Socialist Science in the Climate Science Neighborhood

Radical socialists (often disguised with the euphemism "progressives") have many potential avenues they can travel to arrive at their ends -- an end that justifies its means.  And, rather than a goal to save lives or help the poor, the nefarious ends of socialists unfortunately seems to be their own power and control over the rest of us great unwashed.

Typically, the socialist trail is carved out through the down-trodden by whipping up resentment and jealousy and a sense of entitlement that is to be fulfilled by the social activist/community organizer.  Furthermore, socialist socialites in high political and organizational authority are celebrated and idealized as saviors of the needy by the witting and unwitting media.

Thus, the assault on society comes from below and above facilitated by the media to ultimately enslave and impoverish all -- all except the ruling class of socialists, and the wealthy who carefully avoid excessive irritation of the rulers.

After decades of inroads into unions, education, politics, law, journalism, public relations, and many of the "soft" scientific disciplines, the latest avenue of attack has been via the "hard" sciences, in particular, atmospheric science. 

During my 35 years of practice in the atmospheric science profession, in government, consulting, and academia, the socialist techniques that have become apparent include blatant dishonesty stemming from arrogance -- a hallmark of socialism -- and its offshoot, a sense of supreme superiority.

Haughty socialism has no problem with twisting the truth or simply lying.  Although for most people, "honesty is the best policy," in socialist ideology the ends justifies the means and so, even though verity can be useful, it's not absolutely necessary.

There are many experienced real-world atmospheric-science practitioners who legitimately question the conclusions of the cadre of academic and government scientists who have declared "settled" the complex scientific endeavor of understanding climate change.  When experienced practitioners are labeled "climate change deniers" by some of these very same arrogant scientists, you know a symptom of socialism has reared its ugly head.  (Note that I am not claiming that those who use such derogatory terms are necessarily radical socialists, rather that they are displaying the characteristics germane to that radicalism.)

The denier moniker is obviously untrue, which makes it a bit problematic to trust a researcher or research director who relies on using this blatant ad hominem attack.  Professor Michael Mann used the phrase "climate change denier" or some variant of it seven times on one page alone, page 193 (if you count endnotes to the page), in his 2012 book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines.  Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, impudently stated in August that she didn't want any "climate-change deniers in my department."

Likewise, another basic tactic of socialism is to "divide and conquer," that's why differing science views are framed as a "war." It's all or nothing when a personal philosophy/religion is at stake, whereas with authentic scientific practice a middle ground is quite acceptable and often is the path to discovering the truth about a matter under investigation.  Of course, with extremists on both sides, "you're either for us or against us," a view more typical of politics than science. So, socialists demand that you choose sides -- pick a conclusion and defend it at all costs.  With such socialist thinking in control of academia, politics, and much of the media, a scientist's conclusions must meet socialist approval or he/she is not "doing science."  Independent thinking is not acceptable.  And, if you have doubts that the socialist side is correct, then you must be a denier of the "truth." Yet, authentic science is liberating, whereas science in the grips of an ideology, like socialism, is bound not to progress.

The path to true progress for people and the planet should be traveled with gracious, empathetic, and humble responsibility by those who can make a difference with advanced science and technology.  In short, science should be in the service of humanity, rather than in the service of any ideology.  But, unfortunately, with radical socialism now taking up residence on Climate Science Street, well... there goes the neighborhood.

Anthony J. Sadar, a Certified Consulting Meteorologist, is author of In Global Warming We Trust: A Heretic's Guide to Climate Science (Telescope Books, 2012).

Radical socialists (often disguised with the euphemism "progressives") have many potential avenues they can travel to arrive at their ends -- an end that justifies its means.  And, rather than a goal to save lives or help the poor, the nefarious ends of socialists unfortunately seems to be their own power and control over the rest of us great unwashed.

Typically, the socialist trail is carved out through the down-trodden by whipping up resentment and jealousy and a sense of entitlement that is to be fulfilled by the social activist/community organizer.  Furthermore, socialist socialites in high political and organizational authority are celebrated and idealized as saviors of the needy by the witting and unwitting media.

Thus, the assault on society comes from below and above facilitated by the media to ultimately enslave and impoverish all -- all except the ruling class of socialists, and the wealthy who carefully avoid excessive irritation of the rulers.

After decades of inroads into unions, education, politics, law, journalism, public relations, and many of the "soft" scientific disciplines, the latest avenue of attack has been via the "hard" sciences, in particular, atmospheric science. 

During my 35 years of practice in the atmospheric science profession, in government, consulting, and academia, the socialist techniques that have become apparent include blatant dishonesty stemming from arrogance -- a hallmark of socialism -- and its offshoot, a sense of supreme superiority.

Haughty socialism has no problem with twisting the truth or simply lying.  Although for most people, "honesty is the best policy," in socialist ideology the ends justifies the means and so, even though verity can be useful, it's not absolutely necessary.

There are many experienced real-world atmospheric-science practitioners who legitimately question the conclusions of the cadre of academic and government scientists who have declared "settled" the complex scientific endeavor of understanding climate change.  When experienced practitioners are labeled "climate change deniers" by some of these very same arrogant scientists, you know a symptom of socialism has reared its ugly head.  (Note that I am not claiming that those who use such derogatory terms are necessarily radical socialists, rather that they are displaying the characteristics germane to that radicalism.)

The denier moniker is obviously untrue, which makes it a bit problematic to trust a researcher or research director who relies on using this blatant ad hominem attack.  Professor Michael Mann used the phrase "climate change denier" or some variant of it seven times on one page alone, page 193 (if you count endnotes to the page), in his 2012 book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines.  Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, impudently stated in August that she didn't want any "climate-change deniers in my department."

Likewise, another basic tactic of socialism is to "divide and conquer," that's why differing science views are framed as a "war." It's all or nothing when a personal philosophy/religion is at stake, whereas with authentic scientific practice a middle ground is quite acceptable and often is the path to discovering the truth about a matter under investigation.  Of course, with extremists on both sides, "you're either for us or against us," a view more typical of politics than science. So, socialists demand that you choose sides -- pick a conclusion and defend it at all costs.  With such socialist thinking in control of academia, politics, and much of the media, a scientist's conclusions must meet socialist approval or he/she is not "doing science."  Independent thinking is not acceptable.  And, if you have doubts that the socialist side is correct, then you must be a denier of the "truth." Yet, authentic science is liberating, whereas science in the grips of an ideology, like socialism, is bound not to progress.

The path to true progress for people and the planet should be traveled with gracious, empathetic, and humble responsibility by those who can make a difference with advanced science and technology.  In short, science should be in the service of humanity, rather than in the service of any ideology.  But, unfortunately, with radical socialism now taking up residence on Climate Science Street, well... there goes the neighborhood.

Anthony J. Sadar, a Certified Consulting Meteorologist, is author of In Global Warming We Trust: A Heretic's Guide to Climate Science (Telescope Books, 2012).

RECENT VIDEOS