The first part of this piece was a brilliant exposition on the harm done by harnessing Lysenko’s perversion of science in the service of Stalin’s totalitarian state. Then it did an intellectual backflip and tried to equate scientists who have erected and maintained the current orthodoxy on climate change with the brave principled scientists of the Soviet era. A more apt equation is to view the climate change panic supporters as the latter-day Lysenko loving Stalinists.
The sky-is-falling crowd are guilty of at least two sins that reveal they are anything but objective devotees of science.
First, they have tried hard to equate opposition to the Paris Climate Treaty with opposition to science. Climate Science might eventually. show everything they say about temperature and CO2 is true, but Science cannot ever show the Paris Climate Treaty is an effective, intelligent, or sensible way to address the potential problem. Science doesn’t support a treaty.
Second, they keep saying people who disagree with them are “Climate Change Deniers”. That’s just not true. Most scientifically inclined people on the other side believe climate is and has been changing for 4 billion years. What they are denying is that the warming pattern is a hockey stick, that the history of recent temperature change shows the sensitivity or response pattern claimed, that the actual warming experienced is unprecedented or outside the range of normal climate change, that anthropogenic industrial CO2 production is the primary cause of any change, or that severe restriction of US industry could plausibly change the climate by any measurable amount. These are all debatable propositions that can someday be settled scientifically. None amount to denial that the climate can and has changed.
Actually it the opposite side that sufferers from the unwarranted assumption: Climate is Always Stable But for Industrial CO2. We came out of an Ice Age not so long ago and coal plants and factories had nothing to do with it.
It’s a shame the author had to ruin such a brilliant presentation of the unscientific evils of the Lysenko movement with an unconvincing attempt to use it to score points in the current debate on climate.