Lysenko versus AGW, which is more dangerous

Armed and Dangerous refutes the stupid pack of lies that the so-called "scientific community" has pushed forward with the promise of billions and trillions more for Big Science and Big Government at the end of the Copenhagen road.

A pathetic unread silly-boy named Colmes, recently dismissed from Hannity's show for persistent underachievement, bleats in his effete tones the usual BS that ice caps are melting, polar bears drowning, etc. while neglecting to point out that ice caps are now growing in Antarctica, etc. It's the sins of omission where the crimes are being committed by the AGW hoax brigades of "meteorologists" and other fake-science phonies. The dogs that don't bark like clueless Charlie [ACORN, what's that?], dumbass Katie the biyotch and phony Brian, the Alex Baldwin of News [funny if you like sick jokes]. Those nets are going to be begging for PBS status soon as they sink slowly into red ink. We can all see, if we ever bother to watch, what boring BS they will become just by allowing our retinas to be violated by the public leftist channel.

No wonder FoxNEWS is carrying the field and now FOX network is winning the entire shooting match, because people just don't like to be lied to, even by omission. And as A&D notes, people really hate rationalization of political control by fake science:

Lysenkoism is also instructive in another way. It teaches us a lesson which, if heeded, might have accelerated the exposure of the AGW fraud — or, perhaps, prevented it from getting traction in the first place. The lesson is this: always, always, always distrust the “science” that accompanies a political power grab.

This is actually a narrower category than politicized science. To see how, contrast creationism with AGW. Creationism is certainly politicized science, but it is marginally less noxious than AGW because it is not cannot effectively be used as a rationalization of control by the permanent political class, a weapon against free markets and individual liberty.

And A&D cites my philosopher of choice, the great H.L. Mencken:

Therefore…the next time we hear a ginned-up panic over some vast environmental crisis, the prudent thing to do will be to remember Mencken: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” It will be prudent to suspect that the science is probably already corrupted and demand extra-stringent scrutiny of it under that assumption.

It took the National Inquirer to uncover a fraud like John Edwards while the MSM dithered and dilly-dallied to protect its golden calf and his sick wife. Remember saccharine and other fake "crises?"

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

The Sage of Baltimore would have also said what esr mentions afterward:

And that brings us to process transparency. I discussed this with particular reference in Open-Sourcing the Global Warming Debate, but there’s another point that deserves attention. Strictly speaking, the rules of science require complete disclosure of all experimental methods, data, and analysis tools so that others can peer-review and replicate the work. We may find it an acceptable to relax those full-disclosure rules to some extent for corporations doing commercially-focused R&D. But that IPR exception should never be granted to scientists whose research touches public policy. Because the stakes are so much higher, disclosure standards must be as well.

FOIA requests were ignored for eight years and it took a whistleblower to send the most damaging e-mails which should result in people losing their jobs.

Instead, a one-term wonder is heading off to Copenhagen next month after not having time to visit the Berlin Wall in his busy schedule. Is anyone going to challenge this double-digit IQ moron?