I have mentioned Thomas Malthus often enough in relation to the empire building notion of Darwin/Wallace in terms of population control and from there to the holocaust or indeed the Irish famine where English policy was enacted by Charles Trevelyan as a student of Malthus among others -
"Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the
shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians,
brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in
war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged
themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them
to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions
abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation,
and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis
Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame
of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the
great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it
till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and
even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the
means of supporting it." Thomas Malthus
This was re-formatted by Darwin/Wallace into an evolutionary narrative based on aggression which was picked up by the national socialists in 1930's Germany.
"Without consideration of "traditions" and prejudices, Germany must find the courage to gather
our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its
present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of
vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation."
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
In between Malthus and Darwin was the English response to the Irish famine as both an academic policy and political policy. It was more an exploitation issue wrapped up in detached empirical thinking and so , with population control raising its ugly head again on this island, people should become familiar with how academic policy influences political policies to the devastation of society when otherwise people would act with responsibility and accountability.
The word 'denier' is thrown around but it really is unfamiliarity among those reasonable people who can figure things out themselves rather than rely on a weak opposition using the same experimental and data strategies as the proponents. They can be forgiven for believing that academics act with integrity in much the same way people believed proffessionals in charge of financial institutions acted with integrity 10 years ago but that is naive. People probably refuse to believe that humans can act in an evil way within academic circles but history has demonstrated otherwise and it is being repeated today.
In following the 'scientific method' trail there is always worse but that goes nowhere without a positive approach to climate research.
Last edited by oriel36; 24-01-2020 at 22:13.