I would agree that he has no credentials in climate change or most everything he weighs in on, but he’s heavily involved in CLimate CHange – the hysterical source of the 200 feet of flooded Washington,DC.

But this passage linked thru HOTAIR today indicates he’s a very busy guy:

“Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” to gut the credibility of skeptics.
In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of “being treated like political pawns” and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times.

“Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules,” Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails.”
…………….

“Street fight” from a guy who advocated sterilization drugs thru city water supplies and allowing only certain people to reproduce … straight out of eugenics.
Not a nice guy, with decades of phony hysterical claims meant to influence public policy.
I distinctly remember being taught in school his global freezing claims in the 1960s. Despicable.

1) India disputes Himalayan Glacier melting claims:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8467480.stm

India has criticised the UN panel on climate change (IPCC) saying its grim warning about melting Himalayan glaciers was not based on “scientific evidence”.

2) Glacier melting unsubstantitated
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/un-ipcc-rotting-from-the-head-down/

“The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is stinking like a dead fish, rotting from the head down. In what has been dubbed ‘Glaciergate’, the IPCC has been exposed as conspiring to present a tissue of lies about the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas, claiming with greater than 90% confidence that they would disappear by 2035 or sooner. There was never any scientific basis whatsoever for such claims, and the ’source’ quoted was WWF, an avowed advocacy group. Both the IPCC and WWF have recently admitted that the claims were false, long after these claims have become embedded in countless papers, books and presentations and caused alarmism…”

1) Phil Jones, Head of the Climatic Research Unit caught giving false testimony:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/05/swedes-call-out-jones-on-data-availability/

“It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.
Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.
This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.
All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.”

Two organizations to watch for in ClimateGate: The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace. Questions have arisen that these two highly partisan advocacy groups apparently provided much of the source of global warming “reporting.”

IF the best parallel to Soviet scientific censorship you can come up with is a blog post by a TV meteorologist, I don’t find your argument the least bit convincing.

Ehrlich was 100% wrong on global cooling and ice sheets, massive food riots by the 1980s and also famously lost a bet he made with the economist J. Simon who countered that 20 years would show improvement in overall living standards.

Not to spend much time on eugenics, which is another subject for another day, but it must be mentioned that Paul Ehrlich is also known for his Malthusian-influenced population theory and his interest in Eugenics and population control. He advocated for governments to put birth control in the water supply, a stunning combination of technical ignorance and cold heartlessness against human beings.

Ehrlich co-authored with John Holdren, who is currently Obama’s director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Holdren did worry about the birth control in the water … he didn’t want to hurt any animals.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

“The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to “Holocaust Deniers” and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program “The Climate Code,” is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their “Seal of Approval” for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.”

The problem with your comparison of Lysenko and Climate Change, besides the fact no one is being imprisoned or silenced who disagrees, is that Lysenko’s ideas flew in the face of the basic scientific method while Climate Change theories do not. Also, it is clear you don’t understand the Climate Change models and evidence if you claim they are countered by observable evidence.