The Scientific Technological Elite

President Dwight D. Eisenhower's famous 1960 farewell address contained more than an admonition about the danger of an expanding "military-industrial complex." That speech was also an early warning of the current unholy alliance between the government and a scientific community dependent on the government for its funding.

Americans have steadfastly recalled Eisenhower's initial clarion call, especially in political debates concerning the size of annual defense budgets:

... we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted the military-industrial complex.... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together [i].

However, little attention has been given to an equally important warning that Eisenhower issued in the same farewell address: the danger that public policy might become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

... [In] the technological revolution during recent decades ... research has become central ... complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government ... the solitary inventor ... has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields ...

... the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. ... we must ... be alert to the ... danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite [ii].

It is uncanny that Eisenhower practically predicted the current results we are experiencing from the past thirty years of multimillion dollar grants to study earth's climate. From the recent revelations of intellectual fraud and deceit, we have seen a perfect example of a "government contract" that has become a substitute for "intellectual curiosity."

The millions of dollars for continuing climate research and the dazzling possibilities for expanding government policies and social controls have provided the necessary components to allow trusted scientists to cheat their way into scaring the public into letting them have their way with us. Thousands of researchers now depend on these grants for their livelihood, and the movement pushes forward under its own momentum, regardless of the underlying facts.

The will to survive overlooks non-supportive information. Defensive reflexes cause selective acceptance of data, and sometimes outright deception. Truth becomes far less important than the survival of the movement and the arrival of the next grant. It becomes easy to rationalize away all opposition, especially when the opposition challenges the very premise upon which the source of income depends.

Governments will gleefully fund anything that grows its power and control. The investment and stockbroker communities rub their hands together in anticipation of the trillions of dollars that will reach their fingers through "cap-and-trade" solutions. Energy companies will happily join the parade. An unwitting public, dependent on a grossly inadequate press, will swallow the garbage whole. The media loves nothing better than a chance to help "save the world." Somehow it gives their lives meaning, and it certainly beats the difficult task of being real journalists. That is how a theory becomes a widely accepted "fact" even though true scientific investigation has been seriously lacking.

The results are now before us. "Science" has fraudulently provided liberal politicians with the means for total public control: anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming.

We deniers are hidden in the background, wondering what would happen if "our" side is correct that we are more likely in an extended period of cooling (a far more disastrous prospect than global warming). What can man do to stop that? Must we start burning fossil fuels in the streets and chop down the trees? Does any intelligent human being believe that mankind could then warm the atmosphere by increasing the production of carbon dioxide? Sounds kind of silly, doesn't it?

[i] Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035-1040.

[ii] Ibid.
If you experience technical problems, please write to