The Myth That Left-Wingers Are Pro-Science

The political Left is never shy about praising about its own virtues, and one of the qualities they love the most about themselves is their alleged commitment to science. It makes them feel drastically superior to the ignorant rubes that are too busy clinging to guns and religion to see true scientific progress.

Al Gore is very comfortable preaching about his love for science, but his lifestyle decisions tell us he doesn't believe his own rhetoric

Let’s for the moment set aside whether faith and science are incompatible (they are clearly not, as Catholic thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas to Blessed John Paul II have demonstrated). Let’s instead ask whether the Left is really as smitten with science as it claims.

Authors Alex Berezow and Tom Campbell push their new book Science Left Behind, in which they take the modern left wing to task of a variety of anti-science postures. The two we could most obviously list here would be their refusal to deal with the reality of ultrasound images of the unborn and what they should mean for the debate over legalized abortion.

We might also remind everyone of the 2009 “ClimateGate” incident, where internal e-mails came out from the prominent global warming proponent, Climatic Research Institute and showed they were effectively cooking the data to make it appear global warming was much more evident than it actually is. Apparently among the self-proclaimed mavens of science, data is more in danger of being cooked than the planet is.

Call me naïve, but I always thought the premise of science was a rigid search for the facts and not merely pre-supposing conclusions. As the ClimateGate episode underscored, those that claim a “pro-science” posture, are really just taking a “pro-left-wing” posture and then using the tactics of ridicule and exclusion to make sure competing voices never get heard. Is there anything less scientific than that?

In the end, the ultimate proof that the Left does not believe in its own theories comes in evidence of their lives. Wealthy liberal celebrities who give speeches about global warming make no effort to tone down their lifestyle. Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi freely jet around the world without regard to fuel consumption.

In all of these cases it’s entirely their prerogative and I bear them no ill will for doing that—but please stop pretending you really believe the nonsense you’re peddling about “the consensus of the scientific community.”

Dan Flaherty is the author of Fulcrum, an Irish Catholic novel set in postwar Boston with a traditional Democratic mayoral campaign at its heart, and he is the editor-in-chief of TheSportsNotebook.com

856 views

Categories:Uncategorized

16 thoughts on “The Myth That Left-Wingers Are Pro-Science

  1. Maryellen Schroeder says:

    I notice that no one has said anything to dispute the ultrasound images that show a human being in the womb. It’s not “a clump of cells”. And even if one COULD see the early embryonic cell ball, science still tells us that it is a HUMAN baby and not a baby pig, or a baby salamander, or a baby whatever else. Besides, Jesus himself did not come into the manger denovo on a bolt of lightning. He recognized the dignity of each human being by experiencing ALL OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, from one cell through nine months of pregnancy to adult. At what stage would it have been okay to abort Jesus? There’s a reason why in the church calendar the Annunciation is March 25, nine months before Christmas.

  2. Frannie says:

    They are buying carbon offsets!

    In all seriousness, there are changes happening in the climate – perhaps not as rapidly as some would have us believe. I think the authors point, to pu it bluntly, is ‘live what you preach’. And isn’t this hard to do? If we are going to preach about the moral evils of eating meat – we better well be vegetarians.

  3. Al Gore says:

    What is the year after year of record heat called? The way God intended it?

    If you take a cruise to Alaska you see glaciers melting after thousands of years as blocks of ice but that’s normal is what you are saying.

    The point of this article is to not provide a solution to people it is simply to vent how you dislike fellow American’s because of their opinion.

    When did America stop being about America the Great and become two sides whining about how much they hate the other?

    1. Maryllen Schroeder says:

      @ Al–Please respond to the issue of ultrasound images showing a human being and how that affects the justification of killing said person. Is it ok for someone bigger and stronger to kill someone smaller and more vulnerable just because they can? Please keep the response concise to the question asked–not a vague “it’s a woman’s decision.” Is it ok for someone bigger and stronger to decapitate, dismember, disembowel and decorticate someone smaller and more vulnerable or not?

      1. Al Gore says:

        @Maryllen

        What are you babbling about?

        Seriously this is what is wrong with America.

        Its crazy how women who are brutally raped want to have an abortion.

        They should just have to live with the shame caused by having someone force themselves on and subsequently impregnating them huh?

        Their body just didn’t reject the rape from occurring properly I guess.

        When did America become people who whine and cry about things that don’t affect REALITY?

        1. Joe M says:

          Al. Maryllen replied to your comment in a respectful manner. I think it’s offensive that you characterize that as “babbling”. Didn’t you just complain a few sentences up about people hating each other? What do you think your insulting words express?

  4. Dan Flaherty says:

    Given that Professor Mann is one of those whose e-mails were released, it’s laughable you would cite him as an authority. Do you also cite the denials of a convicted felon as evidence? And saying the pope wants the faithful to “protect the environment” is quite different from saying he’s calling on the faithful to embrace an ideological agenda based on manufactured “science” where the best defense you can come up with is to quote the guilty parties.

    1. The Ice Caps ARE Melting says:

      Oh, under your theocracy, the accused will not be allowed to respond to ridiculous accusations. I get it. If you want to proclaim that climate change is a laughable explanation for what’s going on with the polar ice caps and the rise in median temperatures, go ahead. In fact, keep on coming up with your articles. Let them multiply many times over.

      1. Joe M says:

        The Ice Caps ARE Melting. The argument isn’t that the globe is warming. It’s that the warming is significantly caused by human activity. Those are two very different things. — And I hate to break this to you. But, ice caps have been melting and rebuilding for a long time before anyone claimed man-made global warming had anything to do with it.

    2. J_K says:

      You’re right, Dan. I guess I should cite more unbiased sources like Fox News. What’s laughable is that you continue to propagate the myth that climate science is fraudulent given that Professor Jones has long since been deemed an unreliable source and EIGHT INDEPENDENT PANELS have concluded that there was no actual tampering of data:

      1. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK): http://www.deccanherald.com/content/61233/uk-climategate-inquiry-largely-clears.html
      2. Independent Climate Change Review (UK): http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html?_r=1
      3. International Science Assessment Panel (UK): http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html
      4. Pennsylvania State University first panel (US): http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/climate-scienti-1.html
      5. Pennsylvania State University second panel (US): http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-as-penn.html
      6. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-10899538
      7. Department of Commerce (US): http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/02/24/science-climategate-noaa.html
      8. National Science Foundation (US): http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry.html

      …but those are probably all untrustworthy sources, too.

      1. Joe M says:

        J_K. Did you read the emails? The data wasn’t the problem. The models were. The emails revealed that the “scientists” were simply coming up with math formulas that could be applied to data in order to spit out a preconceived result. There was a quote literally about the medieval warming period being “a problem”. That’s because their models, consistently applied, couldn’t account for it and still show the doomsday-created-by-carbon-emissions that they wanted.

    3. Joe M says:

      Dan. I think you hit upon a key point. It is the natural condition of human beings to act on faith. Everything we decide upon in life relies on at least some element of faith. That goes just as much for the determined atheist as it does for the devout Catholic. — When someone claims to only follow science, it never takes many questions to discover that what they really mean is that they have chosen to have faith in what someone wrote. — I’ve found that a lot of people passionately resist that simple observation. Like it’s a point of pride that they depend on emotionally. “It can’t be true! I’m too smart to have faith!” To me it seems like an odd thing not to just openly recognize and admit.

  5. J_K says:

    “Call me naïve…” Okay, you’re naïve. Climategate? Really? I think you’re the only one still talking about that, as evidenced by your link to a FOX NEWS story from 2009. The emails were, as Professor Mann said, a “shameless effort to manufacture a false controversy”: http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/1122/Hacked-Climategate-emails-truly-pathetic-says-climate-scientist.

    But don’t take my word, or Professor Mann’s for that matter. The Pope himself has issued several statements legitimizing climate change and calling on the faithful to respond to protect our environment: http://en.radiovaticana.va/articolo.asp?c=541410

  6. Michael says:

    Dan. You are aware that you write for a site that frequently finds one study on the “ills” of homosexuality and proclaims that study to be the fact of the land, despite the existence of countless other studies that arrived at different conclusions. Right?

    1. Joe M says:

      Michael. That a study “exists” does not mean that it has merit. It could be that authors here have found the conduct of one study more substantial than another.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.