***The following is a guest post for Save The Environment by Jim Vanne***As Blaise Pascal once noted, once science is divorced from ethics, scientists will use their skills to pursue power, not truth.  Much of what is being reported today about anthropogenic (man caused) global warming is exactly a case in point for this. And why will scientists (some, not all, of course) do this? Simply due to an underlying worldview, as best evidenced by the 1974 Club of Rome report titled, Mankind at the Turning Point, which stated, “The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”  Their solution, as Canada’s Free Press reports, was simple – engineer a massive reduction in population and utterly change the socio-economic system through centralized planning via total government control. This explains there very obvious reason why global warming is invariably associated with the left, and why, for example,  Nancy Pelosi famously claimed that  "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility." George Orwell could not have phrased this dystopian un-vision better!

The first cudgel in the warmers’ arsenal is that of claiming a “consensus.” How does the consensus argument stand up to examination?  First, science has never, ever been decided by consensus. Rather, it has invariably been determined by experimentation and hypothesis testing, tempered by a healthy dose of free, unconstrained peer-review. One need look no further for evidence of this than by quoting as Galileo Galilei, another contrarian astronomer once stated about the so-called “consensus” of his age, "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."  If one needs a more recent scientist saying the same thing, look no further than the famed Richard P. Feynman, known for his work on quantum mechanics and the theory of quantum electrodynamics, who simply noted that rather than consensus, “Experiment is the sole judge of scientific truth.” (Or as one writer at ClimateRealists.com summarizes Feynman, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”  Unfortunately, Al Gore, who flunked out of grad school in a humanities area, missed that lesson. Ultimately, the real proof the global warmers use is spelled out by FrontPageMag.com, which notes that “alarmists are right about climate change because alarmists who believe they are right about climate change publish a lot of papers that demonstrate how right they are about climate change.”

Similar to the observations made in Thomas Kuhn’s seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, Paul Davies, in the introduction to his book on Feynman, Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics, notes similarly that “There is a popular misconception that science is an impersonal, dispassionate, and thoroughly objective enterprise. Whereas most other human activities are dominated by fashions, fads and personalities, science is supposed to be constrained by agreed rules of procedure and rigorous tests. It is the results that count, not the people who produce them. This is, of course, manifest nonsense. Science is a people driven activity like all human endeavour, and just as subject to fashion and whim. In this case, fashion is set not so much by choice of subject matter, but the way scientists think about the world.” And, unfortunately, there is one way to think about the world - the politically correct way. Otherwise you figuratively or literally starve, shunned and alone, under the modern day climactic Robespierres.

A couple history lessons are instructive: In the 1800s, before Pasteur’s discoveries, Ignaz Semmelweis insisted doctors wash their hands between obstetric patients. Deaths dropped dramatically in his Vienna hospital. Unfortunately, as Wikipedia blandly puts it, “Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands… and (his hand washing) practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death.” Ironically, in 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died of septicemia, at age 47. And if one thinks death, or death threats, are hyperbole, look no further than Dr. Tim Ball, Univ. of Winnipeg climatologist, who spoke out against the warmists in a documentary titled The Great Global Warming Swindle. For his heresy, Ball has received death threats, such as: "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further global warming…”  Ann Coulter summarizes this sorry occurrence by noting “Global warming is supposed to be "science." It's hard to imagine Niels Bohr responding to Albert Einstein's letter questioning quantum mechanics with a statement like: ‘If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further quantum mechanics...’"  Of course, in Coulter’s inimitable style, she then added about the faux religion of Greenism, “Only a false religion needs hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it.”

Similarly, the “consensus” argument was also wielded by none other than Adolf Hitler and his Nazis (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist Workers’ Party) against Albert Einstein. Just consider the book One Hundred Authors against Einstein, from http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Hundert-Autoren.pdf/  In response, Einstein simply noted, why 100? Only one would be needed, if his data were correct.  Sadly, the left and its warmers – as was said about the feckless Bourbon kings by Talleyrand -  have learned nothing, and they have forgotten nothing.

In sum, the consensus has no merit, either historically or scientifically. Rather, it is being wielded as a rhetorical device to hid the fact that the global warming emperor has no clothes.

If Al Gore and his radical environmentalist buddies could make a Hollywood movie it would assuredly be something very much like Avatar. It has been a long time since there has been a movie with such an obvious agenda. You see, the truth is that Avatar is nothing more than a thinly veiled propaganda piece for the environmental movement. James Cameron is not even trying to hide it, and in fact he openly admits it.

So what is wrong with that?

Why not use a film to influence society?

Well, the truth is that we go to the movies to be entertained - not to have a radical environmental agenda crammed down our throat.

And that is exactly what Avatar seeks to do.

The following are ten reasons why Avatar is simply a thinly veiled propaganda piece for the environmental movement....

#1) The humans have come to the planet that the Na'vi live on (Pandora) to mine a mineral that is so rare that it is called "Unobtainium".

#2) The blue-skinned Na'vi are so "one with nature" that they actually live in trees.

#3) The Na'vi worship "Mother Earth" just like many modern radical environmentalists do.

#4) The Na'vi embrace philosophies that are very similar to what is found in eastern religions and the New Age movement.  They apparently believe in reincarnation and that "all energy is borrowed and some day you have to give it back".

#5) The blue-skinned Na’vi are so "green" that they actually reject all technology that is more advanced than a bow and arrow.

#6) The human sent to "negotiate" with the Na'vi in the film, Sully, actually switches sides and laments that fact that humanity has already wrecked their own planet and now they want to wreck the habitat of the Na'vi.

#7) In fact, humans in Avatar are portrayed as an evil race that has "killed their mother".

#8) Avatar is so extreme that it is perhaps the first big Hollywood movie where we are all actually meant to root for aliens and against mankind.

#9) In fact, Sully ends up so disgusted with the human race that he ends up rejecting not just the humans that he is working for, but his own humanity as well.

#10) James Cameron even admits that Avatar is a blatant propaganda piece.  In an interview for the film, Cameron said that Avatar is about "our impact on the natural environment, wherever we go strip mining and putting up shopping malls".  

So is Avatar worth seeing in the theaters?

Only if you like being preached at and indoctrinated.

Otherwise just hold on to your money or go spend it on some cheap plastic stuff made in China.