Let’s talk about science. Science and scientists hold an incredibly important role in modern society. Everyday people depend on science to determine what is safe for us and what can help us. Science can let us know what is wrong and even how to fix it. in effect, science is magic.
In today’s world, science has become murky with the pollution of politics.. In the old days where science would challenge itself and people within the scientific community would question everything, not so much now. With science and politics merging, it has now become a lobbying force. Whichever side you are on in a political debate that involves science, unless you are on the side of science, you are automatically wrong. That is a fact and science is based on them, while politics is based on beliefs. One could argue that statement by saying that science does get things wrong and again that is absolutely correct. Science is wrong all the time. The great thing about science getting things wrong is we kind of have advanced knowledge of bad science when scientists are not in absolute agreement on the topic. For example, 100% of scientists agree that the earth revolves around the sun, which is the consensus you would want and only want when it comes to science. Whenever you have a consensus in the 97%, 98%, 99%, 100 percentile in science, as Ken Harrelson would say, “you can put it on the board!”
WHY DO LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES CONSTANTLY ARGUE SCIENCE?
Over the past 25 years, science has become a political hot potato. Thanks to advancing technology, many age old arguments can be solved by science. The only problem is, science is based on facts and politics is based on beliefs. In fact, politics falls exactly inline with religion when it comes to considering accurate science. Lets look at liberals. Whether they accept it or not, liberals live in their own belief system or “religion”. For Liberals, politics are a way of life. It’s a belief system that if you say they are wrong, you are attacking their whole belief system. As funny as it may seem, liberals are more religious than religions, they just have different Gods. In most cases Gods of the liberal belief system are very prominent people or SCIENTISTS. That’s right scientists. Why? Because science will prove everything they believe is correct and thwarts religion at every turn. However, when you live on science, you die on science. That is the politics. When there is science that says different from the what liberals perceive, they choose to either ignore it or cherry pick the science they want. They do this because being wrong on a hot bed political issue that science corrects you on, well that can hurt your feelings.
As Ben Shapiro would say, facts don’t care about your feelings.” So wipe away the tears liberals. If you want science , then accept it all.
Lets give you two real world examples, abortion and flat earth.
The abortion argument has broken down to one simple questions, a the point of conception is there a human life? Are the group of cells a living baby or just lifeless cells? This argument if settled by science would clearly demonstrate that one side is wrong and that there belief system is compromised. We hear everyday from feminists and liberals that a life is not created at conception. They believe this not because of science, but because it fits their narrative that abortion is not murder. However, any scientist would tell you that cells are life, so therefore you have a baby at conception. I mean, we look at bacteria cells as life, plankton as life. We are searching for life on other planets and it’s at the cellular level! So yea hypocrites (liberals), it’s life. Because of their belief system (liberal religion) they refuse the science on life, yet constantly preach science when it fits their narrative. This is such a fascinating study in our system of fact and reason. The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines “conception” as “the formation of a zygote resulting from the union of a sperm and egg cell; fertilization.” (a zygote is the first stage of a human embryo.) ok. Now remember, science is objective and is bound to empirical reasoning, so science reasons that all cells live, therefore life begins at conception. If you poll Americans, only 52% believe life starts at conception and even worse, only 36% under the age of 30. How is that possible? Science can look at a meteorite form Mars and say we found evidence of life by the cells found on the meteorite, but liberals can’t use empirical reasoning to determine it at conception? No, no, no. It’s because they have to believe what their belief system or religion tells them to believe. Any rational educated person would understand that life exists in a bunch of cells, but thanks to lobbying, and an abused educational system only 52% of Americans believe in this scientific fact. What’s remarkable is that American’s over the age of 65 believe in life at conception at 63% compared to 36% under 30. Maybe science wasn’t so political for the older generations.
Now, let’s flip the page for Flat Earthers. This crazy group of people believe that the earth is flat, and not round like science has proven and that 100% of scientists concur with. It’s not up for debate, unless you are a tad on the crazy side. In case you are not aware of this idea, they believe the earth is flat and that the sun goes around the earth. Oh, and the earth has a domed sky. Now these believers tend to be very religious and conservative. Though, it’s more a God belief than anything else. Science shows that its a fact that earth is round. Columbus figured it was and Magellan proved it. Then we actually went into space and have photos of the earth and other planets. They are all really round. To further destroy their non-scientific narrative is gravity. Gravity on it’s own proves the earth is round and that with gravity it holds the water to the earth. With 99% of scientists in the world saying the earth is round, you should agree the earth is round, but the conspiracy grows. They will say it’s all a setup and everybody is in on it. Yep, all the scientists, astronauts, world leaders, engineers, etc… I love a good conspiracy theory, but this one is a little far fetched. The reason flat Earthers exist is if the earth is not flat, than what they know and believe about God is put into jeopardy. Their very core beliefs may be worthless if what they were told in the Bible is not true. No the earth is not a mere 4,000 years old. No, the earth was not created in 7 days and no, its not flat.
Here are a few one , more example where politics interferes with science.
GLOBAL WARMING – This is the big league of all scientific political arguments and its the reason for this article. Man made climate change is bullshit. The science is not in on it as paid climate change spokesman Bill Nye would say, and the only way you can say that is proven is by cherry picking the science you want or twisting the facts. One of the narratives of the democratic party since the 1960’s has been the environment. Most people no matter your political affiliation should care for and value the earth’s environment. However, throughout the 1980’s and into the 1990’s as technology moved at a feverish pace and we got the communication tool known as the Internet, all of a sudden the call for a healthy and balanced environment/ecosystem fell on deaf ears. People stopped caring. There was no acid rain and tress still grew. Then, with the internet came the conspiracy theory of global warming. All of a sudden we are being told that 97% of scientists agree that global warming is man-made and that our future is doomed unless we all start being the Flintstones. I’m not wasting my time on the myth of the 97%. Read this article from the National Review and you will learn it was a college paper that 300+ scientists responded to a questionnaire and wallah you have 97%. Again, it’s bullshit. When it comes to science and belief, people need to separate the two if this world is ever going to work again. Liberals are excluding true data because it does not meet their narrative and changing or ignoring data to convince folks they are correct. Need examples? I though so.
- The Earth cooled for 17 straight years at the height of “Man Made Global Warming” – First off, back in the 1960’s, the earth was cooling and the science scare was on. They even called it a coming ice age! That is what science was saying, though prematurely. Of course, that narrative changed and now it’s global warming. According to NASA and many other agencies, the Earth cooled from roughly 1997 to 2014 the earth actually cooled by about .2 Celsius.
- Al Gore said that the ice caps would be melted by 2014. When Al Gore was accepting his Nobel Peace Prize , he said in his speech, “The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.” As of 2014, the Arctic sea ice cap covered 5.62 million square miles. Not zero as predicted. More scaring from Al Gore was that the eastern seaboard would be underwater by 2016, it’s not. He even said we would get more massive Hurricane’s like Katrina and much more frequently and that just hasn’t broken from the normal trend. None of the apocalyptic bull that he spewed in that movie has come true. It was all scare tactics.
- We had 2 massive email dumps from hacked computers in the United States and Britain. In both dumps it showed an effort to manipulate data and hide certain data. It also discussed cutting loose professor’s who weren’t getting the results they wanted. There are people who fight these emails as nothing more then out of context ruble like the losers over at Skeptical Science. My question to them is, why don’t these emails matter? Here you have the big dogs in climate change research basically discussing not releasing or hiding data from the public. I can only see one reason for that.
To better understand the climate change battle, I suggest that everyone read Michael Crichton’s book State of Fear. The research and insight Michael Crichton had was amazing and how true it has come to be since he published his book in 2004. We all love science, and it’s critical that we all respect what science tells us. However, we can’t do that when the data is being manipulated to fit the narrative of liberal organizations. Especially those organizations that get lots of money to study global warming (Sierra Club to name one). Do you think they like getting back data that proves their entire mission is bogus? Of course not. The answer is not to keep all the research firms that support global warming funded. The answer is not to keep funding research grants at colleges and liberal professors with the intent to find global warming. We need third party blind funding. Where you put the money in a pile and blindly hand it out to researchers. Then, you gather all the data back and see if you have a consensus answer. If we do research that way, the climate change question would be answered honestly.