SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

I brought this historical comparasion out from one of the blogs opinion pieces: THE EVOLUTION OF AN IDEOLOGY: WORLD HERETIC SITES. Al Gore and his junk science are compared to Stalin's philosophers determining what was science and what was not.

From the POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING AND ENVIRONMENTALISM by Christopher C. Horner
Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Page 99

“Next up on the “hit’ parade for Al Gore et al, after Gore’s inauguration was to chase Dr. William Happer out of the U.S. Department of Energy. Though at first asked to stay on as director of energy research by the Clinton White House, Happer subsequently made the mistake of disputing Gore. In REASON magazine at the time, journalist Ron Bailey told the tale of Happer’s fall.
Bailey focuses on Happer’s appearance before a House subcommittee, in which he delivered “cautious testimony…at odds with Gore’s alarmist views.” Specifically, Happer uttered this scandalous sentence: “I think that there probably has been some exaggeration of the dangers of ozone and global climate change.”
Possibly Happer was thinking of the part in EARTH IN THE BALANCE where Gore writes about chlorine from Manmade refrigerants called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCS), “Like an acid, it burns a hole in the Earth’s protective ozone shield.”
No one but Happer knows. However, following this testimony, Happer says, “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” and that he had made his way onto the ‘enemies list” of Gore aide Katie McGinty.”[4]

Compare Dr. Happer’s experience with Gore and Katie McGinty, to Russian physicists and their dealings with the Marxists under Stalin.

From STALIN AND THE BOMB by David Holloway
Page 21-22

“Physicists came under increasing pressure in the 1930s to show their loyalty to the Party and the State. The intellectual climate of the country changed drastically for the worse at the end of the 1920s. The Academy of Sciences lost the relative intellectual autonomy it had enjoyed in the 1920s and was brought under increasing party and government control. Collaboration with the regime was no longer enough; the Party now demanded political and ideological commitment. Scientific disciplines came under scrutiny from militant party philosophers who wanted to root out any political or philosophical deviations that scientific theories might betray. These philosophers claimed the right to judge whether theories in the natural sciences were really scientific or not. What was at issue in these discussions was the question of authority in science: who had the right to say what constituted a valid scientific theory – the scientists or the Communist Party.”[5]