Skip to comments.Who Really Is "Anti-Science"?
Posted on 10/03/2011 11:47:38 PM PDT by Clairity
In any national election we can depend on the usual liberal ad hominem attacks on Republicans and their candidates. One chestnut already appearing is the charge that Republicans comprise the "anti-science party," as even a Republican, presidential primary candidate Jon Huntsman, fretted recently. Huntsman's angst arose over doubts expressed by some other candidates, particularly Texas governor Rick Perry, that human-caused climate change is an established scientific fact, as New York Times columnist Paul Krugmanbelieves: "The scientific consensus about man-made global warming - which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences - is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting."
Well, apparently not all the evidence. Just recently, experiments conducted at the CERN particle accelerator in Geneva by Jasper Kirkby (who is following up on over a decade of research by Danish physicist Henrik Svenskmark) suggest that variations in cosmic rays influenced by the sun contribute to increases or decreases in cloud formation, which in turn affect temperature changes.
Leftover Marxists, socialists, big-government liberals, and other haters of free-market capitalism have found in global warming hysteria a useful stalking horse for collectivist or dirigiste economics. That's why at every anti-globalization rally you will see the hammer-and-sickle flying next to the Greenpeace banners.
So when it comes to climate change, who really is "anti-science" -- the skeptics demanding more empirical proof before accepting as fact an as yet unproven theory that could generate public policies costing trillions of dollars and weakening our economy; or the true believers shrilly insisting on the basis of a presumed "consensus" that the question is settled, and that anyone who disagrees is "vile" (Krugman) or "evil" (Al Gore), a dangerous heretic to be scorned and demonized?
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Krugman is a useful idiot who was awarded a Nobel Prize for Keynesian economic nonsense by a committee of liberal fools. He has no credibility on judging what constitutes sound science.
For example, we are using this HORRIBLE new textbook for general biology this year that is very deficient in the actual biological information it contains but is full of politically correct propaganda! After all, what is more important for students to know about - photosynthesis or how man is responsible for the imminent destruction of the earth?
“For example, we are using this HORRIBLE new textbook for general biology this year that is very deficient in the actual biological information it contains but is full of politically correct propaganda!”
You think that’s bad? You should see my precalculus book.
More proof ? How about some proof ? Heck, how about any proof ? Every single one of their predictions have been falsified.
That's something suggested by a repeatable process after creating a hypothesis and an experiment and measuring the results. In today's world, that is considered neither science nor evidence.
The spark of Western Civilization's ascendency is failing. Guess what happens next?
The left-wing continually spout positions as being scientific facts that are not. Besides the man-made global warming lie, the left espouses the homosexuality is innate and is harmless lie, and the you are not a human being until born lie. In all three cases the left claims that their views are based upon scientific fact but it is the opposite that is true. The views of the left-wing are proven false by science.