August 24, 2011

Why you should laugh when liberals say that, unlike conservatives, they believe in science

Excellent article today by Reason's David Harsanyi about the laughable contradiction doltish liberals find themselves in when they sanctimoniously mock conservatives' supposed "disbelief" in science.

Now, I have no interest in watching my kids waste their time with creationism, but unlike progressives, I have no interest in dictating what other kids should learn. Remember that these folks, bothered by the very thought of their offspring's hearing a God-infused concept in school, have no problem forcing millions of parents to accept bureaucrat-written curricula at government-run school monopolies. They oppose home schooling. They oppose school choice. They oppose parents choosing a religious education with their tax dollars.

As a voter, like me, you may find Perry's view on creationism disconcerting and a sign of an unsophisticated candidate. But the fact is that the progressives' faith-based devotion to government is far more consequential than Perry's faith-based position on evolution.

Despite the rare political dispute, in the real world, science—real science—is rarely controversial. It's politicized science that is prickly. And science is easy to politicize. Maybe if schools began teaching students that "life" begins at conception and that each zygote, embryo, and fetus is a unique human being in some early stage of development just waiting to be born, liberals would see the point.

No, my kids haven't been chewing over Charles Darwin text or the Holy Bible in elementary school. There's simply no time. Not with global warming out there.

Indeed. There's "much debate" about what we should dub the thing that results when a human sperm and egg join together; however, predicting what the climate will be in 100-200 years, despite virtually innumerable variables, is "settled science," and unquestionable. This, despite scandals that show contrary opinions and studies were suppressed, not to mention that many of these "settled science" studies can't seem to keep their story straight -- will global warming result in us never seeing snow again, or will it lead to a colder climate, especially here in the northern hemisphere? Or, since the "settled science" says that the current quantity of carbon dioxide in the air means that climate change is inevitable for at least 1,000 years after CO2 emissions cease ... why are we so worried now? We can't -- and won't -- cease CO2 emissions anytime in the forseeable future, and who says that some future technology won't be able to counteract the effects of today's CO2 gasses? Again, we're in it for at least a millenium, the "settled science" says!! Why not just accept it for what it is, then?

Further, as Harsanyi notes, since libs are so keen on studying Darwin to the exclusion of everything else, why can't they then accept Darwin's major scientific contribution, evolution, as proof that humans will adapt to any changing climatic conditions ... just as they always have?

The conclusion:

But even if one believed the most terrifying projections of global warming alarmist "science," it certainly doesn't mean one has to support the anti-capitalist technocracy to fix it. And try as some may to conflate the two, global warming policy is not "science." The left sees civilization's salvation in a massive Luddite undertaking that inhibits technological growth by turning back the clock, undoing footprints, forcing technology that doesn't exist, banning products that do, and badgering consumers who have not adhered to the plan through all kinds of punishment. Yet there is no real science that has shown that any of it makes a whit of difference.

Amen, brotha.


Posted by Hube at August 24, 2011 05:41 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)