The Salem Witch Trials, Bleeding, & Climate Change

By Frank V. Vernuccio,Special  for USDR

For centuries, the majority of the world’s doctors believed that the best way to cure numerous ills was to bleed the patient. Doubters were ridiculed, until common sense took over and medical science advanced.

From 1692—1693, two hundred people in the settlement of Salem, Massachusetts were accused of witchcraft. 20 were eventually executed. Those who dissented were labelled heretics.

The experience of scientists and policy makers who question the accuracy of the theory that human activity is significantly altering our planet’s climate are not unlike those physicians who questioned bleeding and the Pilgrims who didn’t believe in witches. Those who disagree with the prevailing views on climate change are labelled as “deniers” and their evidence is ignored. Some commentators have even maintained that those not subscribing to the theory are unfit for public office.

The falsifying of data by change advocates is unheeded. Reminders that prior periods of climate change took place long before industrialization are given minimal consideration, and those who deliver that fact are insulted, and worse.

The reason for the hard blocking of evidence that counters the theory held by proponents of the theory of man-made global climate disruption (It used to be global cooling, and then was changed to global warming, then climate change. Embarrassing facts kept mandating name revisions) is the difficulty of the task advocates face. From the dawn of Earth’s existence, climate change has periodically occurred, heating and cooling even before the existence of humankind. What is occurring currently appears to be part of that unending cycle.

By no small coincidence, much of the agenda to “remedy” this problem by those, mostly on the political left, perpetuating the belief of man-made changes to the environment happens to fit precisely with the political agenda they have been attempting to impose in one way or another for decades. Advocates must convince the public that this is a threat caused by an economic system they oppose in order to pass laws and regulations that replaces free enterprise with the top-down economic system they prefer.

The debate over climate change has become far more dramatic and immediate due to the President’s recent announcement of imposing measures dealing with “climate disruption.”

Increasingly, studies by researchers across the planet about this very normal cyclical pattern are becoming increasingly difficult to sweep under the rug. Consider just a few examples of recent scientific research:

Science magazine recently reported a study by three scientists noting that water temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period were warmer than those today. The report also notes that “normal cyclical changes, not human activity, is responsible for current temperature fluctuations.”

Swedish researchers studying forestry patterns have concluded that “there is nothing unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented about Earth’s current level of warmth.”

James M. Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News writes in Forbes that “assertions that warming temperatures in the United States are causing a host of problems are soundly contradicted by objective temperature data. The U.S. Historical Climatology Network’s thermometers, which have been measuring U.S. temperatures since the 1890, show no long-term trend in U.S. temperatures.”

The Capital Research Center has issued a report that finds “The most prestigious international group claiming we face a global warming crisis has a history of twisting the scientific evidence involved in the controversy. It is so duplicitous that it has even misrepresented the findings of its own reports.”

That study is particularly critical of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which recently stated its belief that global warming was underway and was going to be deeply harmful to humans. In sharp contrast, a private sector organization, with the similar-sounding name of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, found exactly the opposite. Their research indicated that the human impact on climate is small, and that, if there is a minor increase in global temperature, it may actually be helpful to mankind.

Astronomers around the world increasingly report that, due to decreased solar activity, global cooling may be more of a reality than global warming. Astronomers at St. Petersburg specializing in studying the sun point out that solar activity is largely responsible for temperature fluctuations. Some have predicted that, due to the current solar cycle, we may be in for a period of global cooling. Human activity has no effect on that cycle.

For those with an agenda to alter America’s economic system, hard scientific evidence is as unwelcome as common sense was to the Salem judges who ordered 20 innocents executed for witchcraft hundreds of years ago.

Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr., J.D., is editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, ( He is the author and host of the syndicated radio commentary feature Minute Report for America® and co-host of the nationally heard Vernuccio/Allison Report radio show. He has served in both Democrat and Republican administrations on the state and local levels. A graduate of Hofstra Law School, he regularly writes for a variety of newspapers and internet news sites and frequently appears as an expert guest on numerous broadcast outlets.

All opinions expressed on USDR are those of the author and not necessarily those of US Daily Review.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.