Climate Change and the Government: What’s Really Going On.


Man-made, catastrophic climate change is a popular idea in mainstream political circles. The idea holds that the earth’s climate is shifting for the worse, and that it is being driven by humankind’s activity. The US government has wholeheartedly embraced this notion within recent years. Secretary of State John Kerry has even said that dealing with man-made climate change is one of his foremost diplomatic priorities.

Whenever the State embraces a “scientific” cause, we should always be suspicious. There is always an ulterior motive. We can see the State has embraced man-made catastrophic climate-change. Public Schools teach it basically as fact (I saw “Inconvenient Truth” 3 times in High School). The Federal Government gives out hundreds of millions of dollars per year to “green” organizations and environmental think-tanks. Top level officials are pegging it as a foremost diplomatic priority. Clearly, the US government has a vested interest in promoting support for fighting climate change. Supposedly, this is done out of sheer concern for humanity and pure altruism.

Let me give you a brief history lesson. In the early Soviet Union, there was a celebrated horticulturist by the name of Trofim Lysenko. Comrade Lysenko believed that traits acquired by plants during their lifetimes could then be passed on to later generations. This is in stark disagreement with modern Mendelian genetics, which states that traits are passed down through genes only.

According to Lysenkoism, modifying seeds or plants to possess certain traits could result in those traits being passed on. For example, if a flower’s color was altered by putting dye in its water supply, Lysenkoism says that successive generations could also carry the new color; or if a seed is conditioned in a lab for better growth in the cold, the future seeds will be better suited for the cold. According to Lysenkoistic logic driven to absurdity, a plant which has its leaves picked off should theoretically yield future generations to be leafless as well.

We now know for certain that this is total baloney. On a purely biological basis, successive generations cannot acquire parental traits received from environmental factors. A clawless cat can’t be bred by declawing both parents. A child can’t be born red-headed by dying his parent’s hair.

I’ll grant that genetics was a fairly new field during Lysenko’s lifetime, allowing him some leeway; but you’d think his Soviet peers would’ve figured out how wrong he was after only a few cycles of failed crops. Lysenko was instead the foremost leader of agriculture in the USSR for over 20 years.

Lysenkoism was nonsense, and Lysenko was a crackpot. Some high-up Communist party officials must’ve figured this out early-on, especially considering they were allowed to read the banned criticisms of Lysenko from foreign scientists abroad; but Lysenkoism was the official agricultural ideology of the USSR up until 1964. What, then, was the deal? Why was the Soviet Union so keen to retain Lysenkoism in the face of nearly unanimous worldwide opposition from foreign geneticists?

The answer, in short, is that Lysenkoism was politically correct for the Marxist government. The Marxists wanted to prove that Mendelian heredity had only minor impacts on even human offspring, and that conditioning humans through life under Socialist rule could produce successive generations of the new “Socialist Man”. These new “Socialist Man” generations would be totally loyal to the collective, and willing to happily toil for twelve hours a day without grumbling. This would be achieved by forcing their parents to live like slaves, in the hopes that the slave mentality would be imprinted onto the offspring.

Therefore, if Lysenkoistic conditioning could be proved to work on plants, it would support the idea that the same method could be used on humans. To this end, the entire weight of the Soviet government was thrown behind Comrade Lysenko. It became illegal to openly criticize Lysenko or his theories. Dissenting scientists were censored, jailed, and even killed if they became too bothersome. The Soviet propaganda machine continuously churned out reports of Lysenko’s brilliant successes in the farms, even as most of the USSR toiled in famine during the 1930s (especially Lysenko’s homeland, Ukraine.) Soviet children were taught Lysenkoism as fact, and that opposing Mendelian genetics were a bourgeois instrument of capitalist oppression. All opposing views were to be classified as “unscientific”. All individuals who held opposing views were widely ridiculed and belittled by the Communist government.

The Soviet government embraced Lysenkoism because it served to enhance their own prestige, and to legitimize their control over agriculture. For years, they declared that the science was settled. Opposing Lysenkoism was to be a “science denier” (does that sound familiar?). It was not until 1964 that Lysenkoism was finally abandoned, as its own untruth was becoming painfully clear after decades of lackluster crops. Lysenko himself eventually died in obscurity and disgrace, his theories on heredity having been totally discarded.

We are seeing a replay of Lysenkoism throughout the US in the form of climate-change ideology. Man-made Climate Change is the only acceptable view to be openly taught in public schools and universities. Publicly challenging the climate-change paradigm is met with jeering derision and mockery by “climate scientists” and their acolytes (who usually work for either the government or a “green” corporation, I might add). It is a genuine religion unto itself. There are environmental nihilists out there who genuinely see humans as a cancer upon Mother Earth. Disagreeing with their religious views elicits fervently negative reactions, ridicule, and name-calling.

Denying man-made climate change is painted as a denial of basic reason, rational logic, and science itself. I think it was our beloved Bill Nye who recently called man-made climate change skeptics “f***ing idiots”. He should start calling himself William Nye to be more representative of the bitter sourpuss that he’s become in recent years.

The US government sees climate change as an opportunity to expand operations, increase its own relevance, and thereby also justify its own expansion and control over the populace. The Environmental Protection Agency is ever on the march for increased relevancy and funding as an agency; man-made climate change is exactly what they need to attain their goal. What better way to seize more funding and power than to declare war on Climate Change, a totally ephemeral bogeyman that nobody can quantify? It’s like the War on Terrorism – “They’re everywhere, I tells ya!” Therefore, man-made Climate Change has been accepted into the mainstream political fold as an important and scientific cause. It is embraced by the State, not because of rigorous proofs and altruistic concern, but because it is politically self-serving.

Always be suspicious whenever the state embraces a “scientific” cause; usually, it is little more than a grab for relevancy, control, and legitimized expansion.

Tags: , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: