Eisenhower’s Prescience: The Pillar of Science Compromised by Political Influence

“Accepted Climate Theory” stands to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

Open Letter to the American People, Politicians, and The Media Regarding Climate Theory:

 

Man-made climate change theory, the Hockey Stick Theory first asserted by climate scientist Michael Mann, is the one and only premise upon which the United Nations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) places their entire focus, has been forced upon we citizens by the political class, the media, and the celebrity; it’s truly absurd and offensive to the collective intellect of the American people. Forced upon us by people who invest their entire lives in the business of bait and switch, attempting to portray a false sense of understanding regarding the many various issues plaguing average Americans at any given time, the ability to simply change their entire “belief systems” when politically expedient; all of this made possible by the strange, head-scratching, acceptance widely held by the public-at-large. It’s as if people hold politicians to a completely different standard than those which they hold their fellow citizens, friends, and loved ones. Do the politicians of this nation truly believe it justified to discourage and undermine the principles of scientific discourse and the peoples’ rights to express their inherent rights to freedom of expression?

Since it’s become clear that many among, not only the American, but the global citizenry and scientific community have been actively attempting to convey scientific dissent, could there be any doubt that you, the politicians or the media, are unaware of the aggressively hostile atmosphere involving only one particularly divisive and yet clearly debatable, undeniably worthy of the climate science community, the global political class, and the media to encourage ongoing, open discourse made transparent to all American and global citizens? The fact is, you’re either aware, or you’re not doing your jobs. 

Fellow citizens, if someone in your life, a boss or colleague, friend or neighbor, had demonstrated repeatedly their ability to completely disregard principles and values which they once firmly held in exchange for whatever the ebbing tides of societal trends suggests are more acceptable today than yesterday, I think we can agree that person wouldn’t command very much respect. Yet, this is exactly what all of the most beloved politicians in this country do routinely; as any self-aware politician with a grain of humility must be aware. It’s seldom even mentioned; indeed, these miraculous epiphanies which so conveniently fit the social narrative of the day so comfortably are often celebrated, the true motivations for the change of heart rarely even discussed by media or subjects. To many of we mere peasants who possess even the slightest capacity for independent, critical thought, it’s such an incredibly bizarre double standard. We don’t care if a politician suddenly takes on all the issues of importance to us personally, if they at one point vehemently opposed them, good Americans with a moral compass do not reflexively become believers, voters, supporters, or anything of the like for those individual. But all too many do, and the voice and votes of the observant citizens are stifled by a mob mentality akin to the eternal memory of the political puppeteering of the Roman mob some 2,000 years ago.

An example would be former president Barack Obama’s many changes in stance on issues such as Gay Marriage. President Obama was and is by no means singular or the exception in this regard; but rather the rule. It’s an issue of monumental importance to so many Americans these days; yet, in 2008, when gay marriage support did not poll well with American voters, Barack Obama publicly spoke against it repeatedly. In 2012, when polling suggested support for gay marriage was the politically expedient stance to take, he took it (surprise, surprise). Suddenly, decent citizens of this country who just months prior to this change of heart had the backing and support of the President of the United States suddenly became targets of attacks from their peers as individuals not in full agreement with the fashionable stance of the day. In an instant, an executive in Silicon Valley, who supported the Prop 8 legislation defending the pillar of marriage as union between man and woman, was outed publicly for such support (specifically, an $800 donation to a political committee working to uphold the legislation; pledging their God-given right to freedom of speech, to their own opinions, and how they appropriate their charitable donations), ultimately becoming black-listed in the industry he helped create, losing his  job, and being smeared in the media all over the country.

The donation was made in 2008, when Barack Obama himself had pledged to we plebeians that he would uphold and defend the pillar of marriage and would never seek to infringe upon it, this the CEO of Mozilla was on the same side as one of the most beloved men in America. In 2012, when Obama became guilty of duplicity yet again on yet another public issue, it became en vogue for the high society types to weed out those with values not shared by the herd. It became acceptable to publicly humiliate and destroy a man’s career who, supported Prop 8 in California at a time when “The One” himself stood in agreement. It’s reprehensible to say the least.

It’s simply amazing to me that there’s absolutely no shortage of those so quick to buy the “climate change” mania we’ve been smothered by for a decade, no thanks to Al Freaking Gore, inventor of the internet and environmental “scientist”. It’s unbelievable. This guy encompasses the very essence of a duplicitous politician to the very core. I don’t know if people just take no time whatsoever in examining these lunatics when they speak nonsense, or if we’ve entered an era of gullible acceptance of whatever these very obvious professional liars tell us.

The amount of money that is raised in support of global warming initiatives, the political clout readily available to any snake who’s on board as they use this tactic to express to constituents that they are literally working to save our lives – Doesn’t anyone question the intentions and motivations of these people? We can’t all be so gullible; all so deaf and blind to the innumerable examples of political double-talk, corruption, blatant lies, the complete lack of a moral compass in their personal lives – all these things unearthed time and again and these ruthless individuals continue what should be an unlikely rise in popularity, countless reelections, as they revel in the admiration of a nation of dunces.

Think about all the angles of what they tell you. First off, one political faction or another has been telling us we’re all gon’ die for as long as I remember, and I often read of the many examples from before my years. We first remember the ozone layer depletion, the hysteria over using “aerosol” as a primary suspect in what would surely be our doom. We believed it. I personally celebrated earth day with my Grateful Dead T-Shirts, pretended I knew what the HELL they were talking about. I thought I was pretty evolved… And cool.

Then we were told Global Warming would wreak all manner of havoc in his multi-award winning, farcical docudrama, nearly all of which have turned out completely false. Even the purported fear for the Polar Bears has turned out to be complete hype. No one seems to remember that or care to ask Mr. Gore what happened to his Doomsday prophecy, which the republicans have even proven to see the advantages in perpetuating this false narrative. He still receives millions of dollars on the college speaking circuit, and a couple years ago, sold his ridiculous cable channel to Al Jazeera America for a cool $500 million. Now if that isn’t a travesty to make such a douche nozzle so filthy rich, I don’t know what is (based on total lies and manipulation, nonetheless).

It should be no secret to anyone with even the most basic, elementary education, that “climate change” is anything but some “new concept”. Everyone should know the earth has experienced climate change of epic proportions, sometimes within startlingly rapid and mostly unexplainable periods of time. There have been significant, yet inexplicable changes in climate going back just over the past millennia to the “little ice-age” of the 1200’s. A wide array of theories have been postulated in its regard, including one that hypothesizes whether the Army campaigns of the infamous Mongol Invasions where complete disaster and destruction plagued a massive geographic landscape stretching from the Asian Steppe as far as Eastern Europe, leveling entire thriving cities in their wake, particularly in the Mid-East; the sheer, innumerable number of dead, and the subsequent capacity for natural growth to spring up where once sprawling cities were once scattered throughout the Mongol Empire may have had a major impact on the planet’s cooling period. A rather imaginative theory, but yet a standing theory nonetheless.

10,000 years ago, my home state of Ohio was covered by a gigantic glacier during the last major ice age. That glacier is the unfortunate cause for Ohio’s lack of natural lakes, or unique terrain, as when the mile-thick glacier retreated northward upon the end of the period, it completely leveled the entire state, leaving very few geographical features in its wake. This was long before mankind was producing energy or having any measurable impact on this earth whatsoever. Why are so many so quick to dismiss evidence so uniquely contrary to the narrative being forced upon us by those with political and economic agendas? It’s really not that hard to imagine we’re being played as fools.

 

Do the politicians, green entrepreneurs, U.N. IPCC or any Alarmist for that matter foot the bill for Climate Sciences narrow-sighted research and the regulations enforced upon American and Global Corporations? It’s the American and Global citizen who ultimately foots the bill for a theory those who benefit the most, unprecedentedly, aggressively, and with great hostility silence anyone who questions the authority of those issuing the narrative; including the great many in the climate and scientific community who themselves are silenced routinely and consistently.

 

I think many of them believe their own bullshit. They must. Those people might actually be fighting this fight out of decency, but ignorance and the gullible impulse to fight whatever fight is popular at the moment does not clear these people of my spite and disdain. Ignorance and the refusal to facilitate open conversation, open and fair dialogue within the scientific community (many scientists opposed to the man-made climate change hysteria are black-balled by their peers, their written research and dissent which we the people should have a right to examine, never makes it past the editors at scientific journals). Some climate scientists have essentially declared war on dissenters, labeling skeptics as “lunatics with no regard for our environment or “accepted science”.

Accepted science. That’s funny. Democrats love reminding us all that “99% of the scientific community has accepted the hockey stick theory as legitimate”. That statement is patently false. Sadly, when young and impressionable citizens hear this coming from the mouths of so-called experts, the conversation is over. To even breach the topic is a cardinal sin, we skeptics are considered actual enemies to many activists; many of whom would literally rather see a critical thinking skeptic dead than to consider for a moment the very logical arguments dissenting against the climate change narrative. This number has been scientifically debunked, and ignored, by numerous think-tanks who’ve challenged the factually erroneous and disconcertingly incompetent methodology performed by, not by a scientist, but Harvard Historian Naomi Oreskes. Independent studies have thoroughly found inconsistencies in the search terms utilized; uncovered the potential for intentionally undisclosed methods in her research such as the search terms used when researching scientific databases containing scientific research on Climate Theory.

For instance, her results could indeed be replicated using search terms not disclosed in her methodology; however, Naomi Oreskes used a search term which yielded far fewer results of scientific dissent than what the database actually contained (and now happens to contain exponentially higher results of scientific research not in alignment with the narrative with which the American people are familiar). Essentially, had Miss Oreskes used the search terms which she disclosed, the 97% consensus talking point would never have come to fruition – thereby denying countless global politicians, the gullible masses, and the science community so quick to shout down the climate skeptic the talking point intended to end the debate. There are a great many formerly heralded and multiple award-winning climate scientists, former IPCC members, former alarmists, and independent thinkers of the world whose questions have only been silenced by a complicit media, refusing to disclose the reality that climate theory as we know it is anything but “accepted”.

The earth began “warming” 300 years ago, before fossil fuels could have had any measurable impact on the earth. The many variables outside of carbon emissions are not even examined, as the government won’t provide grants to scientists seeking alternative explanations. Perhaps there ISN’T one. Isn’t it just possible we don’t know what the HELL we’re talking about? It would by no means be setting precedent. It was once absolutely ridiculous to consider the earth was not the center of the solar system, that was ordained by high society scientists, who lived their days admired by plebeians whose intellect could never possibly reconcile with that of the scientific community. Those scientists died believing they were the smartest dudes in the world. Hmmmmm….

There are literally innumerable possibilities to explain climate change, but none are being researched, considered, or debated by science, politicians, or society. It’s tragic as hell. It’s actually counter-productive and unscientific to ignore the infinite number of variables anyone, scientist or not, could imagine contributing factors in something so complex and misunderstood as CLIMATE. Take the very factual correlation between El Niño’s and oceanographic activity directly interacting with the earth’s atmosphere, solar activity, volcanic and other natural factors, and so many more.

Meanwhile, new millionaires and billionaires are created with the help of lawmakers and presidents, government grants and support, as they seek to create and expand an entirely new industry that didn’t exist 20 years ago. It’s opened quite a few doors for many a dubious individual. Politicians have been elected on it, power granted on account of it, campaign donors rewarded with taxpayer money to further their own self-interests all in the name of “saving humanity from itself”. It’s just laughable.

Logic and reason continue to haunt my thoughts regarding the subject of man-made climate change, regardless of having been inundated with all of the propaganda, lofty political and celebrity speeches in support of combating it. Life experience and close observations of the parties involved in the climate change discussion, the known history of lies and double-talk, my inherent skepticism of almost anything any politicians says (not because I’m so skeptical, but because I have a good memory and I’m not so fast to disregard the many past transgressions and examples of complete self-service they’ve demonstrated time and again), the readily apparent motives for the hysteria narrative, who benefits, how the scientific community was, undeniably, forced into this die-hard insistence on placing their entire focus on carbon emissions alone, unreliable temperature data (known to have been skewed by prominent climate researchers who have admitted to falsifying certain reports and conducting narrow-sighted research hell-bent on “uncovering” precisely what they set out to.

There are far too many questions about the players in the climate change conversation for me to just accept it without thought. The consequences of legislative maneuvering have cost companies and taxpayers Lord knows how much money; that alone should evoke some motivation for second-guessing what “they” tell you and givie you the strength to ask the unpopular questions even if your peers think less of you for doing so.

We routinely hear the irrelevant counterpoint that it doesn’t matter if what we’re told is right, it doesn’t matter if we’re intentionally or unintentionally misled because of the good environmental reactions to alarmism that we in America and the West view as a moral principle. And it is, but we don’t need to be good to the planet based off false premises. It’s actually counter-productive and unscientific to ignore all of the innumerable potential variables and the potential for acting upon the potential findings. For the climate science community to think their “accepted theory” consisting of a two axis grid postulating the absurdly simplistic theory that one single variable, carbon, and its correlation with totally untrustworthy temperature data collected and used as an unquestionable, scientifically accurate source is beyond reproach, criticism, or even scientific debate as they denounce more reliable satellite data sources for surface and atmospheric temperature data (as that data contradicts virtually their entire theory) is simply unfathomable, unprofessional, and unscientific.

 

Reality of Satellite Vs. Ground Temperature Readings. The assertion made that satellite readings lack the reliability of ground temperature readings (which are known to be obsolete, aging, susceptible to compromising by human activity surrounding data sites, totally ignored by the climate science community) is completely absurd; particularly coming from a community that otherwise relies upon satellite data for its known accuracy and lack of exposure to compromising variables.

For people to stifle scientific debate is blasphemy; not the simple point of asking questions that for some reason, in spite of a theory so “concrete and infallible”, has put multitudes of politicians, scientists and gullible citizens on unprecedentedly aggressive and hostile defense towards those less-inclined to believe a theory with so many holes, it would stand against all reason to not ask questions! It goes against the very meaning of science. I’ve said this repeatedly. And it’s true. There are virtually no other fields of science so narrow-minded and aggressively hostile toward dissent or contrary proposals made by some of the most talented and respected scientists in the world among the many whose dissent is buried and kept hidden from the incurious minds of the world (MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: Believing CO2 controls the climate ‘is pretty close to believing in magic).

What if there are alternative factors which we’re not considering and could be acting upon? What if cutting carbon emissions is actually the least of our concerns, even if it’s something we should do anyways simply as an effect of our evolving affection and respect for the earth.

To advocate the pursuit of truth on this matter, and resolve once and for all the many questions surrounding the dubious climate theory widely “accepted” by the politicians of the world whose economic, political, and monetary gains made through the advancement of the theory they so fiercely defend against not only questioning minds, but actual credible scientific research and dissent, provides more than enough reasoning to question their motives; and, the motives of all those who stand to benefit from perpetuating the theory’s infallibility among the masses in ways unprecedented in the field of science.

Upon the end of President Eisenhower’s term of office, his farewell speech included many warnings regarding the rapidly growing relationship between the government and the scientific community. He warned of the dangers of this precarious relationship and the inherent danger that this relationship had every potential to encroach upon free and independent critical thought, as scientists become less and less reliable to conduct science free from government influence.

President Eisenhower was profoundly prescient in his last words to the American People after his many years as a public servant. It is undeniable that the day he feared would befall this nation if left in the hands of weak, failing leadership incapable of using proper stewardship and prudence in facilitating a relationship which would not infringe upon the Pillar of Science; its principles and values once considered sacred, uninfluenced and unsullied by politically minded self-interests at the expense of the American people and their access to truth.

 

 


Click here to follow Hans on Twitter

Hans Comprix is a marine veteran of the Global War on Terror & conservative writer. He’s a contributor for Intellectual Conservative, having previously contributed to ‘American Thinker’ and ‘Now its Dark’ magazine. Email hans.comprix@com for comments, questions, or hate mail. 

Comments are closed.