Trump Can Restore Government Science Sanity

In case that some of you are worried about Trump’s radical environmental science policy appointments, relax. Let’s consider how bad they really could be . . . and in fact already have been.

I can’t imagine how any Trump administration assault on science could top President Obama’s pick of John Holdren as his director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and high priest of climate calamity.

Consider that of all possible candidates, he selected the co-author of a Malthusian 1977 book titled "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment" which actually explored measures a government might take to forcibly limit population growth deemed excessive by an international body. Included are compulsory abortions and mass sterilizations, topics reopened at the 2009 U.N. Copenhagen climate meeting.

The John Holdren-Paul Ehrlich book explains that since families "contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children," they "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility." For any One World Government fans, page 943 suggests the creation of a "Planetary Regime to act as an international superagency for population, resources and environment."

The co-authors envisioned that "such a planetary regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all [italic emphasis in original] natural resources, renewable and nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist."

They add that this global court "might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating [the] various countries’ shares within regional limits." Possible methods of population control the authors discussed are "sterilizing women after their second or third child”, and adding "a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods."

Hlldren also proposed "a massive campaign to restore a high-quality environment in North America to de-develop [italics added] the United States." To achieve this objective, he urged that "resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries."

In 1986 Holdren predicted that global warming could cause the deaths of 1 billion people by 2020. Although he has since backed away from that estimate . . . who knows?

While that number may be excessive, political meltdown from the Trump election will likely cause heat stroke casualties for many U.N. politicos and profiteers who Hillary promised to pay $100 billion per year in climate reparation penance for America’s unfair fossil-fueled prosperity.

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer clearly summed up the real situation in 2010, " . . . one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth . . . "

White House agenda-driven policies have expansive, corrupting, influences upon government and academic science programs.

Highly respected climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Judith Curry, resigned from her tenured position last week citing her growing disenchantment with "the politicized academic establishment" where maintaining scientific integrity can result in "career suicide."

As author of 186 published journal articles and two books, she grew frustrated with inabilities for researchers and other professionals to have their papers published, be hired in prestigious positions, serve on prestigious committees and boards, or gain other professional recognition unless their activities are channeled to navigate the craziness in certain establishment-approved directions.

Curry has been targeted by ranking members of the liberal climate change orthodoxy for daring to dispute any sound reasons for doomsday alarm or for implementing related draconian regulatory programs. She told E&E News in a Jan. 3 interview, "The one thing we know is that the commitments we’ve made, in Paris, will probably prevent about two-tenths of a degree of warming by the end of the 21st century. What is the point?"

Apparently the real "point" the U.N. has in mind is something else entirely. As their climate chief Christina Figueres candidly remarked, the true aim of the recent Paris climate conference was "to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution."

Thanks to the recent White House and Congressional election results, there is good reason to hope that this revolution can now continue to heat our homes, build and fuel our cars, and power up just about everything we do. Particularly encouraging, is Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt’s nomination to head EPA.

As Pruitt stated in an op-ed in National Review, coauthored with Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange, "Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind." Accordingly, "That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress."

However radical, that cool-headed debate, based upon honest science, is long overdue.

Larry Bell is an endowed professor of space architecture at the University of Houston where he founded the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA) and the graduate program in space architecture. He is the author of “Scared Witless: Prophets and Profits of Climate Doom”(2015) and “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax” (2012). Read more of his reports — Click Here Now.