Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Professor Joseph A. Palermo, writing for the Huffington Post, thinks anyone who doesn’t agree with climate alarmism shouldn’t be allowed to use any of the products of science.
Republicans, Climate Change, And The New Reality
Joseph A. Palermo
Professor, historian, author
First off, let me be clear: The Republican Party bears responsibility for Donald Trump becoming the 45th President of the United States. The Republican Party nominated him. The party leaders enabled him. There were many complex social, political, and economic forces that produced the Trump catastrophe, but no amount of disassembling and deflecting will change the fact that the Republican Party made this happen.
Through his public statements and personnel choices Trump has made it clear that he rejects the science of climate change. I’ve always believed that people who dismiss science in one area shouldn’t be able to benefit from science in others. If Trump and his cohort believe the science of global warming is bogus then they shouldn’t be allowed to use the science of the Internet for their Twitter accounts, the science of global positioning for their drones, or the science of nuclear power for their weaponry.
The oil, coal, and gas companies use the same scientific methodology to extract resources that climate scientists use to confirm the planetary disaster that awaits us. It’s pretty crazy to see the U.S. government abandon science when it conflicts with corporate profits, while Trump’s donors from Big Ag, Big Banks, and Big Pharma deploy science to patent new life forms, engage in “high frequency” trading, and invent new drugs.
The history of science is riddled with episodes of error, mass delusion and group think.
We don’t reject Sir Isaac Newton because he believed in Alchemy, we recognize the great man made a few mistakes, and accept the enormous contribution Newton made to mathematics and physics.
We don’t reject the work of Einstein because he was wrong about the nature of Quantum randomness. We accept that scientists can be wrong.
We don’t reject the entire field of medicine because for many decades, the medical community wrongly rejected the theory that many stomach ulcers are caused by a bacterial infection.
And we don’t reject free speech, because some people say things with which we disagree.