Search This Blog

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Liberal Science isn't Science

I've touched on this before, but it's worth repeating and exploring in greater detail. It would ease my scientist's heart if you all understood this well. You know of Ann Coulter? She has a book, called "Godless". Basically, she identifies liberalism as a religion, demanding indoctrination despite inconsistencies. For example, if science shows a result against what liberals (religiously) support it isn't reported or believed. So much for claiming they believe in science. She also questions their morals, for instance, supporting the protection of all vegetation over the protection of unborn human babies. Is life worth protecting or isn't it?

Remember the polar bears and how all of liberalism was up in arms because polar bears were drowning? Evidence has since shown otherwise, and the picture used was shown to be taken years earlier - of polar bears in one of their natural habitats, an ice flow. Did you hear about that? Probably not. Only those who pay attention to conservative media (such as Rush Limbaugh) would remember it. Do you hear any more about drowning polar bears though? Not I.

Remember the hype about global warming and the ridiculous (and false) claim of consensus among scientists? It's a religious-level belief among liberals, but it has the same problem. Science isn't ruled by consensus - though those who get the government grants have to be doing what the government wants to hear about. A true scientist considers all data with an open mind to identify all possible causes and explanations, and there is every bit as much data suggesting the opposite to global waming as there is to support it. The very nature of science makes it hard to determine absolute truth, because it is hard to prove something when the possibility or even existence of one exception invalidates it.

Hence we're seeing more talk of climate change now than about global warming, as is entirely normal and natural - but entirely separate from human life. 10,000 years ago the earth was in an ice age. 2000 years ago the earth was considerably warmer than it is now, as a tree ring study indicates (not that you'll see it oft repeated in liberal news media). Humans in all likelihood make much less of a dent on the earth than they self-importantly imagine. Is the earth worth protecting? Of course. But is the earth and life forms on it worth protecting at the expense of fellow human beings including higher taxes - a liberal cause in itself? I doubt it.


In the Clinton years, environmental regulations led precisely to the wild-fire-ripe conditions near human settlements in Colorado today. From a Red State article:
Environmental regulations restricting the construction of forest access roads have limited the ability of the Forest Service to clear combustible brush and trees, adding dangerous fuel to the wildfires that have ravaged Colorado this summer. The so-called “roadless rule,” which was first implemented in 2001 by President Clinton shortly before he left office, restricts and in many cases prohibits local and federal officials from building and maintaining roads that allow firefighters to clear out growth that could instantly become tinder for a new fire.
These kind of laws erase years of progress in protecting life. Rather than maintain access roads - used to fight fires or access problems in general - the regulations force access road neglect, reverting the area to the tinder box it was originally, before humans made the area more habitable for all forms of life. Not all changes in the environment are bad, people. Yes, fire is a natural thing. But does that mean you want to get burned? Does it mean that all humans should live on another planet so we leave Earth untouched? Human life - including human innovation - is a natural thing on Earth too, you know. Natural as the dramatic changes wrought by volcanic activity, tsumanis, and earthquakes.

In conclusion, as much as the news media would love for their audience to unquestioningly believe their reports - including those about science, I strongly recommend you read both sides so as to avoid being duped by the hype and misplaced mass hysteria. And in the case of scientific reports, research would necessitate reading as many reports as possible, and certainly not those all from the same source. Even Popular Science is severely biased. You can tell because of the kinds of stories they cover, what viewpoints they take, and how much they ignore the opposite points of view. Hardly a scientific stance, but certainly a liberal one.

No comments:

Post a Comment