The Left’s War on Science


“We did not come to ask for mercy from nature,”  Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin, the Lysenko of Soviet agriculture, once declared. “We must wrest it from her.”

Communist science was guided not by the journey from hypothesis to fact but by the dusty proclamations of Marxist theorists. Soviet scientists were expected to reject capitalist science and formulate a science that matched the Communist worldview.

The Communist worldview insisted that every living creature could be completely transformed into anything. It rejected natural selection as having a competitive capitalist bent that suspiciously resembled a biological version of free market competition. And pseudo-scientists like Lysenko and Michurin matched bad science to bad ideology laying out an official dogma in which transforming the environment could transform any creature and in which intraspecies struggle did not lead to evolution.

The USSR’s politicization of biology crippled its agriculture. Its leaders rejected free market competition on the human level and in the plant and animal kingdoms. They insisted that nature had to follow Marxist dialectical materialism and locked up and murdered the scientists who disagreed. By the time the USSR fell, a land which had once exported wheat to the world had gone deep into debt to buy wheat from the United States.

But bad ideology driving bad science didn’t die with Lysenko and Michurin. The new Lysenkos are Warmunists like Michael Mann and James Hansen. The environmentalists, like the Communists, believe that human beings have total control over the environment and that the environment determines all.

Warmunism, like Communism, originates not from science, but from ideology. The Communists divided industry into two types by ideological classification; the good cooperative Socialist industry and the bad competitive Capitalist industry. The Warmunists similarly ideologically classify two types of industry; environmentally conscious green technology and dirty non-socially conscious brown technology.

The Warmunists, like the Communists, classify science and industry not by outcome, but by ideology, and then paper over that classification with bad science. Green technology is often dirtier and less efficient than the so-called brown technology, but like the collective farms and the idiotic ramblings of Michurin and Lysenko, it’s better because it more closely fits the Socialist vision of how things ought to work.

The Warmunists reject the free market and human industry because, like the Communists, they seek to use science to impose a centralized model of human society as a dangerously fragile existence in which unguided individual efforts are dangerously disruptive and only ideological compliance can lead to a better life for the collective planet.

While the left rejects the pseudo-science of Lysenko and Michurin when it comes to the plant and animal kingdoms, it still argues that people can be remade into any political identity without regard to biology. Lysenkoists believed that just as animals and plants could be transformed over short periods of time by altering their environment, human beings could also be transformed from their greedy and competitive selves by living under Socialism.

The new Lysenkoists place mind over biology. If a man wants to be a woman, then all he has to do is think that he is and he will be. Even the worst Soviet science didn’t insist that biology was so malleable that a man could click his heels three times and think himself a woman.

Like Lysenkoist science, the assertion that the choice of male or female sexual partners is rigidly fixed at a genetic level, but that gender is infinitely transformative, that gay men cannot turn back to straight, but that men can become women and women can become men, makes no logical sense. It makes even less scientific sense. But it makes perfect political sense.

The left’s version of the old racist “one-drop rule” that treated anyone with even one drop of black blood as black is to treat anyone with even the loosest claim to minority status as a minority and to mandate the irrevocable nature of that minority status. That is why Obama is black, rather than half-white, why Elizabeth Warren can be a Cherokee and why a straight man can become gay, but a gay man cannot become straight. It is why a man can become a woman or a woman can become a man and gain an entirely new transgender minority status.

The scientific principle at work here is the conservation of minority status. The left’s policies are meant to diminish the size of the majority and enlarge the size and number of minorities.

Political diversity when applied to science logically leads to immutable homosexuality and mutable gender. It leads to a construct of race governed by a politically correct version of the one-drop rule in which racial identification always trends toward minority status, rather than majority status. The science is bad, but the political calculation is impeccable.

Biology is just as irrelevant in 2013 America as it was in 1923 Russia. In California, a bill has been put forward mandating that insurance companies provide infertility treatments to homosexuals. While normal industry practice is to provide infertility treatments only to natural couples, the modern Marxist Michurins are here to tell nature what latest developments in lefty thinking it is expected to conform to.

“Coverage for the treatment of infertility shall be offered and provided without discrimination on the basis of… gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information… sexual orientation,” the bill states.

While infertility treatments can be offered without regard to gender, fertility cannot exist without regard to gender. A man can claim that his marriage to another man is just like a marriage to a woman, but no amount of empty words or lawsuits will wrest a child from his body. A man can claim that he is now a woman, but no amount of mandated fertility treatments will enable him to conceive life.

The Lysenkoism of attempting to force science to conform to politics always leads to a biological dead end. Homosexuals are not infertile. They are not in the class of relationships that are biologically capable of conceiving life. Since every homosexual couple is infertile, every such couple would be entitled to infertility treatments. But no amount of treatments will enable them to conceive a child without the biological intervention of a member of the opposite sex at some point in the process.

And no law can mandate otherwise. All the law can do is mandate an expensive policy whose only purpose is to burden the public with the high cost of pretending to defy biology in the name of politics.

Toward the end, the Soviet Union was running low on wheat. The United States and Europe are running low on children and on industry.

The Western left declared war on science and science is winning. The Warmunists demand that the West cut off its industrial nose to spite its environmental face. And while the factories of China boom, Americans and Europeans go jobless and hungry.

The left insisted that family and gender don’t matter, that the ideal society is full of unmarried men and women, men pretending to be women and men shacking up with other men. And the elderly hippies of the establishment are running out of children to pay for their post-gender, post-sexual and post-family paradise. To make up for the gap their countries are filling up with Muslim immigrants whose families are patriarchal and polygamous.

Ideologies have consequences. The Soviet Union found that out the hard way. Now the Socialist republics of what used to be the free world are finding out the same thing. You can replace science with political pseudo-science, and you can convince or compel everyone to pay fealty to its false claims, but you cannot escape the consequences of your actions.

You can declare war on science … but science will always win.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • kblink45

    "but like the collective farms and the idiotic ramblings of Michurin and Lysenko, it’s better because it more closely fits the Socialist vision of how things ought to work."

    Genius. Never have I seen a better use of "ought."

  • justthefacts

    The American Psychiatric Association started us down the road to the normalization of deviancy when it unreasonably The APA is basically engaging in group malpractice decided that a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body was NOT a disorder. Homosexuality is clearly a disorder, even if it has a genetic basis. There are many disorders that have genetic bases. The APA is basically engaging in group malpractice by saying a disorder is not a disorder. That's unethical.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Arguably most disorders do.

    • PAthena

      Homosexuality does not have a genetic basis, since homosexual behavior does not lead to reproduction.

      • trickyblain

        Neither does eye color, finger length, ear canal width etc. Yet all have genetic basis.

  • justthefacts

    Somehow my previous comment got altered. (Ah, the magic of electronic digits.) Here is the correct version: The American Psychiatric Association started us down the road to the normalization of deviancy when it unreasonably decided that a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body was NOT a disorder. Homosexuality is clearly a disorder, even if it has a genetic basis. There are many disorders that have genetic bases. The APA is basically engaging in group malpractice by saying a disorder is not a disorder. That's unethical.

    • Cassandra

      I agree with you. Whn I was working on a BA in the eighties homosexuality was treated in the abnormal part of psychology but after that the gay lobby managed to have it changed.

    • Ken

      The truth hurts so leftists just ignore it and in fact lies become truth. Hello 1984.

    • EarlyBird

      Even your revised version proves you are an ignorant bigot.

      • Drakken

        There ya go again with the libtarded conversation stopper, racist, bigot, islamophobe. Got any new material?

        • EarlyBird

          Oh sorry, I must have interrupted your campaign to kill all of the world's 1.5 billion Muslim "savages."

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Oh sorry, I must have interrupted your campaign to kill all of the world's 1.5 billion Muslim "savages.""

            ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

            No citation or quotes? Wake me up again if he ever comes up with evidence.

            ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz

      • Mary Sue

        There was no science whatsoever involved in the decision to lift homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. It was straight-up agitprop pressure and protests. That's not scientific.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Even your revised version proves you are an ignorant bigot."

        How much money will you personally donate to the fund to allow every gay couple to "become fertile," just like the hetero couples they hate and envy?

        It's high comedy hearing you try to decide who's ignorant.

  • CPE

    I really like rule #3.

    This is an amazingly inconstant and illogical diatribe. It is bereft of of a structured argument, relying (Ironically) on falsely attributed beliefs that might best be described as an ad hominem attack on the strawman left that the author has run up the flagpole to see how will salute their witty twist of phrase over the substance of (or lack there of) their arguments.

    The use of a bill designed to fight discrimination to claim that Male Male couples will attempt to give birth is a great example of the author's misinformation campaign. This is not an ad hominem, in the fact that I am attributing HIGHER intelligence to the author. Therefore they are trying to sway people's opinion by making a false claim that they probably don't even believe. After all, who would be that stupid? But I digress.

    The green vs brown tech is simplistic in it's presentation, and not entirely inaccurate. Solar power for example pollutes more than Nuclear. How one might ask? Manufacturing the cells in other countries that don't have our strict rules (Like China?). It's too bad the author drops the ball when they think G v B is political, it's also economic… Make it cheaper to go green and society will lean that way. You think in 2d when we live in a 3d world. And that is why rational people will look at your diatribe and, as I did, laugh at your simplistic worldview. As to you views regarding sexuality… You should research the Kinsey scale from the late 1940's. And just think how far we've come from there.

    • truebearing

      That was a fine job of making unsupported assertions, rambling incoherently, and failing entirely to make a single cogent argument. I can see you attended a school system run by leftists.

      • Charles Wenzel

        Your're right, truebearing, CPE 'reads' like an incoherent shop manual! Personally, I've noticed that such 'deep thinkers' (usually, but not always, Progressives) love to hear themselves talk i.e. pontificate, but rarely reflect on what they say. It's like a valve that allows flow one way: out but not in.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Very well put.

        • truebearing

          Exactly. What I find particularly annoying about these kinds of comments is that they begin with grandiloquent pronouncements about how utterly stupid someone else is, then fail to provide one scintilla of evidence supporting their bombastic attack. Heaven forbid they take a minute to read what they wrote and attempt to at least make it coherent.

          The one way valve you referred to has a great similarity to an overflowing toilet.

    • CatK

      Huh? You need a cupa joe or some medication for tangential ramblings.

      • Marlene

        Sometimes, things are just plain simple. There is black and there is white. There is reality and there is fantasy, Wishes are not reality. Progressives and Liberals hate truth, and realty. This is not a difficult concept and does not need a dissertation.

        • EarlyBird

          There was absolutely nothing truthful in this entire article, in as much as it relates to the contemporary left. Also, realize that this fringe cult is SOOOO far to the right that it puts about 95% of the human population on the "left."

          This is like a communist re-education camp, where everything down to what breakfast cereal one eats, is politicized. This is a frightening place on the web, much like StromFront or some neo-Nazi site. Perhaps more so, because the lies are a bit more sophisticated.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The human population of the United States or of Earth?

          • Mary Sue

            What is it with you and the neo-nazi comparisons? Nazis are actually leftists!

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            nazis are SOCIALISTS.

            That's why they called it National SOCIALISM.

            Google "national socialism"

          • Questions

            They're actually Rightist. Fascism and Nazism are collectivism of the Right, just as socialism and Communism are collectivismof the Left. One dreadful book by Jonah Goldberg isn't going to change that. Everybody's hands get dirty — even those on the Right.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "…collectivism of the Right…"

            Nice try. Actually, it was lame but I gave you credit for boldness.

            Nazis hated socialism. Correct?

          • Howard

            Most of thesae people want less government involvement in peoples lives and pocketbooks. Odd Nazis indeed.

          • EarlyBird

            No, Howard, they want less government involvement in THEIR lives.

          • truebearing

            More mindless, blanket assertions, and as usual, entirely unsupported.

            If it is so frightening here, why do you stay?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "If it is so frightening here, why do you stay?"

            He's a fascist that will get his butt kicked if he behaves this way in real life. Assuming he ever makes it to this planet.

            Remember, for leftists feelings are everything and he needs this.

        • Questions

          But it does need a little support. Hatred of truth is a universal trait. And if you think that only "liberals" and "progressives' fall prey to it, you're mad. Long before the rise of the Left during the late-19th century, mankind has faced the problems of suffering and evil.

          Your brand of "back vs. white" thinking, replete with projection of panic and loathing onto the Other, is the essence of tyranny in its premordial form.

    • Jake Tobias

      Disputing the literal claim of fertility is one thing. Even though Greenfield was just making a point. But the rest, you've got to be kidding. Of course you didn't address the rest. You know, the ideological part. The part that shows how ideology supersedes science. Not to mention common sense. However, since you brought it up…. it is obvious the bill could only be of interest to lesbian couples, not male couples. Which is another way of saying, lesbian couples now want sperm banks to give them their sperm for free.

      • Jake Tobias

        Another thought. Speaking of ideology. The left want zero population growth. Yet they want free fertility treatments for lesbians. But not men. (!) Does that make sense? Maybe lesbians should regard their infertility as their contribution to the environment. And future generations.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          They want the right to fertility treatments, but they don't particularly care for children.

          • trickyblain

            Of course. Because liberals hate children, puppies and kittens.

            On what basis would you deny them such treatments, under California discrimination law?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The non-existence of the condition. Homosexuality is not a condition of infertility. It is an absence of the possibility of fertility.

          • trickyblain

            What?

            Are you under the impression that the intent of this bill is to enable same sex couple to naturally procreate? No wonder you think liberals are crazy!

            But that's not what it's about, and I think you know that.

            Infertility also affects the ability to reproduce through artificial insemination. Fertility treatments in infertile women — gay or straight — greatly improve the chances of a successful pregnancy.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            A finding of infertility depends on attempted natural procreation, which in this case can never take place.

          • trickyblain

            Sure it can. Since same sex couple obviously cannot procreate naturally, they will turn to artificial insemination, at which point infertility is discovered.

          • kevinh

            Natural procreation can't occur in homosexual sex. The author makes that clear, and your "Sure it can" response is incompetent, to say the least. But, in your "naturally artificial" scenario, how do 2 gay men, who would be infertile I should think, conceive? And how does a non-discriminating state handle this situation? What is your responsibility as a taxpayer or an insurance premium payer? Just curious.

          • truebearing

            Maybe he's offended because both of his parents were gay men. That would certainly justify calling himself "Tricky."

          • trickyblain

            Hey truebearing, my parents are wonderful, intelligent couple — married 54 years — who I'm proud to be a 50-50 mix of. If only you could be so lucky. And nothing any person who agrees with the views propagated on this website could possibly offend me, buddy. It would be like getting offended by an ant in my backyard, having the temerity to take a bite from a blade of grass.

            Trickyblain is a nickname my friends gave to me many years ago. I've used it here for many years. Yet my name's not Blain, and I'm not trying to be tricky.

            It beats any mention of "true" in a handle — which is a sure sign of a complete and delusional d-bag.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Hey truebearing, my parents are wonderful, intelligent couple — married 54 years — who I'm proud to be a 50-50 mix of. If only you could be so lucky. And nothing any person who agrees with the views propagated on this website could possibly offend me, buddy. It would be like getting offended by an ant in my backyard, having the temerity to take a bite from a blade of grass."

            A little defensive. I guess you told us ants.

          • truebearing

            "And nothing any person who agrees with the views propagated on this website could possibly offend me, buddy."

            Talk about tricky. The above sentence appears to make no sense, but is somehow connected to grass eating ants. Maybe incoherence is a strategy. I see leftists use it all the time.

          • truebearing

            BTW, you never said your parents weren't gay men, just for the record.

            A 50/50 mix you say….wow, are you a geneticist? Your mom was right. You sure are special !!!

            I see your point about screen names (handles are for CB's). Being tricky is way better than trying to be truthful…at least if you're a typical lying liberal. I'm sure you are very proud of being dishonest and deceptive. The end justifies the means, right trickster?

          • Jake Tobias

            I don't think liberals hate puppies and kittens. Unless they work for PETA.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            They want fertility treatments so they can then have late term abortions.

          • Questions

            Consider the illogic of what you're just stated: A woman is going to go to the trouble of getting pregnant, just so she can abort months later.

            What sort of cretins has Front Page, a once-highly intelligent website, managed to attract?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Let me guess. YOU are a failed late term abortion.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Consider the illogic of what you're just stated: A woman is going to go to the trouble of getting pregnant, just so she can abort months later."

            And you took it seriously.

          • truebearing

            Well….you, for one.

            Maybe your problem is that you don't have a sense of humor. It seems quite clear to me that he was making a perfectly intelligent and sarcastic comment about the mindless stupidity of the Left.

            Why has the Left promoted civil rights but only for those who fall for their lies? Why does the Left support radical Muslims knowing full well that they have conducted a War on Women since the inception of Islam? Why make fertility an issue for homosexuals?

        • trickyblain

          Who is this "left" of which you speak, Jake?

          It doesn't make any sense because it's a made up argument.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "It doesn't make any sense because it's a made up argument."

            I know! The left doesn't even exist. There are no leftists. There are nice tolerant people who want progress and the mean right wing stupid ants who just hate everything and want to make people unhappy.

          • truebearing

            And eat all the grass!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "And eat all the grass!"

            We'll be subject to yet another gas-carbon tax if those "phantoms" have their way.

            Do ants fart? They'll try to tax us for it in any case.

      • EarlyBird

        Jake, please at least recognize that the world isn't being taken over by hordes of leftist, homosexual Marxist tyrants, okay? Greenfield's learned to push just enough hot cultural and emotional buttons, and make his garbage sound just serious enough that people get incited by it.

        The entire thrust of Greenfield's articles is to keep everyone in such a high state of panic. Don't let him manipulate you like that.

        • Jake Tobias

          Thanks EarlyBird, but I'm not in a panic. And I'm not being manipulated. The piece relates the historical facts about how ideology trumps science. The Nazi's thought the same way too. They were obsessed with denouncing Albert Einstein's theories as "Jewish" science. Which "German science" would surpass of course.

          Feminists in this country think that way too, by the way. They denounce what they call "male logic," versus "female logic." Not to mention "male science." Guess which one they think is superior? Unfortunately, they have been teaching this in this country for decades.

          And we're not being taken over? Obama is not a socialist? He hasn't appointed one Marxist after another to his administration? They haven't failed with one green company after another? They're not trying to create another bank/loan/housing crisis? Haven't you seen those warm friendly adds for low interest loans on TV? Haven't we seen how that went last time?

          As far as fertility treatments for lesbians go, I don't have a problem with it. Only with the demand insurance, or even the government, cover the costs. Not to mention, as I already pointed out, the absurd contradiction of concern over infertility coming from an ideology in a panic about over population. Rosie O'Donnell, a well known homosexual Marxist tyrant, has come out in support of this bill. And yes, EarlyBird, I am aware she has no political power. Do you get the point of anything?

        • truebearing

          Whirlybird, don't concern yourself too much over Jake. He's just fine. You're the befuddled one here.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Jake, please at least recognize that the world isn't being taken over by hordes of leftist, homosexual Marxist tyrants, "

          There is no way any multinational homosexual Marxist could be taken seriously. Can you imagine one running for president of the USA? It could never happen.

          "The entire thrust of Greenfield's articles is to keep everyone in such a high state of panic. Don't let him manipulate you like that."

          I heard he owns stock in pharmaceuticals and he's trying to get us to beg our doctors for more meds. Stupid right wing hateful capitalists! Bad capitalists! Bad!

        • Omar

          EarlyBird, Communist mass murderers like Che Guevara despised homosexuality. Not every leftist supports homosexuality. The Islamists in the Middle East use capital punishment against homosexuals for being homosexual. Israel is the only place in the Middle East where homosexuals can not only live in peace, but where they can also hold a gay pride parade.

          • EarlyBird

            Omar, you're far more serious than lil' Danny Greenfield is. He's just throwing out red meat – hey, this one's got communists, environmentalists AND gays! – and letting you all at it.

            I'm not sure if people "support" homosexuality, as much as they simply acknowledge it exists, always has and always will, and that not persecuting gays will not end civilization as we know it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I'm not sure if people "support" homosexuality, as much as they simply acknowledge it exists"

            The DNC has an announcement. Homosexuality exists and always has. Thank you for attending this press conference. Any questions?

            "always has and always will, and that not persecuting gays will not end civilization as we know it."

            What? Protect gays? Conservatives have been fighting for centuries to have them burned and destroyed, developing tests and tactics to hunt them down. We must eradicate all gays!

            Thanks, Mo.

            So the Democrats want to conserve what we have already? Oh wait, you use leftspeak. We're persecuting them by not giving them every privilege any radical can dream up.

            When will the persecution end? When will we finally be allowed to have our perfect society of our dreams? When oh when will these hateful conservatives vampires disappear? Where are the firing squads when the leftists need "progress" so urgently?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "…it is obvious the bill could only be of interest to lesbian couples, not male couples."

        It's obvious that's what everyone wants us to believe. It only takes one crazy lawyer to file on behalf of a couple of men after the bill is passed. It will happen at some point. Their expectations are not grounded in reality. That's the point. It's never enough. It's emotionalism trying to cloak itself in rationality.

        At the very least it will be used to bootstrap an argument for "equal adoption rights" or some related nonsense.

    • EarlyBird

      This is a hate site. This is a propaganda site. It attempts to make no honest argument, or attempt to come to objective truths. This is about waging political and cultural warfare, period.

      It inflames cultural, racial, religious and class resentments, lies, distorts, exaggerates. Its owner, David Horowitz, would be the first to admit that. Lil' Danny Greenfield is just his understudy.

      • wblfbrox

        "This is a hate site. This is a propaganda site. It attempts to make no honest argument, or attempt to come to objective truths. This is about waging political and cultural warfare, period. "
        …sort of how I'd describe salon, or the daily coos.

        • trickyblain

          Which makes it ok?

      • UCSPanther

        If you don't like it, GTFO.

        • EarlyBird

          Yeah. Don't want anything but echoes here, right?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The reverberations within your empty skull.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        What' wrong with hating socialism and islamofascism?

        Is it too counter revolutionary?

      • Drakken

        More leftist terms, hate site, and propaganda. You call youreself a conservative? You must be bloody joking because you take up every leftist cause there is and you argue like a typical leftist, all feelings and no common sense.

        • EarlyBird

          General, this is not a serious site and you know it.

        • Questions

          "All feelings and no common sense" — kind of describes those sterling supporters of sound science known as religious extremists.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "This is a hate site."

        Yes, Jew haters like you flock here and are ridiculed for fun. You must hate that too.

    • Rifleman

      “…they think G v B is political, it's also economic… Make it cheaper to go green and society will lean that way. You think in 2d when we live in a 3d world.”

      The government can’t make it cheaper to go ‘green’ They can subsidize it with taxpayer money to make it seem cheaper to the retail consumer (as long as they never knew or forget it’s their own taxes making their energy seem cheaper), and/or abuse their power to tax and regulate to make traditional energy sources artificially more expensive to the point that ‘green’ becomes competitive in price. That isn’t making anything cheaper, or more reliable, and forcing technology that isn’t ready does the environment and the economy more harm than good.

      On top of that, the funding for research is dependent on economic prosperity, which is crushed by these policies. If the tech advances to make ‘green’ economically viable don’t happen before the revenue dries up, we’re stuck. It’s like jumping out of a plane without a parachute with the expectation that you’ll build one before you hit the ground.

      • EarlyBird

        Rifleman,

        Railroads, highways, coal, oil, electricity and many other vital industries were subsidized by the government in their infancy, because they were seen as vital to the nation as a whole. Without such early subsidies, they would not have succeeded. We need alternative, non-fossil fuel technologies for the nation's benefit, and they need funding, like the aforementioned ones, to become scalable on their own.

        And, the reason we aren't paying the real cost to deliver a gallon of gas to the pump is because it is still being subsidized. When you start complaining about that your libertarian complaints will sound serious.

        • kevinh

          Great job arguing for corporate welfare…er…subsidizing industry there, champ.
          :)

          • EarlyBird

            I am arguing against corp welfare for Big Oil and other mature industries, and for corp welfare for important, nascent ones, chump. Now, if you are willing to pay $7 a gallon for your rusted out Dukes of Hazzard Charger, I'll take your concerns about corp welfare seriously, but I doubt it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I am arguing against corp welfare for Big Oil and other mature industries"

            Oil? If they get any breaks that would likely fall under incentives to "go green."

            "and for corp welfare for important, nascent ones,"

            Who decides which are "important?" The estimating the value of existing transportation technologies being deployed is a whole lot more straightforward than predicting the future entirely as you and others try to do.

          • Rifleman

            It's not welfare when 'big oil' uses the same tax write-offs available to every other business to keep its' own money. It is welfare when the government takes money from people and other businesses and gives it to 'preferred' businesses and people in sweetheart loans, or outright as grants or 'earned income' (LOL) refundable tax credits.

            Your "nascent"' 'green industries' have been around almost twice as long as obamacare's 26 year old children.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Great job arguing for corporate welfare…er…subsidizing industry there, champ."

            It's worse; 0'Bama is engaged in crony capitalism. Even if it didn't go to his cronies the government has no business placing bets on companies or specific technologies. At the most incentives should reward technologies after they prove effective. Even the military spends its funds more wisely than the POTUS MO.

            Facts are supposed to matter but fantasy is all that counts for leftists.

    • Rifleman

      “You think in 2d when we live in a 3d world. And that is why rational people will look at your diatribe and, as I did, laugh at your simplistic worldview.”

      While that’s a pretty accurate description of your post (and zero-sum socialist economic thought), we aren’t ignoring scientific and economic reality, to try and rationalize “up is down.” We’ll know when ‘green energy’ is economically viable, because the government will tax it then instead of subsidizing it.

    • Howard

      Sorry to burst your bubble but Kinsey was debunked and shown to be a fraud in his research some years ago. Just think how far we've come since then? Concerning what? Acceptance of scientific fraud as scientific fact and making policy errors based on those frauds?

      • Questions

        Nobody with a legitimate reputation "showed" Kinsey was a fraud. Unless, of course, one considers Judith Reisman, a genuine scholar of human sexuality. I don't.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Nobody with a legitimate reputation "showed" Kinsey was a fraud."

          Self-selection of research subjects? So what?

  • truebearing

    Great post.
    When the truly deranged begin to impose ideology on reality, terrible consequences are inevitable. It doesn't seem to matter how many times their idiotic Procrustean Method fails, there is always another generation of humans that gladly prove P.T Barnum to be a prophet ("there is a sucker born every minute"), and they are willing to destroy countless lives in the process.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Always a new generation to be invited to lie down on the bed.

      • truebearing

        It's as if history is irrelevant and nothing can be learned from the past. Of course, those who revive evil are thinking they won't suffer the same fate. Again, the perils of ignoring history, along with morality, common sense, ………..

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Leftist dogma is their religion and its ideology is totalitarian. This is why the reds and greens (Islamists) lock arms.BOTH are totalitarian and brook no dissent.
    So if it means turning scientific inquiry upside its head, then surely this is a small price to pay. As a result, global warming hysteria has co-opted so many otherwise intelligent minds, but the caveat has always been the supremacy of their leftist ideology OVER scientific principles.
    Leftist dogma is the same world over and it is a treacherous path to follow – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/01/leftist-dogma

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • Webb

      Plus, their trump card is that if they can, they will murder you for not believing them. And of course they'll do it legally by passing a law that sez you are dangerous or insane if you don't believe their BS.

    • Marlene

      Yes AdinaK, and I find it heartbreaking that "Man Made Climate Change" is being put forth as a reality to kids in school. I also find it abusive to children to teach them that our seas are poisoned, and our air is toxic. And, not only could you be a astronaut or President when you grow up, but if you are a boy, you could be a girl, and vice versa. What a lovely childhood.

      • EarlyBird

        Marlene, sadly, our seas ARE poisoned and our air IS toxic. I agree we should not freak little children out about this stuff. At some point when you roll out scientific curricula concerning the planet, to not teach these realities would be bad education.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Marlene, sadly, our seas ARE poisoned and our air IS toxic."

          Talk about using deceptive binaries. Show me the statistics bozo.

          "I agree we should not freak little children out about this stuff. At some point when you roll out scientific curricula concerning the planet, to not teach these realities would be bad education."

          Stick to a balanced presentation of the facts and leave communist-driven indoctrination out of it. That's a rhetorical statement though because you are clearly unable to do that yourself.

  • DP111

    Global Warming – the greatest fraud of all time. Its now renamed itself as Climate Change when it became evident that there was no Global Warming man made or otherwise.

    This fraud was not perpetrated by enviro-fanatic scientists. They may be fanatics but have no power to implement policy or direct research funding. This was, from first to last, a scheme by the government to raise revenue with no strings attached, and the added bonus that they were saving the planet on data provided by the “scientists”. This also meant that they could exercise power over the whole economy without recourse to outdated and ineffective state control of the USSR.

    In all crime, real or drama, the first question to ask is who profits from the crime. The answer is the government treasury. As the treasury swells, it allows ministers to do what is the only real perk of the job – excercise power via control and patronage.

    • CatK

      DP, isn't it amazing how so many leftists, even those with lots of education, didn't even blush when their precious "Global Warming" changed to "Climate Change" because it wasn't, um, warm enough? This is so blatantly obvious that it would be laugh out loud funny if it weren't so creepy and destructive. These leftist dupes never seem to smell a rat (or a scam). They quickly shift their naïveté to another slogan.
      Strangely, I often hear them criticizing conservatives for "believing a pundit's slogans." They must be deeply hypnotized to recite an accusation that perfectly matches their own disorder.
      Their totalitarian leaders are truly ingenious and insidious.

      • anor277

        Remind me, when did global warming switch to climate change? If you think that a vast corpus of evidence regarding the average global temperature has disappeared, you are mistaken. There are few who doubt global warming (you must be among that few).

        • Mary Sue

          It switched as recently as 2002. Ever hear of Dr. David Suzuki? He doesn't call it Global Warming anymore. He exclusively refers to it as "Climate Change". He's a whacko nut job environmentalist whose speciality is in the genetics of the fruit fly. Evidence didn't "disappear", it was manufactured.

          • EarlyBird

            Mary Sue, in your world is it even possible to be an environmental scientist and not a "whacko nutjob"? And can you understand the irony of your comments, given that the premise of this latest bit of right propaganda is to say that the LEFT is anti-science?

            And, you airhead, about Suzuki, one of the reasons people study fruit flies and other pests is so as to find better ways to control them and keep them from destroying crops. How "whacko", huh? I mean, what a weird, lefty tree hugger. What next, someone studying how to keep clean water? Like, duhhh. Who needs water but lefty Marxist? Weirdo lefty!

          • Mary Sue

            You just proved you know absolutely NOTHING about fruit flies.

          • Mary Sue

            Suzuki's a whacko communist because of things he's said (and he's a hypocrite as well). Such as, those that doubt global warming/climate change should be locked in jail. Or that the West should be completely depopulated of Humans and to leave it all to the wildlife.

            You also know absolutely nothing about David Suzuki.

            THis isn't about clean water or clean air. Nobody is against those things.

          • EarlyBird

            Oh, he's a "communist" now too! Is he also a vampire?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Oh, he's a "communist" now too!"

            Yes.

            "Is he also a vampire?"

            According to you that's anyone who disagrees with your agenda.

          • Mary Sue

            also do you know what a fallacious Appeal to Authority is? Suzuki is the embodiment of this. He is not a climate scientist at all.

        • Mary Sue

          the evidence is, it hasn't warmed in 17 years, now.

          • trickyblain

            According to The Daily Mail's David Rose (and probably quoted by Limbaugh, if you're citing it).

            Alas,

            "A spokesman for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) declined to comment, but noted that NOAA's monthly climate report, released on Monday (Oct. 15) showed September 2012 as one of a long line of consecutive months with global temperatures above the 20th-century average. Last month tied with September 2005 for the warmest September on record globally, the report stated."
            http://www.livescience.com/24006-did-global-warmi

            Before calling livescience (or the NOAA) "commie," please point to other areas on the website that you feel are politicized.

          • Mary Sue

            "On record". Yeah. The problem is, the actual record only goes back so far. Temperature proxies hint at warmer temperatures in the past (ie tropical fossils of foliage in the arctic). But there's also the problem of the temperature readings themselves, and whether they were affected by where the thermometers were placed. (I don't think ANYBODY would take a temperature reading seriously if it were from a station RIGHT BY an air conditioner or any other sources of heat in the summer). Then there's the problem of accuracy of older thermometers in the past. Not all thermometers were quite accurate as their gauging could vary.

            And warmest summer WHERE, exactly? Certainly not where I was.

          • EarlyBird

            And where did you get such "evidence," Mary Sue? Rush Limbaugh? As if you read any science of any kind whatsoever,.

          • Mary Sue

            I read all kinds of science.

          • anor277

            How fortunate for you. Most popular accounts of science agree that there has been substantial global warming over the last century, with a dramatic rise occurring in the last 30 years. As to academic accounts of global temperature in peer-reviewed journals there is consistency in this same viewpoint (this is the dog that wagged the popular tail). The data that support this viewpoint have no political dimension, but you deny their validity and question the motives of those who publish them. This is a bit odd when you consider that we comment on an article that insists that only leftists (and I wouldn't apply that term to myself comrade!) ignore science and scientific data. This article is also written by someone who is not a scientist, nor apparently has any training in the area. C'est la vie.

            Cue 'Climategate' and 'Ice core' objections.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Most popular accounts of science agree that there has been substantial global warming over the last century, with a dramatic rise occurring in the last 30 years."

            "Most popular accounts of science agree…"

            Science is getting very popular.

          • EarlyBird

            Sure you do, Mary Sue.

            There were 13,950 peer reviewed scientific papers supporting Global Warming published between 1991- 2012, and 24 such papers during that time period which rejected it.

            I wonder which ones you "read."

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "There were 13,950 peer reviewed scientific papers supporting Global Warming published between 1991- 2012, and 24 such papers during that time period which rejected it."

            Show me the list and I'll look up funding. Nobody said it was a small scam nor that scientific techniques were not involved in the scams.

            Not all sciences are as pure as simple math. Politics can corrupt "scientific findings" and publications. Denial of this reality makes your arguments pointless.

    • EarlyBird

      DP111, there is not a massive global conspiracy for the past 20+ years to fool everyone about global warming.

      You will still find paid liars to deny any links between lung cancer and smoking too, but we know those are lies.

      Nor, does our acceptance of global climate science require us to return to a pre-modern existence.

      • Mary Sue

        It's an ideological position, not a scientific one. A lot of this babble about rising CO2 levels is based on proxy data that is questionable (particularly ice cores since they are not a closed system).

        • EarlyBird

          Is it possible in your world, Mary Sue, for ANY scientist involved in environmental studies to be anything other than a "whacko nut job"?

          • Mary Sue

            Environmental Studies by its very nature attracts leftist nut jobs, or brainwashes new ones.

          • EarlyBird

            Give an idiot enough rope and she'll hang herself with it. She actually wrote:

            "Environmental Studies by its very nature attracts leftist nut jobs, or brainwashes new ones."

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Environmental Studies by its very nature attracts leftist nut jobs, or brainwashes new ones."

            Environmental Studies by virtue of its history attracts leftist nut jobs, and brainwashes new ones.

            Is that clearer? What would Gore say?

          • Mary Sue

            Patrick Moore comes to mind…

  • elkoz

    For expansion on the Lysenko story you may wish to view my article, "Let Me Tell You about Trofim Denisovich Lysenko".
    http://paradigmsanddemographics.blogspot.com/2013

    Best wishes,
    Rich Kozlovich

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Great article

      • EarlyBird

        Great propaganda. You should teach a class in it.

        • Mary Sue

          Daniel struck a nerve, eh? So you're a communist, then?

          • trickyblain

            Why is everything about Communists with you! Communists are actually rightists! /sarc

            Greenfield is a hack. People who call out this lying worm are not "low-information," "Commies," "Islamists," "Nazis" or any of the other lame, simplistic labels you like to throw around.

            All it takes to see it is a bit of intellectual curiosity and the basic ability to research his claims (that is, when he makes a tangible claim and isn't trying to coin silly new words that never seem to catch on).

          • Drakken

            Your so open minded that your brain fell out of your head and you eat up every leftist cause like a good little liberal.

          • EarlyBird

            Sure. I'm a communist. Got me!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Sure. I'm a communist. Got me!"

            No, a dupe.

        • elkoz

          Response to EarlyBird (Part one)

          Propaganda is the deliberate spread of information, rumors or ideas that are deliberately designed to harm someone or some institution, group, etc. The negative implication is that the information is either false or deliberately misleading. What did I say that was false? What did I say that was misleading? If there is some error in the history I presented then explain what that error is.

          Rich Kozlovich
          Paradigms and Demographics

          • EarlyBird

            I didn't even read your post. I was referring to Greenfield and FPM as a whole, you narcissist.

          • elkoz

            Then you shouldn't have posted in this stream.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Then you shouldn't have posted in this stream."

            You can apply that to virtually every comment he makes.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I didn't even read your post. I was referring to Greenfield and FPM as a whole, you narcissist."

            The troll admits that he doesn't even read, he just uses hit and run sniping. You seem too dumb to be paid to harass people here but then again maybe there are no intelligence standards at all for paid trolls.

        • elkoz

          Response to EarlyBird (Part two)

          As for teaching a class in this; the world would be a better place if I did teach classes on the disasters – human and environmental – promulgated by the socialists (which includes fascists and communists) of the 20th century. The leftists movements of the 20th and the 21st centuries, which includes the environmental movement, are irrational, misanthropic and morally defective. Leftist governments deliberately murdered over 100 million people in the 20th century and the green movement has killed at least that many with their policies, and they aren’t finished yet. All the moralizing you attempt to do will not change that, nor will it qualify and any kind of equivalency argument, which is a logical fallacy….especially favored by the left and especially the green left.

          Rich Kozlovich
          Paradigms and Demographics

  • Neil woodcock

    This is best artical I have read in a long time. Clear reasoning and right on every count. I would hope Mr. Greenfield would author a book on this subject. His ideas need to be elevated to a larger audience!

    • EarlyBird

      "This is best artical I have read in a long time."

      Wow. That may be one of the most tragic sentences I've read in a long time.

      • Mary Sue

        Says the person with no reading comprehension whatsoever.

        • EarlyBird

          Oh, Mary Sue? The Mid-West is not just next to the Middle East, either!

          • Mary Sue

            *facepalm*
            You fail geography forever and I know darn well where the mid-west is.

      • Neil Woodcock

        I would expect that calling out the lefts false narrative to be tragic to a leftist. Mustn't let the truth get out. For the rest of us, it's a breath of fresh air and needs wider distribution to compensate for the disinformation which is being mislabeled as science.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Next to the sentences announcing the expiration of hugo chavez and your hero osama bin laden?

  • Spider

    Thank you Daniel. This column is impeccable logic. The likes of which will make Warmunists and Feminists heads explode and old world Com-munists turn in their graves.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      There seems to be some exploding going on in the comments section.

      • guest

        As it should be Daniel. Railroad engineers in the early Soviet Union were forced in the name of extra "productivity" to overload individual lorries. This 'new science' ruined the tracks and many good professionals paid with their heads for being so called 'saboteurs'. You picked a fabulous topic here.

  • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

    The cultural anthropologists of the Left are out to get science and its methods. See http://clarespark.com/2010/01/03/this-witch-is-no…. "This witch is not for burning: science as magic." Or an earlier and longer one: http://clarespark.com/2009/07/31/more-on-the-abcs…. "More on the ABCs of staying alive and preserving the planet."

  • Michael M

    Interesting to a point (and thank you for that) but a very, very thin, tenuous argument the seeming purpose of which is to slap at the President, and others you don't like, from the Right. The writer should have plumbed the depths of the topic instead of just leaving a burning paper bag of poop on the doorstep, ringing the door bell and running.

    If you want to criticize the regime, go ahead; thoughtless unschooled and unskilled environmentalist on the Left, knock yourself out. There's plenty of great material, and plenty of danger in some of the thinking. But don't take a really interesting topic and waste it. Try again, please. We'll read it.

    • EarlyBird

      Michael, this is a political hate site. Don't for a moment expecty ANY serious reflection, analysis or considered argument here. Attempts at truth are meaningless here. It's not why this site exists.

      This is the product of David Horowitz, ex-leftist radical, turned right-wing radical. He is a tragic, poisonous, hate-filled man, haunted by the ghost of his cold, unloving communist father who abused him as a sub-standard intellect.

      Horowitz would be the first to tell you he is a propagandist, and who openly admits in "Radical Son" that he emulates the propaganda tactics of the Soviets.

      For such hate-fueled people everything is war and anything goes.

      • Mary Sue

        What is it with you and identifying everything you don't agree with as 'hate'?

        • Drakken

          He forgot to use the race and bigot and islamophobia card as well, he is slipping.

          • EarlyBird

            General, I have hope for you that you can differentiate this ridiculous site from those providing serious conservative analysis and criticism. That is, assuming you can differentiate between radical right-winger ism and cultural chauvinism, vs. conservatism.

          • reader

            The amount of time you're wasting on this ridiculous site is simply ridiculous. Don't you think? No, you don't. You never made any sense, but – granted – you sure were always persistent. You'd make a good gadget twister back in the days of assembly lines.

          • EarlyBird

            You have an anger problem.

          • EarlyBird

            General, I'll at least give you credit for being embarrassed enough to deny that you're a bigot. Thanks.

            But shouldn't you be off killing "savages"? God man, if anyone is needed in this fight, it's Drakken! Get onto the field, killer!

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "What is it with you and identifying everything you don't agree with as 'hate'?"

          The usual projection.

      • Michael M

        Could be, EarlyBird. Worth remembering.

        There are interesting topics. I try to pick through them and get what I can. Since, I'm not broadly partisan anymore, I look for solid arguments that make sense and push ideas forward, rather than simple(that is, simplistic) left-right diffs. This has not sat well with some, IMHO.

        I do see, here, sometimes, and on some other sites friendly to the (an?) agenda, a broad and sometimes snotty slapfest that is really of no interest to me. I find it only clouds the interesting stuff.

        • EarlyBird

          You have the patience of Job, Michael. I am a Burkean conservative who has just become exasperated with what much of the right has become. The most mild dissent on this site is met by the most frenzied, aburd charges of "leftist! Marxist! America hater! Islamist!"

          They make conservatives look like ridiculous moon bats, and make genuine "leftists', jobs much easier.

          • Mary Sue

            You talk like a leftist moonbat.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The most mild dissent on this site is met by the most frenzied, aburd charges of "leftist! Marxist! America hater! Islamist!""

            Stop propagating the lies that aid our enemies and you're welcome any time. Just like any other recovering dupe would be.

          • reader

            "I am a Burkean conservative"

            Aha-ha-ha-ha. Good one. That's two in a row.

          • Questions

            Actually, Burke warned us about the sort of people who prefer frenzied enthusiasm to reasoned reflection. I see very little of the latter among the new crop of Breitbartian bloggers here.

          • EarlyBird

            You got it!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You got it!"

            But you don't.

            "I am a Burkean conservative who has just become exasperated with what much of the right has become."

            It's hilarious.

          • EarlyBird

            Describe something about Burke, in your own words, not something you paste from Wikipedia. What, for instance, would be the main differences between him and Ayn Rand, today's right wing's favorite "conservative"?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Describe something about Burke, in your own words…"

            Clown, who are you talking to?

            "What, for instance, would be the main differences between him and Ayn Rand, today's right wing's favorite "conservative"?"

            You already speak for everyone so go ahead and continue. Nobody is listening.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        I wonder what website EarlyTurd likes?

        • EarlyBird

          American Conservative, The New Republic, Economist, The Big Picture, National Review, Slate, Andrew Sullivan for a few. (And hot rod and cooking sites.). Yes, there is some left and right mixed in, but I generally consider them seriously grappling with issues, and thought provoking.

          Different viewpoints. Scary, huh?

          How about you?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yes, there is some left and right mixed in, but I generally consider them seriously grappling with issues, and thought provoking."

            Read whatever you want but work on comprehension and your own personal integrity please.

          • reader

            Andrew Sullivan has turned from a fake conservative into a gay activist. Conservative cannot support Obama, who is an alinskyite marxist.

          • EarlyBird

            "Andrew Sullivan has turned from a fake conservative into a gay activist. Conservative cannot support Obama, who is an alinskyite marxist.

            If praise of Sarh Palin isn't enough to indict today's right wing, the sentence above is.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Rank those sites/ starting with the site which most closely represents your world view down to the one farthest from your world view.

          • EarlyBird

            You've not even heard of them, so what do you care? Stormfront, NewsMax, RightWing Today and Front Page Hackazine are what you consider serious sites.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      It's a brief overview of the general issue, rather than an in depth piece. Both are worth doing, I think.

      • Michael M

        Understood. Please take it further. Or, separate it into two threads. It's legit to critique your target, based on their faulty thinking or influences, or what have you. It's less interesting as a snarky broadside, if I might be permitted that characterization. I guess the line between broadside and overview can be a bit fine. I am very interested in what you have written, but found it……well, you see what I'm getting at.

  • Alvaro

    Very interesting and intelligent article.

  • EarlyBird

    The chutzpah it takes for lil' Danny to write this particular piece of propaganda can hardly be fathomed, considering he speaks for a fringe cult which:

    - Insists that Global Climate Change is a hoax.
    - That there is no biological evidence for homosexuality.
    - Evolution is not real, but rather, the Earth is about 6,000 years old and was created in 7 days.
    - Mocks every non-fossil fuel based energy technology, every effort to reverse over-fishing or pollution.
    - Would strip mine Yosemite if it meant a .002% increase in GDP.

    As Horowitz's understudy, he has learned to mimic the very same Communist propaganda he attacks, with such claims that:

    "The environmentalists, like the Communists, believe that human beings have total control over the environment and that the environment determines all."

    When in fact, environmentalists are stating EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of this, warning that if we don't stop so aggressively manipulating the environment we will meet our doom.

    Remember folks: the Devil is a liar.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The entire premise of global warming is that humans have such total control over the planet that even the smallest things they do can irrevocably transform it.

      • EarlyBird

        "Smallest things"? Another lie.

        The entire premise of global warming is that since the Industrial Revolution (which I'm a big fan of), we have been so massively altering our planet, that we are in trouble. They are attempting to adjust the way we interact with the environment so that we have a place suitable for human and other life in another 100 years. The race is on.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Yes indeed. The smallest things.
          http://www.cooltheworld.com/kidscarboncalculator….

          • EarlyBird

            By the way, Danny, I noticed you had my other post pulled wherein I mocked your purple prose and self-seriousness of this article. How sad it must be to be so insecure.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I replied to that post. My comment was deleted as well.

          • EarlyBird

            By the way, Danny, tell your boss to invest in a serious IT department that can run a professional website. This place frustrates even your acolytes, what with dropped posts, navigation glitches, etc.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          The dinosaurs used too much fossil fuels which led to Global Warming and their demise.

          /sarc <<< that's for you EarlyTurd

        • GregorNov

          "The entire premise of global warming is that since the Industrial Revolution (which I'm a big fan of), we have been so massively altering our planet, that we are in trouble."

          But this premise is entirely debatable yet is taught and heeded as a foregone conclusion.

          • EarlyBird

            No it's not entirely debateable, Gregor. When you have nearly 14,000 scientific papers published over a period of 20 years supporting global climate change, and 24 in the same period denying it, there really is no debate about the basic premise.

            There are and will continue to be disputes among scientists about the rate of climate heating, etc., but they dispute about the actual fundamental problem and cause ended ears ago.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "No it's not entirely debateable, Gregor. When you have nearly 14,000 scientific papers published over a period of 20 years supporting global climate change, and 24 in the same period denying it, there really is no debate about the basic premise."

            Wow. You really are clueless.

            "There are and will continue to be disputes among scientists about the rate of climate heating, etc., but they dispute about the actual fundamental problem and cause ended ears ago."

            False as usual.

      • trickyblain

        No. The entire premise of global warming is that carbon based emissions are causing increasingly harmful effects. That's the premise.

        The solution to the problem, as any fourth grader should be able to surmise, is to mitigate what's causing the effects. If millions of children do the "smallest" thing, it turns into a big thing.

        I'm affiliated with a very economically conservative, business advocacy organization. Part of a delegation to China recently where conservatives and liberals and the Chinese gov't all agree about the nature of the problem, and the ability — the responsibility — to contain it. Serious minded organizations have long come to such realizations. Silly propaganda outlets are still telling their silly choirs that it's all a commie plot to force everyone to buy a Prius.

        • Drakken

          The fact that your going to China and think the Chinese are going to implement any type of change as per your environmental agenda is completely laughable. What will you wishfill thinking leftist do next?

          • EarlyBird

            General, it so happens that Chinese are literally dropping in the streets of Beijing right now due to respiratory diseases, so polluted is the air from coal smoke and other smog.

            Not only are they building coal plants at an alarming rate, but they are also building far more solar plants than anywhere on earth, because bless 'em, as quasi-tyrants they can get things done. A member of the politburo screams, "Solar power now!' and a plant gets built, without 15 years of environmental impact studies, town hall meetings, lawsuits, etc.

          • trickyblain

            Hard to decide who to pity more, Drakken or Roger.

            WTF?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            We laugh at fools like you.

          • EarlyBird

            Oh, pity poor Roger far more. Drakken has far more sense than lil' Rog.

          • Mary Sue

            Go give them smokestack scrubbers.

      • anor277

        Of course, the 'smallest thing' in this argument happens to be 30,000 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. You can ignore these data but the gas is not going away.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Of course, the 'smallest thing' in this argument happens to be 30,000 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. You can ignore these data but the gas is not going away."

          Expressed mathematically:

          30,000,000,000 tons = "not going away"

          If you say so. Time to make 0'Bama ruler of the global caliphate, that much is clear.

    • Mary Sue

      And the Devil is who you've been listening to :p

      The Enviros overestimate the control we have over the environment. If the Enviros DIDN'T think we have total control over the environment, why on earth would they argue we have to do something to FIX it?!

      • EarlyBird

        Mary Sue, nobody says we have "total" control over the environment. The concern is that we have enough to screw it up to the point where we make it uninhabitable. The hope is, rather than praying for Armageddon as we drink the last glass of clean water, that we can alter our behavior to reduce – not totally eliminate – Global Climate Change – and by no means are we ever going to master Mother Nature.

        If that is not clear enough to you, please don't come back looking for an explanation. You're so dense you are just beyond belief.

        • Mary Sue

          There is no such thing as the last glass of clean water. Distillation is a thing.

          THe irony here is that many of the environmentalists are inverting religion, by making "Gaia" (the planet which is also a god) the one in need of saving, while the creatures of Gaia (humans) are the ones that are dooming the god! It's all very illogical. An Omnipotent or Supernatural Being should not have LESS power than its creatures!

          If you observe the fossil record you'll see that plants were a LOT bigger, indicating higher CO2 levels and more warmth. And yet the earth is still here…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "There is no such thing as the last glass of clean water. Distillation is a thing. "

            Global warming would produce more "clean" drinking water.

          • EarlyBird

            In other words, change the subject from science to bashing lefties. You're a fool.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "In other words, change the subject from science to bashing lefties."

            What science is that? The "science" of "total control" vs. "significant enough influence to alter the planet through total government control of human activities?"

            You don't even seem to understand what science is when you argue that the debate is over. We're the extremists in your mind and you're spouting dogmas about sciences that you don't even understand.

            You are getting so boring. Try to spice things up. Please?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "In other words, change the subject from science to bashing lefties. You're a fool."

            It's freaking hilarious that you think your arguments include "science."

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Mary Sue, nobody says we have "total" control over the environment. The concern is that we have enough to screw it up to the point where we make it uninhabitable. The hope is, rather than praying for Armageddon as we drink the last glass of clean water, that we can alter our behavior to reduce – not totally eliminate – Global Climate Change – and by no means are we ever going to master Mother Nature."

          That's fine and dandy but keep the lies out of it. When you start saying things like "Gore is making it worse for us in terms of credibility but I still have some concerns" rather than echoing what the vested interests are saying, you'll be a lot more credible yourself.

          Somehow I don't think you're trying to be credible. I've never seen any evidence except when you try to fake being reasonable for the sake of another troll you want to cuddle up with.

          • EarlyBird

            "That's fine and dandy but keep the lies out of it. When you start saying things like "Gore is making it worse for us in terms of credibility but I still have some concerns" rather than echoing what the vested interests are saying, you'll be a lot more credible yourself."

            Once again your assigning another person's quote to me. Go away, dolt.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Once again your assigning another person's quote to me."

            Once again you lose yourself in the conversation.

            You object to my statement that we should keep lies and politics out of scientific claims used to ask for taxpayer funding?

            I'm not surprised.

            like
            /līk/
            Preposition
            Having the same characteristics or qualities as; similar to: "they were like brothers".

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Once again your assigning another person's quote to me."

            It's painfully obvious that your reading comprehension is far worse than even I had previously estimated. You seriously have no business commenting.

            But it is a free country and I hope you don't interpret my words as a threat to kill you or something. I just never know what you'll think you've read.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Man has control over the Earth goes great with your Earth is the center of the universe.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      EarlyTurd,

      "Global Warming" was changed to "Climate Change" when the weather didn't fit the claims.

      BTW, the climate ALWAYS changes – thanks to the tilt of the Earth.

      • EarlyBird

        Nope, doesn't work that way, Screw Up. Even as we've seen periods of a dozen or more years where the average temperature is not rising, it's an anomaly within a much longer and undeniable trend of rising earth temperatures, which we can determine have been happening for a long time. It's like a guy whose stock goes up and down over a period of years, but generally trends upwards over decades.

        Global Warming results in catastrophic Global Climate Change. Your position is entirely partisan and politically based, ignorant and ascientific.

        • Mary Sue

          Global warming does not result in catastrophic climate change. That's only a theory. If that were the case, why was the Earth not complely screwed over millions of years ago?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Global Warming results in catastrophic Global Climate Change. Your position is entirely partisan and politically based, ignorant and ascientific."

          The irony here is sad and humorous at the same time.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Global Warming results in catastrophic Global Climate Change. Your position is entirely partisan and politically based, ignorant and ascientific."

          You are such a blatant "me too" partisan that it's silly for you to accuse others and therefore remind us yet again how almost everything you say is based on projection and leftist indoctrination.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          EarlyTurd, You must think Man is responsible for fewer sunspots.

          "Your position is entirely partisan and politically based, ignorant and ascientific."

          Likewise.

  • Daniel Greenfield

    People might take you more seriously if you toned down the hate and bigotry and concentrated on actual issues.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "People might take you more seriously if you toned down the hate and bigotry and concentrated on actual issues."

      Maybe after proving himself for a while. But I think he hates the people who hate hate so much that he can't even see straight.

  • Mary Sue

    I think that the Marxist Dialeticalists are placing too much faith (ha ha ha) on the ability of the School System to corrupt all children (and in this case it may be that they're hoping it'll corrupt the children of Devout Muslims into atheist socialists, just as it has done with countless Christians and Jews and others). Other Marxists place too much faith in the ability of Marxism to overcome religion in general in the public discourse. Just sit back, don't complain (don't make self target) and watch the Marxism seep into them and the religion seep out. Little by little. That is what they are hoping.

    Unfortunately I don't think it's going to work, this time…

  • Mary Sue

    Geez, it's like you're obsessed with Daniel here.

  • Patscholar

    This is a great article that promotes the ideological basis of communist and Marxist "science." It exposes the complete folly of SSM and explains the ideological reasons it has become such a cause celebre. The idea of infertility treatments for homosexuals so that they can "have" children is completely insane. As if California isn't imploding as it is. Hail to the Marxists to drive "science" into the ground of ideological propaganda.

  • Crossbow87

    Thanks for this article Mr. Greenfield, I will reference it in my arguments from now on.

  • tagalog

    During the Great Leap Forward, the Red Chinese under Mao Tse-Tung (Mao Zhedong for the politcally correct) decided to follow Lysenko in planting their rice crop. Instead of planting one seedling in one place, they placed several plants in one place. The Lysenkoist theory was that plants growing together would strengthen each other within the collective.

    Naturally, the result was a rice famine that year as the collectively planted rice plants competed with one another for nutrients and killed each other off.

    Forty-five million dead from starvation during the Great Leap Forward, 1959 to 1963. In America at the time, parents had to try to get their kids to eat everything on their plates by telling them that "children in Europe are starving." If only they'd known about the PRC.

  • Liberty Clinger

    O'Brian to Winston Smith: “We'll cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman… In the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth as one takes eggs from a hen… There will be no loyalty except loyalty toward the Party. There will be no love except the love of Big Brother… There will be no heart, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science." George Orwell – 1984

    • tagalog

      They've certainly made important inroads on destroying art as an expression of beauty. On the popular culture front, compare the movies made today with the movies made 60 years ago or earlier.

      Representational painting has also taken quite a beating.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    EarlyTurd has a masochistic streak a mile wide.

  • braddocksgold

    "…the assertion that the choice of male or female sexual partners is rigidly fixed at a genetic level, but that gender is infinitely transformative, that gay men cannot turn back to straight, but that men can become women and women can become men,…"

    So true, the T in LGBT stands at odds with the LG and B because it rams home(pun intended) the notion that the gender is naturally essential to being an earthling. But, the T's are brought under the umbrella for their glorious non-compliance with that natural order.

  • timeklek

    U of A in Edmonton, Reported via CBC radio in the early '80's of a study (good luck finding it today though). The gist of which was' Effeminate Men were overexposed to a Powerful Female Influence in the first 3 years of life; or a weak male role model. 'Like a newly hatched duckling, they identify with their first real association. Not to say' the guy is gay, but many are.

  • Infovoyeur

    I have to give up any attempt to comprehend why otherwise-valuable, indeed vital, thinkers/writers on the Right, suddenly blip out when Climate Change is mentioned. And homosexuality and same-sex marriage. I cannot fathom this. Can't get the hidden "logic" which kicks in. Unless it's respectively, fear of major change, and as for the Gay Thing, fear of violating Natural Law which they feel keeps them safe. ("Two guys on a wedding-cake," too much change for comfort, so disrespect and deject a whole group who can Love.) I am a recovering li-be-ral, but can't get this.

    See a book "The Republican Brain" by Chris Mooney. Bad news, he says conservatives deny scientific reality and are not interested in incisive complex thinking for its own sake, as are liberals. But good news, we need conservatives for their staying-power, follow-through, commitment where Liberals may be thought-ful but in clouds about applying things. That was a ray of solid hope perhaps…

    • Neil Woodcock

      I'll try to explain.. conservatives value freedom. For several years now "Global Warming/Climate Change" has infringed on our freedom by confiscating, against our will, huge sums of our valuable resources and wasting it on an endless list of useless attempts to accomplish something which cannot be done based on rigged, self serving data and faulty logic. Global Warming made very little sense in the first place and then, once the model didn't fit reality, the name was change; disconnecting it from even that faulty logic. No one believes Global Warming is scientific, it's a political calculation. Those who wish to waste money on it should, those who do not, should not be forced to. Gay marriage is about to start down the same road. Our money is about to be confiscated to support law suites against churches, hospitals and any other establishment who refuse to agree that a man can change his chromosomes at will. Both of these issues masquerade as scientific but have no real science behind them, which would be ok except they take away our freedom to use our resources as we see fit.

      • anor277

        On the contrary, proponents of global warming try to conserve natural resources. And as to the charge that 'global warming' is a political calculation, it's hard to know how you can justify this assertion.

        Fact 1. Carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas that absorbs long-wave (i.e. IR) radiation. (This was known at least 100 years ago).

        Fact 2. It is reasonable to suppose that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to global increases in temperature.

        Fact 3. There is a consensus of scientific opinion that a well-documented and well-verified increase in global temperature has occurred over the last 100 years.

        Fact 4. Human activity currently emits more than 30,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. Given 1, 2, and 3 it is reasonable to suppose that said global warming is anthropogenic. (The case is even more compelling when data that document the decrease of IR intensity in the carbon dioxide bands in the upper atmosphere in the past 30 years are considered.)

        You can dispute or ignore all these data, and I anticipate that you probably will. But the irony of these actions in response to an article that proposes 'leftists' ignore science is marked. Are you and Mr Greenfield leftists too?

        • Neil Woodcock

          Science does not cherry pick a few facts and declare victory. True science invites decent and addresses all the facts. Climate change does not fit this definition, a decenter is label a denier and contrary facts are discarded. Science postulates an outcome and is validated by results. Global warming models fail and so the name was changed to climate change. In today's political climate some feel it necessary to overlook these facts in order to be "Politically Correct" . Example disregarded facts include per your list above:
          1) Clouds are a greenhouse which dwarf CO2. Cloud variability easily compensates for CO2 variation
          2) History indicates that CO2 levels are a lagging indicator not a leading indicator.
          3) Consensus is not a scientific principal, if it were we would still be in the dark ages.
          4) Real scientists are finding that ocean alge have an enormous ability to absorb CO2, making the earth self regulating.
          These facts, to me, are far more compelling but not addressed by global warming. Agin, those who wish to overlook inconvenient facts are welcome to do so, I object to being forced to waste my resources on it.

          • anor277

            1. The water molecule is indeed a more potent greenhouse agent than carbon dioxide. Of course, water has a boiling point 178 degrees higher than carbon dioxide's sublimation point. The point is that carbon dioxide persists in the atmosphere. I am not aware of any literature that proposes that the rise in average global temperature over the past 100 years is due to cloud cover or water vapour.

            2. Yes, carbon dioxide can be viewed as a lagging indicator. This does not disprove the suggestion that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide lead to higher temperatures.

            3. As you say consensus is not a scientific principal; we can agree the same of ignorance; and of denial. If you follow your point to its conclusions you would be saying that because all scientists agree on an issue, they must all be wrong.

            4. I am aware that algae (and all green plants) can absorb carbon dioxide. You have probably heard of 'eutrophication' in which water biomass asphyxiates animal life in waterways during the night hours, when the algae is not photosynthesizing? This is a possible (and observed) scenario of algal blooms.

            In closing, no significant group of climate scientists would accept that global warming has stopped or is not increasing. Why not? Because there is no evidence of the temperature dropping. These are the data that many here ignore.

          • anor277

            Just regarding point 2. http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/enviro… is a website that I came across when I heard Mary Sue's (a poster here) arguments regarding gas permeability of ice cores and climate estimation by proxy data. I have yet to read the Science article on which the website is based, but it seems that carbon dioxide concentration and temperature are very closely linked geologically.

          • Neil Woodcock

            Since earth stopped warming over a decade ago I would say the counter argument more accurately discribes the real world. Also, since the official title became "Climate Change", I would say that at least one significant group accepts this as a fact. The use of the term "consensus", a political term, has been injected into the argument by politicians. The left has a political reason for pushing this theory. The science has been politicized.

          • anor277

            You are incorrect with respect to the Earth's temperature; the Earth did not stop warming in 2003. See Fawcett and Jones, 2008, http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting-for-globa… amongst other (more recent) sources. You either accept these data or you do not. The latter course is not very scientific.

          • Neil Woodcock

            That would be true if Global Warming were a science, but it's not, it's political science. You guys lost your science cred when the founders got caught fudging the numbers and suppressing descent and the models stopped predicting reality. Once your credibility is lost all data is suspect.

          • reader

            Not to forget the coincidental Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore leaving his organization in disgust over the Greenpeace take over by trivial marxists, in his own words. There's no reason to doubt his commitment to the environment, and hence there is plenty to doubt the "Global Warming" freaks' commitment to same.

          • anor277

            I don't know what you mean by 'you guys'. I am not a climate specialist. Did you scan the paper? It clearly addresses the rise in temperature since 2003, using different sources. Now these are data that you reject because it's unpalatable. And this in a thread commenting on "The Left's War on Science". C'est la vie.

            PS As far as I know, nobody was caught fudging data.

            PPS Apologies if this appear twice.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "It clearly addresses the rise in temperature since 2003, using different sources. Now these are data that you reject because it's unpalatable."

            No, we question the stats and reports (of historical results) because they seem to change as often as the weather does. Funny that. History should be relatively stable, unlike the weather, which is…not.

          • Neil Woodcock

            You can Google "ClimateGate" or check: http://floppingaces.net/2013/04/06/global-warming

  • bob

    Great article, but what the author doesn't understand about the proposed CA bill allowing gay males to have infertility treatment is that it will cover surrogate motherhood. So, two gay guys, or even a single gay guy, can hire a surrogate mother and have her do invitro treatment with his sperm and an egg that he gets from the egg store (he could even get the sperm from the sperm store,if he's infertile) and have his baby. All of this will be paid for by you and me. Another anti-male, ant-father, anti-husband, and ant-human policy brought to you by socialism and feminism.

  • Jim

    The same bunch that complained so about the Catholic attacking Galileo are now doing the same thing.

    They argued that putting religion ahead of science was back ward and repressive.

    There are many more examples of putting socialist ideology ahead of science, and trying to repress science.

    By the way on a TV special on sex change operation it was pointed out that men who change from men to women have a much higher suicide rate than the general public. I guessed the changelings probably thought becoming a woman would be a solution to their anxiety or what ever was bothering them.