Media hysteria and propaganda promoting "human-caused global warming" have hit a new high this month, just as the previously most successful campaign of world technological genocide — the demonization of DDT — is passing from the scene. After eradicating malaria from the entire developed world, DDT was banned by the United States, the United Nations, and their retainers. The result has been the deaths of more than 50 million children, mostly African, and chronic ongoing illness from malaria for more than 500 million adults — 10% of the human race.

There was never a shred of credible scientific evidence that DDT was harmful to the environment or to animal or human health Even the scientific review board of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the agency that initiated the DDT ban, found DDT to be entirely safe and environmentally beneficial. Before the ban, DDT saved hundreds of millions of human lives, and its originator received a well-deserved Nobel Prize.

Based on Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, a book that was demonstrably false from cover to cover, and promoted by self-interested ideologues, including Al Gore, the anti-DDT pogrom reached an intensity comparable to the current campaign against energy.

Use of DDT against malaria is now being advocated by the US and the UN. Why has DDT been rehabilitated? The reason is that malaria has been killing mostly black children, and black political power has finally reached a point where this can no longer be overlooked. So, those in the culture of human death have lost the ban of DDT, but they managed to kill a lot of people while it was in force.

Banning DDT, however, is child's play compared with banning energy — the most genocidal action ever attempted in human history.

The campaign against inexpensive and plentiful energy resources for human technology is not new. It began on college campuses in the 1 960s. The same left-wing radicals who controlled those campuses are now in control of the United States Congress.

Their target was and is energy — in any form that is industrially robust. Their primary demons have been nuclear energy and hydrocarbon energy. Solar energy, biofuels, and wind energy will be acceptable to them only so long as they remain industrially impractical for the generation of large amounts of inexpensive energy.

Evidence for this is found in hydroelectric energy, which has actually been classified by our government as a "non-renewable" resource and demonized by the anti-technologists. Its sin — it produces large amounts of inexpensive entirely renewable electrical energy.

In the 1 960s the cry arose for people to reduce their use of hydrocarbon energy from coal, oil, and natural gas. The initial claim was that we were running out of these "precious and rare" commodities. The truth, however, is that the United States especially and the world in general has plenty of hydrocarbon energy supplies for the next several centuries — a truth that soon asserted itself in the market price for hydrocarbon fuels. Oil itself is plentiful. Moreover, coal and natural gas can be easily converted into oil. There is no natural shortage of these commodities.

Political actions in the 1970s and thereafter, however, created shortages in the United States. Taxation, regulation, and litigation placed such onerous burdens on hydrocarbon production inside the United States that new production was instead developed abroad — and Americans were gradually forced to buy more and more of their hydrocarbon energy from often unstable foreign countries, especially those located in Muslim regions.

An alternative was available, however, in nuclear electric energy. While hydroelectric energy was peaking because most good hydroelectric sites had been developed, about 100 nuclear power plants were already supplying 20% of America's electrical energy. More such plants could have substituted for diminishing hydrocarbon supplies and maintained the energy independence of American industry.

So, a vast unprincipled, falsehood-filled propaganda campaign was launched against nuclear power — and it succeeded. Not one nuclear power plant was built in the United States after the 1 970s. The safest, least expensive, most environmentally benign source of industrial and domestic energy was essentially banned from further development in the United States — a situation that continues today.

As reported in The Wall Street Journal OnLine, February 24, 2007, an estimated 251 nuclear power plants are in various stages of planning and construction throughout the world, but there is not a single such plant under construction in the United States.

Without nuclear energy and without development of sufficient domestic hydrocarbons, Americans powered their country with imported hydrocarbon fuels. These, it turned out, were not in short supply as had been claimed.

Therefore, the anti-technologists tried another lie. Noticing that global temperatures were in a mild downtrend, they screeched that "global cooling" would soon engulf the planet. This, they claimed, was being caused by the burning of hydrocarbon fuels. If we did not stop using hydrocarbons, they asserted, we would all soon freeze in the dark. The global cooling campaign met its end when temperatures began to rise naturally and when Carl Sagan predicted that, if Iraq burned the oil fields of Kuwait, the resulting global winter would cause world-wide devastation. Iraq did set fire to the Kuwait oil fields — and no global cooling took place.

So, now that temperatures were rising, the ever-resourceful anti-technologists tried a third time. Now they claimed that "human-caused global warming" is the threat — again only to be stopped by rationing the human use of hydrocarbon energy. Global taxation, global energy rationing, global technology reduction, and human genocide are their goals and, given their record of success so far, these merchants of fear and death may be very close to succeeding.

Their weakness is in science. Their claims of warming due to human production of carbon dioxide are entirely without scientific merit. So, they refuse to debate the science, falsely claiming that a consensus of scientists — which does not exist — agrees with them.

Continued...