing in Forbes, Peter Ferrara dared to compare Lysenkoism to "global warming."

"Those who promote the theory are favored with billions from government grants and neo-Marxist environmentalist largess, and official recognition and award.  Faked and tampered data and evidence has arisen in favor of the politically correct theory. Is not man-caused, catastrophic global warming now the only theory allowed to be taught in schools in the West?" Ferrara wrote.

Yes, I call them communist. Yes, that will draw derision. I side with the truth. Correct trumps politically correct.


  1. "Global warming" HAS a lot in common with communist science.

    FIFY, Don.

  2. Green on the outside, red on the inside...

  3. Every other science deals with heat in the language of temperature, that is molecular motion, but not climate science.

    With climate science they invoke the language of light.

    There's a reason for that.

    Because when you talk about molecular motions suddenly co2 is revealed
    as a heat sink, a fat slow moving molecule that takes extra energy just to get up to the surrounding temperature of the ambient air.

    That's why when you expose pressurized co2 to the air it turns into dry ice. Co2 sucks all the heat away leaving behind a minus (-109 degree) hole.
    The real world effect of co2 is the exact opposite of a greenhouse. It's an anti greenhouse gas.

  4. This article is ridiculous. The author trots out the word communist to scare readers but there's no true link to communism. At all. Meanwhile, you know who believes climate change is a real thing? 96% of the scientists who study the weather. And the Pentagon. Those lying bastards. And now, after decades of hiding research, the oil companies admit that climate change is a problem. You deniers in your tin-foil hats are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Meanwhile click-bait titles like this lure you in because you're easily fooled.

    1. Dear sir, communist science was taught in the Soviet Union. When the facts didn't fit the ideology, the facts had to go. Try looking up Lysenkoism, for example. You speak of 96% of the scientists that study the weather: “A 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. Of the 1,862 members who responded (a quarter of the organization), 59 percent stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter (23 percent) said enough is not yet known to make any determination. “
      That isn’t 97% of climate scientists. The magazine, Socialism Today, certainly thinks there is a problem:
      You global cooling deniers really are not good with facts.