Global-warming theory and the eugenics precedent

washington times ^ | 02/19/2007 | milwguy

[milwguy]

Global Warming" had a precursor in capturing the hearts and minds of the world. Michael Crichton, in his novel "State of Fear," brilliantly juxtaposes the world's current political embrace of "global warming" with the popular embrace of the "science" of eugenics a century ago. For nearly 50 years, from the late 1800s through the first half of the 20th century, there grew a common political acceptance by the world's thinkers, political leaders and media elite that the "science" of eugenics was settled science. There were a few lonely voices trying to be heard in the wilderness in opposition to this bogus science, but they were ridiculed or ignored

[syriacus]

Discussion of the eugenics movement, by Crichton himself

Why Politicized Science is Dangerous

The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. [snip]

First, despite the construction of Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, despite the efforts of universities and the pleadings of lawyers, there was no scientific basis for eugenics. In fact, nobody at that time knew what a gene really was. The movement was able to proceed because it employed vague terms never rigorously defined. "Feeble-mindedness" could mean anything from poverty to illiteracy to epilepsy. Similarly, there was no clear definition of "degenerate" or "unfit."

Second, the eugenics movement was really a social program masquerading as a scientific one. What drove it was concern about immigration and racism and undesirable people moving into one's neighborhood or country. Once again, vague terminology helped conceal what was really going on. The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race.

Third, and most distressing, the scientific establishment in both the United States and Germany did not mount any sustained protest. Quite the contrary.

[syriacus]

Global warming

Gabble Warming

Definition: Increase in ambient temperature, which is caused by overly loud and practically endless chatter about the heating of the climate.

NB. This is a self-systaining cycle, which is strengthened when conference-bound chatterers burn fossil fuel.

[ClaireSolt]

So we are to live like hunter gatherers while the jet set soars high above us? No thanks. I knew this was a reactionary movement, but this is ridiculous. Next they will be trying to prosecute God for breathing the breath of life into man.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on graphic for full GW rundown

---

[Mrs. Don-o]

Eugenics isn't bogus science: applied to human populations by governments and other agencies via coercion, it's bogus morality.

[bjc]

I assume your references to "elite" are as a self-defined term rather than some objectively defined group of extraordinary performers as in "elite athletes." As the saying goes, if Al Gore is a member of this so called elite, then it is a club of which I do not want to be a member.

[redgolum]

For later read.

[neverdem]

The oceans typically contain 60 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. It is also known that colder waters dissolve more CO2 than warm waters.

That's impressive.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

"Eugenics isn't bogus science: applied to human populations by governments and other agencies via coercion, it's bogus morality."

It was bogus at the time. DNA wouldn't be discovered for decades.

[bcsco]

Ping for later read

[Taichi]

I am very aware I pointed out that Crichton in fact held several degrees.

I'm sure a whole lot more than Gore has,

[Taichi]

As a matter of fact not to long ago I read that a lot of the arctic data relied on now was taken by the Navy, some of it as far back as the 1950's.


I'm sure you're probably right.

[Condor51]

....the popular embrace of the "science" of eugenics a century ago. For nearly 50 years, from the late 1800s through the first half of the 20th century, there grew a common political acceptance by the world's thinkers, political leaders and media elite that the "science" of eugenics was settled science.

Is this guy on crack?

Eugenics IS "settled science". It's done every day with everything from HORSES to Wheat. It's just not politically correct to to say it is, or connect it to humans, that's all.

[steve8714]

They won't starve...they'll die of malaria.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"[Eugenics] was bogus at the time. DNA wouldn't be discovered for decades."

Knowledge of DNA isn't crucial to selecting and breeding. People have known about that since Jacob and Laban.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

LOL. Isn't that true. The libs will either starve everybody to fill our fuel tanks because they don't want to drill anywhere in the U.S. for fear of an oil spill or they'll kill all third-worlders with their bans on DDT. They are such compassionate people and they care so much for everybody.

[Sybeck1]

[Poincare]

So we are to live like hunter gatherers while the jet set soars high above us? No thanks. I knew this was a reactionary movement, but this is ridiculous.

How disappointing. You don't know the difference between hunter-gatherer and pastoral agriculture. There are no wild cattle anymore.

Current agricultural practices are said contribute about 25% of greenhouse gasses, but that does not figure in whether soil organic compounds are burned off by exposure or sequestered by pasturing or no-till methods. One square foot of humate rich topsoil holds enough carbon for five or ten pounds of CO_2

[ClaireSolt]

Maybe you don't see that there is no end to this reactionary lunacy. I do know quite a lot about the livestock industry, as I am from Kansas City. You seem to be fully taken in by this retrograde thinking. Maybe you would like to be a Mid East Bedouin. Not me. I've seen that first hand.

[AFPhys]

H. L. Mencken once wrote, "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it."

-------

A worthwhile quote from this article.

As well, the following:
" It has been known for years that most CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. It is called "carbon sinking." The oceans typically contain 60 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. It is also known that colder waters dissolve more CO2 than warm waters. Which do you think is cause and which is effect? We currently have CO2 levels of about 380 ppm. A recent study completed at UC Davis concluded that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 300 million years ago was on the order of 2,000 ppm. Then this, "the same increase that experts expect by the end of this century as remaining reserves of fossil fuels are burned." If it is a given that human burning of fossil fuels is what will cause an increase of CO2 levels up to 2,000 ppm in the next 93 years, don't they owe us an explanation as to who burned those fossil fuels 300 million years ago? In fact we are being treated to a modern scientific shell game. The most prevalent and efficient greenhouse gas is not CO2; it is water vapor, which accounts for about 60 percent of the heat-trapping gases while CO2 accounts for about 26 percent. So, why are we being served a daily diet of our destroying the environment with our behavior as it relates to CO2? Because our behavior has little to do with the amount of water vapor, so it is a non-starter when it comes to those whose principal goal is ruling our lives."

... is something that everyone needs to become aware of when battling against the global warming alarmists.