Who’s Up For A Plan To Defend Against The War On Science?

Because democracy is on the line! So says Shawn Otto

A Plan To Defend Against the War on Science
The challenge of creating a public able to parse evidence-free “facts” rests with the press, educators and other thought leaders

In other words, the plan is to turn all three into arms of the Cult of Climastrology, pushing a political view. Which is not happening now at all, right?

Four years ago in Scientific American, I warned readers of a growing problem in American democracy. The article, entitled “Antiscience Beliefs Jeopardize U.S. Democracy,” charted how it had not only become acceptable, but often required, for politicians to embrace antiscience positions, and how those positions flew in the face of the core principles that the U.S. was founded on: That if anyone could discover the truth of something for him or herself using the tools of science, then no king, no pope and no wealthy lord was more entitled to govern the people than they were themselves. It was self-evident.

Of course, that is what has happened. Those who are deemed “anti-science” have put in the time to research the material, while those in the “science” camp simply toe the line in mostly/solely blaming Mankind for the current warming (yet, again, refuse to match their actions with their beliefs). In Otto’s world, of course, people being skeptical is all some sort of nefarious plan, as you see in the following paragraphs

Consider, for example, what has been occurring in Congress. Rep. Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who chairs the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, is a climate change denier. Smith has used his post to initiate a series of McCarthy-style witch-hunts, issuing subpoenas and demanding private correspondence and testimony from scientists, civil servants, government science agencies, attorneys general and nonprofit organizations whose work shows that global warming is happening, humans are causing it and that—surprise—energy companies sought to sow doubt about this fact.

See, in Warmist World, it is mean that anyone should actually have to provide the evidence and facts that back up their assertions, which are often paid for with the People’s money.

Over the last 25 years the political right has largely organized itself along antiscience lines that have become increasingly stark: fundamentalist evangelicals, who reject what the biological sciences have to say about human origins, sexuality and reproduction, serve as willing foot soldiers for moneyed business interests who reject what the environmental sciences have to say about pollution and resource extraction. In 1990, for example, House Democrats scored an average of 68 percent on the League of Conservation Voters National Environmental Scorecard and Republicans scored a respectable 40 percent. But by 2014 Democrats scored 87 percent whereas Republican scores fell to just over 4 percent.

Sure thing, sparky. We aren’t the ones saying that a man can believe he’s a woman and a woman can say they are a man. We believe that life begins at conception. Liberals are very, very intolerant of opposing views.

Anyhow, remember that democracy is at stake!

Such rejection is essentially an authoritarian argument that says “I don’t care about the evidence; what I say/what this book says/what my tribe says/what my wallet says goes.”….

So, allowing people to form their own thoughts and have their own opinions without government force is authoritarian. Huh. While pushing for more and more government control over the lives of citizens and private entities is democracy. Huh.

Those on the left are more inclined to accept the evidentiary conclusions from biological and environmental science but they are not immune to antiscience attitudes themselves. There, scientifically discredited fears that vaccines cause autism have led to a liberal anti-vaccination movement, endangering public health. Fears that GMO (genetically modified) food is unsafe to eat, equally unsupported, propel a national labeling movement. Fears that cell phones cause brain cancer or wi-fi causes health problems or water fluoridation can lower IQ, none supported by science, also largely originate from the political left.

Well, that’s funny. Those are actual anti-science positions. Let’s add 9/11 Trutherism to the mix. Are these things Leftists actually believe, or simply believe because they’ve been told to believe in them and the views are popular within their leftist clicks? Leftists do not seem too interested in actually researching material, and are utterly disdainful to listening to opposite facts. Climate skeptics say “show me the evidence that man is mostly/solely responsible for this warm period.” Warmists, and other anti-science leftists, say “shut up” and cover their ears.

Interestingly, Otto goes on to write about confirmation bias at college and how it affects people, forgetting who really runs college

Such confirmation bias has been enabled by a generation of university academics who have taught a corrosive brand of postmodernist identity politics that argues truth is relative, and that science is a “meta-narrative”—a story concocted by the ruling white male elite in order to retain power—and therefore suspect. The claims of science, these academics argue, are no more privileged than any other “way of knowing,” such as black truth, female truth or indigenous truth. We can’t know, a Minneapolis professor recently argued, that Earth goes around the sun, for example, because these sorts of worldviews have been dislodged by paradigm shifts throughout history. Thus, each of us constructs our own truth, and the job of an educator or a journalist is to facilitate that process of discovery.

In other words, Leftists have zero basis in science, everything is just based on their sketchy thoughts, which, according to Otto, sets the stage for authoritarianism, which is still laid at the feet of Skeptics.

Anyway, it keeps going on and on and on, before Otto gets to his point: that the media, academics, and such should refuse to allow any opposing viewpoints. Because science! Warmists sure seem afraid to allow people to debate and discuss, to be exposed to countering views, and draw their own conclusions. Could it be that their ideas do not stand up to the light? Yes.

“Wherever the people are well informed,” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “they can be trusted with their own government.” We have to develop more robust ways of incorporating rapidly advancing scientific knowledge into our political dialogue, so that voters can continue to guide the democratic process and battle back authoritarianism as we did at our foundation and have done throughout our history. That will require the media to rethink their role in reporting on issues in which scientific knowledge is crucial. Is that idealistic? Yes. But so were America’s founders.

Funny, because everything that the Warmists push is designed to increase the power of government, to initiate that authoritarian government. And it starts by restricting the flow of information.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

20 Responses to “Who’s Up For A Plan To Defend Against The War On Science?”

  1. Dana says:

    The esteemed Mr Otto reveals his fascism:

    the press, educators and other thought leaders

    Thought leaders? Thought leaders?

    That, you see, is the whole mindset of the left: the people are not really allowed to think for themselves, but must have “thought leaders” to tell them what to think. For the left, 1984 was less a novel than an operational plan.

  2. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host wrote:

    We aren’t the ones saying that a man can believe he’s a woman and a woman can say they are a man.

    Well, if a man male says that he believes he’s really a woman, I accept the fact that he truly believes that. The difference is that conservatives understand that simply because such a person says and believes that doesn’t make it true.

    It is an objective fact: if you are born with XY chromosomes and a penis and testicles, you are male, period, regardless of what you might wish or hope or believe. The left, on the other hand, seem to believe in a subjective ‘truth,’ that if a person is born with XY chromosomes and a penis and testicles, but says he’s really a girl, they believe him.

  3. Jeffery says:

    He blames the left for the rise in anti-science thought, and he makes a good point.

    Teach concludes:

    Otto gets to his point: that the media, academics, and such should refuse to allow any opposing viewpoints. Because science!

    It’s not about opposing viewpoints, it’s about evidence. Otto’s point is that the left started the nonsense and the right now worships it.

    Otto recounts:

    We can’t know, a Minneapolis professor recently argued, that Earth goes around the sun, for example, because these sorts of worldviews have been dislodged by paradigm shifts throughout history.

    Deniers say that today’s global warming can’t be man-made since the Earth has warmed and cooled before. It’s the same ignorance as expressed by the professor.

    How many global warming deniers base their entire argument on the premise that liberal/leftist scientists and their gov’t lackeys are conspiring to take over the world? The evidence is clear on global warming – but the deniers are attacking those that measure the evidence. That’s Otto’s point.

    People are not “deemed” anti-science, they choose to ignore evidence: from climate change (cons) to cell phones/brain cancer (libs) to anti-vaxxers (libs) to anti-GMOs (libs).

    His point was that people ignore evidence in favor of their ideology. It’s no surprise the anti-GMO and cell phone/brain cancer folks are mostly left-wing, anti-corporation ideologues. It’s no surprise that AGW deniers are mostly right-wing, pro-corporation ideologues. It’s no surprise that those promoting unfounded health risks to the mother from abortion are fundamentalist christians. All these groups ignore data and evidence in favor of their ideological bent.

    There is overwhelming scientific evidence that fossil-fuel generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm. There is little or no evidence that cell phones cause brain cancer, that vaccines cause autism/cancer/autoimmune disease/whatever, that GMO crops are harmful to humans, or that early abortions lead to cancer or other disorders later in life.

    Teach’s anti-science screed shows he wants to eat his cake and have it too. The lefties are wrong with all their ignorance but his ignorance is justified. Nope.

    Anyway, I highly recommend you read Otto’s essay in it’s entirety rather than accept Teach’s bias.

  4. Hoagie says:

    If the left can’t admit something as simple and scientifically obvious as Bruce Jenner and Bradley Manning are males regardless of what their sexual pathology wants then how can we believe them when they assert theories of AGW which is much more intricate? If they cannot admit the obvious truth that a fetus in the womb of a human is itself a human, proven by birth and worthy of life how can they be so sure of man’s influence on long term climate change which is nether obvious nor proven to the common man?

    Over the last 25 years the political right has largely organized itself along antiscience lines that have become increasingly stark: fundamentalist evangelicals, who reject what the biological sciences have to say about human origins, sexuality and reproduction, serve as willing foot soldiers for moneyed business interests who reject what the environmental sciences have to say about pollution and resource extraction.

    Bullcrap. The problem leftists have is they can’t separate Theology from science. Fundamentalist evangelicals believe in science. They believe it was created by God to help and enlighten us not to subjugate us. Leftists are the ones who seem to believe one can’t believe in God and believe in science. Take for example this bit of stupidity written by a commenter here in September:

    An alternative explanation is that since the Earth is warming rapidly because of the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from our burning of fossil fuels, those that base their belief systems on scientific evidence are concerned that the warming will continue for centuries.

    Conservatives’ disdain of science arises from the tension that arises between scientific evidence and the conservative need for magic, miracles, gods, angels and demons. If one’s belief system arises from dogma instead of evidence, any challenge to the dogma must be discredited.

    His anti Christian bigotry causes him to accuse Christians of having “distain” for science which is a deliberate lie meant to discredit those who disagree with him. So he defames their religion because he can’t defeat them using scientific reasons. Science must be able to be proven. Then duplicated and proven again. No such test exists for theology.

    Mr. Otto said:

    “…for politicians to embrace antiscience positions, and how those positions flew in the face of the core principles that the U.S. was founded on: That if anyone could discover the truth of something for him or herself using the tools of science, then no king, no pope and no wealthy lord was more entitled to govern the people than they were themselves. It was self-evident.

    That too is a total lie. The principles the U. S. was founded on had zero to do with science and much to do with theology. The “truth of something” Mr. Otto finds “self evident” was described by Jefferson thusly: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..”. Jefferson, himself a man of science, says nothing about science rather accredits our Creator with these principles.

    Mr. Otto, who I presume to be a white male then delves further into idiocy with:

    …and that science is a “meta-narrative”—a story concocted by the ruling white male elite in order to retain power—and therefore suspect.

    “The ruling white male elite”. First of all we live in a Constitutional Republic until this election is over which means until then, when a dowager queen is installed as dictator we have no rulers white or any other color. And although it may offend Mr. Otto’s multicultural sensitivities we live in a country founded by white people, built by white people and with a majority of white people so who exactly does he think should “rule” us, a black midget moslem in a wheelchair? Secondly, Mr. Otto or anyone who uses a term like white-male elite or white privilege is himself a rabid racist and should be ignored as such. The ONLY people in this country who behave like they are elite or privileged are leftists. Especially the ones found in entertainment, the media, education and government. They all seem to think they’re special snowflakes and every word that falls from their lips should be codified into law for us deplorables*.

    The name bestowed upon the white-males who don’t kiss leftist ass.

  5. drowningpuppies says:

    so who exactly does he think should “rule” us, a black midget moslem in a wheelchair?

    Whoa!

    l

  6. john says:

    The German legislature has passed a law against production of cars with internal combustion engines. I guess that those stupid Germans just aren’t as smart as teach or Hoagie . They will only build green cars.

  7. Dana says:

    [Laughter] The Bundesrat passed a resolution calling for the end of cars using the internal combustion engine by 2030!

    Even then, it has no actual effect. It calls on the EU to ban the ICE.

  8. john says:

    law takes effect in 2030

  9. Jeffery says:

    Hoagie typed:

    They (fundamentalist evangelicals) believe it (science) was created by God to help and enlighten us not to subjugate us.

    Science is based on what can be measured so has little to say about religious deities other than there is no evidence of their existence. Are there gods, angels, demons, miracles, souls? Possibly. There is just no evidence.

    Can fundamentalist evangelicals accept scientific findings contrary to their religious beliefs? Can fundamentalist evangelicals accept scientific findings at odds with the hhristian bible?

    Can they accept that the universe originated from the big bang 14 billion years ago? That the Earth is some 4 billion years old? That the human species is the result of millions of years of biological evolution? That there is no evidence of magic or miracles?

    What physical evidence would persuade an evangelical that humans have added enough CO2 to the atmosphere to cause the Earth to warm?

  10. gitarcarver says:

    law takes effect in 2030

    A resolution is not a law john.

    Never has been.

    What were you saying about “smart people?”

  11. Jl says:

    “What evidence..” Well, first of all, evidence that the alleged warming causes all negative effects to the earth and nothing positive-which of course will never happen. What we have so far are dire predictions for the future on top of dire predictions for the present that haven’t come true, but on the positive side we have a greening of planet earth. To put it another way, as I read elsewhere-we are ten years away from climate disaster, and always have been.

  12. Jeffery says:

    j,

    Alleged warming? Oh that’s right, you’re that increasingly rare bird, a first order denier.

    Do you think it’s a problem with the instruments or with the measurers?

    (Actually, I don’t care. You have so little of interest to say.)

    But why change the subject right away if you’re convinced it’s not even warming? I think it’s because you’re also getting ready to make the pivot. You’ll say you’ve always knew it was warming, it’s just being caused by ABC (anything but CO2).

    Climate scientists do not claim that all effects are negative, just that the overall effect is negative.

  13. The German legislature has passed a law against production of cars with internal combustion engines. I guess that those stupid Germans just aren’t as smart as teach or Hoagie . They will only build green cars.

    Well, that should be interesting when BMW, Daimler (Mercedes), and VW move their manufacturing plants and headquarters out of Germany. That’s over $450 billion in revenue generated from those three companies (obviously, not all comes back to Germany. Plus, the addition of Porsche linked with VW. And Opel, the German arm of GM. Plus all the auto components. The auto sector accounts for a whopping 14% of Germany’s GDP.

    Stupid policies have real world consequences. I bet France, Poland, Italy, Spain, and so many other EU nations would wet themselves in attempting to attract the companies.

  14. Liam Thomas says:

    An interesting study done by Tung and Xianyao Chen at Ocean University of China in Qingdao suggests something rather startling for Climate scientists.

    The opening Paragraph of a National Geographic article on Global Warming….aka climate change

    Temperatures at Earth’s surface aren’t rising as fast as they did in the 1990s, even though the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to increase steadily. This apparent hiatus in global warming has been fodder for skeptics—but among climate scientists, it has sparked a search for the “sink” that is storing all the missing atmospheric heat.

    Wait…no…what…they said WARMING HIATUS that only deniers claim exist…..Oh the humanity….say it aint so Joe….a Hook line and sinker sold Journal acknowledges the hiatus.

    Okay enough comic relief….you know the kind Jeffery throws at the right about everything we believe is a lie…..Like the HIATUS is a made up fact by the right with no scientific basis…..lolololol…Do they actually believe the stuff that comes out of their own mouths……Okay Im starting to sound like Donald Trump now…cant finish a thought.

    Back to Tung and Chen……

    Where oh where did this heat go?

    Unlike some of the previous studies, which relied on computer models, Tung and Chen also used observations from an oceanwide network of sensors to locate the missing heat. The sensors included floats that dive nearly a mile (1,500 meters) beneath the surface to measure the temperature and salt content of the water.

    Wait…what? The fear was that the next El Nino was gonna bring destructive heating..but now research shows the Atlantic is sinking heat…..

    The researchers suggest that a global system of ocean currents known as the conveyor belt has been responsible for burying heat in the Atlantic. At the ocean surface, the conveyor transports warm, salty water from the Caribbean to the North Atlantic. North of Iceland, the water becomes colder and saltier, and so dense that it sinks into the deep, where it flows south again.

    This sinking branch of the conveyor is what transports heat into the deeper Atlantic Ocean, the researchers write—and during the mid-to-late 1990s, it started to accelerate. For reasons that still aren’t clear, the saltiness of the Atlantic water varies cyclically. When the water is saltier, it sinks faster and carries more heat into the deep.

    The changes operate on a roughly 30-year cycle, says Tung. The current hiatus has lasted about 15 years. Since 2006, Tung adds, the conveyor belt has been slowing. But for now, the amount of heat being drawn out of the atmosphere is still enough to allow the global warming hiatus to persist.

    Now I know Jeffery cant follow this scientifically so he will just start ridiculing it….but essentially what is happening is that the saline content is slowing the conveyor belt that warms the northern Hemisphere………

    this is exactly how we enter a Mini Ice age….the conveyor belt slows and the ice begins growing……

    EVERY ICE AGE was preceeded by a warming period and a drastic increase in co2…..

    I still hang my hat on a Mini Ice age…but never fear we will have lots of windmills to keep us warm.

  15. Jeffery says:

    Laim,

    You make the same mistake that most amateur scientist fanboys make: just as one poll doesn’t tell the entire electoral story, neither does one paper explain a complex scientific issue. There’s nothing wrong with the Tung and Chen paper, and it offers one potential reason for where some of the increased heat content ends up. But there’s absolutely no reason to think this suggests an ice age is around the corner.

    Most deniers now accept that the Earth (land, oceans and atmosphere) is warming – to your credit you accept that atmospheric CO2 is causing the warming (making you a vile “warmist”) – as the CO2 increases the heat content of the land, oceans and atmosphere continues to increase. The results from this paper do not change the simple truth that atmospheric CO2 is causing the Earth to warm.

    You have given deniers a face-saving explanation by arguing that most of the CO2 comes from land use changes.

  16. drowningpuppies says:


    We’ve always had destructive hurricanes, but Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change.
    –Hillary

    The Hag tweeted this today.

  17. Liam Thomas says:

    @Jeffery

    I just report facts….and there are a billion of them…..The entire point of my pointing out this article that seems to have flown right over your head was…………

    THE PAUSE……………

    As you always like to say we on the right or we DENIERS make shit up and then believe it……

    This article by National Geographic along with The work of Tung and Chen announce to the world that their INDEED HAS BEEN A WARMING PAUSE……….

    but like I said Jeffery because you fail to understand science at all you simply pull out the old alinsky trick of ridicule and Im fine with that…..People who read my stuff and your stuff get two differing view points……..mine are filled with theory, postulation and hypothesis as well as facts….yours are just left wing talking points designed to drum up FEAR.

    Ill stand by my “fanboi science experience:” over your fanboi CEO experience.

  18. Jeffery says:

    Laim,

    The so-called PAUSE was a pause in atmospheric measurements, not in the heat content of the Earth. The Earth continued to warm steadily as Tung and Chen pointed out. You don’t even understand the implications of the papers you’re citing.

    The oceans are part of the Earth. And why is the Earth warming? The most reasonable and supported explanation is that the increased CO2 from fossil fuel burning is “trapping” more and more heat. And yes atmospheric heat exchanges with the oceans.

  19. Liam Thomas says:

    I would quote from their paper but that is prohibited…..but that is not what they were saying at all.

  20. Jeffery says:

    So you didn’t read their paper, you read an editorial about their paper?

Bad Behavior has blocked 8047 access attempts in the last 7 days.