While liberals try and wrap themselves in science to make
their beliefs appear something other than madness the reality is that they
reject real science whenever it disagrees with their politics.
It's an incontrovertible scientific fact that at the moment
of conception a new human being is formed. That's based on decades of
scientific research.
"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology,
life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon,
Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic
"To accept the fact that after fertilization has
taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or
opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." The "Father of Modern
Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris
"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of
development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second
month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated
Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]
"Although life is a continuous process,
fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a
new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination
of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the
zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed.
The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Mller, Fabiola. Human Embryology
& Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.
Yet the people in the March for Anti-Science contend
that abortion doesn't kill a human being.
Apparently science that doesn’t support liberal ideology is “fake
science” in the minds of the marchers.
Science also incontrovertibly teaches that a person’s DNA determines a person’s sex. Yet the people in the March for Anti-Science contend that a man can become a woman simply by clicking their heels and wishing—well they usually leave out the part about clicking their heels.
Yet the marchers ignore science and simply declare that people can change their biological identity without changing their DNA.
Science has shown that one’s race is determined by one’s DNA. Yet many of the marchers in the March for Anti-Science probably believe that Rachel Dolezal can redefine her race simply by wishing.
Of course the biggest “science” issue that enrages the March for Anti-Science participants is global warming…err climate change. They believe that mankind is contributing to the destruction of the planet by emitting too much CO2.
The reality is that these people generally have no idea of the actual scientific arguments or the data. They support the idea because it makes them feel good and it justifies massive increases in government control of people’s lives.
Sadly the entire global warming issue is filled with fraud. The single image that launched a thousand liberal laments was the famous “Hockey Stick” diagram that seemed to show that the world’s temperatures were shooting up since the 1960s. But that figure has been thoroughly discredited and is rejected even by those who currently believe that people are the cause of global warming. Further the technique used to generate the flat part of the figure showed that the earth continued to cool in the 1960s and instead of keeping that data in the authors simply didn’t show it which is a big no no in science.
Over the last 19 years or so global temperatures haven’t been rising even though CO2 levels have continued to increase—though CO2 levels are much lower than they have been in the past before mankind even existed. NASA released a paper claimed that temperatures were going up but we now know that that paper used dubious methodology and was released, right before the Paris climate meeting, in order to impact politics. Further the paper wasn’t based on any new data but on “corrections” applied to existing data; corrections that just happened to lower most temperatures prior to 19 years ago and raise most temperatures after that date.
Changing the data to fit your theory is a cardinal sin in real science by the way.
The confusion about global warming is nurtured by the fact that liberals have no idea what science is. Liberals don’t understand that reproducible experiments distinguish science from people thinking.
When Einstein proposed that time runs slower for objects moving near to the speed of light no one believed him just because he was a smart guy. It wasn’t until repeatable experiments confirmed his theory that the scientific community got on the special relativity bandwagon.
But we can’t experiment on the climate so all we have is people thinking. That doesn’t mean that we can’t develop an understanding of the climate and what drives it but it does mean that the science associated with global warming is far more slippery than what most people think of as science; for example antibiotics can be tested to verify that they work but climate models can only be compared to measured data after the fact.
The claims of the alarmists are based on computer models that predict significant, but still small, temperature increases in the next 50 years. The problem is that when we compare the temperatures predicted by the models over the last 19 years with the measured data we see disagreement. The models show an accelerating temperature profile where as the data—when not artificially modified by alarmists—shows a roughly constant global temperature.
The Anti-Science marchers also ignore the fact that poor people pay a higher percentage of their income for energy. That means when we dramatically increase the cost of energy by using “clean” sources we’re imposing a highly regressive tax on the poor. Essentially climate alarmists want to steal money from poor minorities to fund eradicating liberal’s science free fears.
By ignoring the real data and listening to those who pervert science to support their ideological agenda—and to get more funding for their research—the Anti-Science marchers are working hard to hurt the most vulnerable in America.
Aside from the specific issues where the Anti-Science marchers are rejecting science there are global problems with the marchers understanding of science.
For one thing a guy with a BS in engineering is not a scientist; a fact that apparently escapes most Anti-Science marchers.
More importantly many Anti-Science marchers don’t understand that science is not a democracy; it doesn’t matter how many scientists support a theory. Science compares predictions of theories to measured data; if the data conform to the theory’s predictions we tend to say the theory is correct. But real scientists never simply say that because we have a consensus we must be right.
Historically in the early part of the 20th century only one person said that the Earth’s continents move around. Yet by the 1960’s the entire geological community agreed. It didn’t matter than 99.99% of geologists said that the continents didn’t move; all that mattered was the data that showed that the continents did move.
It’s important to realize, and tell your friends, that the folks in the March for Anti-Science not only don’t generally know anything about science they also reject any well established science that is inconvenient for the policies they like; such as abortion on demand.
Science also incontrovertibly teaches that a person’s DNA determines a person’s sex. Yet the people in the March for Anti-Science contend that a man can become a woman simply by clicking their heels and wishing—well they usually leave out the part about clicking their heels.
Yet the marchers ignore science and simply declare that people can change their biological identity without changing their DNA.
Science has shown that one’s race is determined by one’s DNA. Yet many of the marchers in the March for Anti-Science probably believe that Rachel Dolezal can redefine her race simply by wishing.
Of course the biggest “science” issue that enrages the March for Anti-Science participants is global warming…err climate change. They believe that mankind is contributing to the destruction of the planet by emitting too much CO2.
The reality is that these people generally have no idea of the actual scientific arguments or the data. They support the idea because it makes them feel good and it justifies massive increases in government control of people’s lives.
Sadly the entire global warming issue is filled with fraud. The single image that launched a thousand liberal laments was the famous “Hockey Stick” diagram that seemed to show that the world’s temperatures were shooting up since the 1960s. But that figure has been thoroughly discredited and is rejected even by those who currently believe that people are the cause of global warming. Further the technique used to generate the flat part of the figure showed that the earth continued to cool in the 1960s and instead of keeping that data in the authors simply didn’t show it which is a big no no in science.
Over the last 19 years or so global temperatures haven’t been rising even though CO2 levels have continued to increase—though CO2 levels are much lower than they have been in the past before mankind even existed. NASA released a paper claimed that temperatures were going up but we now know that that paper used dubious methodology and was released, right before the Paris climate meeting, in order to impact politics. Further the paper wasn’t based on any new data but on “corrections” applied to existing data; corrections that just happened to lower most temperatures prior to 19 years ago and raise most temperatures after that date.
Changing the data to fit your theory is a cardinal sin in real science by the way.
The confusion about global warming is nurtured by the fact that liberals have no idea what science is. Liberals don’t understand that reproducible experiments distinguish science from people thinking.
When Einstein proposed that time runs slower for objects moving near to the speed of light no one believed him just because he was a smart guy. It wasn’t until repeatable experiments confirmed his theory that the scientific community got on the special relativity bandwagon.
But we can’t experiment on the climate so all we have is people thinking. That doesn’t mean that we can’t develop an understanding of the climate and what drives it but it does mean that the science associated with global warming is far more slippery than what most people think of as science; for example antibiotics can be tested to verify that they work but climate models can only be compared to measured data after the fact.
The claims of the alarmists are based on computer models that predict significant, but still small, temperature increases in the next 50 years. The problem is that when we compare the temperatures predicted by the models over the last 19 years with the measured data we see disagreement. The models show an accelerating temperature profile where as the data—when not artificially modified by alarmists—shows a roughly constant global temperature.
The Anti-Science marchers also ignore the fact that poor people pay a higher percentage of their income for energy. That means when we dramatically increase the cost of energy by using “clean” sources we’re imposing a highly regressive tax on the poor. Essentially climate alarmists want to steal money from poor minorities to fund eradicating liberal’s science free fears.
By ignoring the real data and listening to those who pervert science to support their ideological agenda—and to get more funding for their research—the Anti-Science marchers are working hard to hurt the most vulnerable in America.
Aside from the specific issues where the Anti-Science marchers are rejecting science there are global problems with the marchers understanding of science.
For one thing a guy with a BS in engineering is not a scientist; a fact that apparently escapes most Anti-Science marchers.
More importantly many Anti-Science marchers don’t understand that science is not a democracy; it doesn’t matter how many scientists support a theory. Science compares predictions of theories to measured data; if the data conform to the theory’s predictions we tend to say the theory is correct. But real scientists never simply say that because we have a consensus we must be right.
Historically in the early part of the 20th century only one person said that the Earth’s continents move around. Yet by the 1960’s the entire geological community agreed. It didn’t matter than 99.99% of geologists said that the continents didn’t move; all that mattered was the data that showed that the continents did move.
It’s important to realize, and tell your friends, that the folks in the March for Anti-Science not only don’t generally know anything about science they also reject any well established science that is inconvenient for the policies they like; such as abortion on demand.
Tom has a Ph.D. in Physics and spent his career doing basic
research, elementary particle physics, or as a rocket scientist.
Posts
