This past weekend, the Left gathered for yet another anti-Trump march, this time in the name of science. For the past few decades, the Left has tried to paint itself as pro-science by trying to tackle scientific issues, such as global warming/global climate change/global climate disruption/whatever name the Left wants to use this week to hide the fact they were wrong. And if you disagree with them, you’re painted as anti-science and, thus, not intelligent enough to talk to about science. Fortunately, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to read up on the Left’s use of science.
What the Left believes it means – an unassailable series of conclusions based on facts and reason
What it really means – an imperfect way to describe what we don’t understand
When you look at the Left’s reverence towards science, it takes on more of a religious experience. Part of this is personal; they want to portray themselves as intellectually superior to everyone else, so they cling to what they think makes them intellectually superior like a baby with a stuffed animal. Another part of this stems from their desire to change reality to whatever they want it to be at a given time.
Let’s take a look at the whole gender issue for a moment. To the average person, there are two genders, male and female. To the Left, gender is fluid and can change by the hour. Their argument? SCIENCE! (All apologies to Thomas Dolby.)
Here’s the problem. Science identifies two genders, while acknowledging there are times when a person is born with extra body parts or with an identity that doesn’t match their gender. That doesn’t make gender fluid or create more than one gender. Those are exceptions to the rule. Sure, they’re deserving of the same rights and considerations we are, but that doesn’t mean we throw away actual science to protect someone’s feelings.
Of course, that’s just one of the ways the “party of science” defies science when it suits their needs. From calling babies in the womb “clumps of cells” to avoid giving them personhood to using flawed computer models as proof of global climate change, the Left has a pretty long track record of being on the wrong side of actual science. So what do they do? They create figures on their side who agree with their ideology.
And the Gaiafather of them all is Al Gore. To hear the Left speak of him, he is ahead of the curve on global climate change. The only way Gore can be considered ahead of the curve is if you grade on one. While he may sound like he knows what he’s talking about, it’s a facade. He relies on the work of others without having any real scientific knowledge to speak of. Remember, kids, this is a guy who couldn’t hack it in divinity school, but he’s going to lecture us on how to be good stewards of the Earth?
There are others, ranging from actual scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson to people who act like scientists like Bill Nye. They’ve figured out what L. Ron Hubbard did: if you want to make the big bucks, start a religion. And the Left is knee-deep in the hoopla, looking to convert people to their faith under any circumstances. Think of it like a really pushy Amway salesman, but with less useful products.
In true Leftist fashion, they are also seeking to change the language to fit their narrative. If you disagree with their position on global climate change, you’re a “climate denier.” Really, who denies there is climate? The issue isn’t that we don’t acknowledge the planet’s changing temperatures; it’s that we don’t agree with your conclusions because the data doesn’t match what you’re saying is happening.
Of course, their stated logic doesn’t apply to themselves. Try calling them “life deniers” if they support abortion on demand and see how well it works. (Spoiler Alert: They take to it worse than a Berkeley student takes to conservative thought.)
Here’s the problem the Left has with actual science: it relies heavily on data and the ability to review what has been done before to see if it still applies. In other words, you have to show your work because it may be wrong. Yeah, that’s going to be a problem because the Left believes their Bizarro version of science is the first, last, and only word. They claim the science is settled when science is never settled. Why? Because humans are fallible.
We make mistakes, sometimes on a small level (like going 125 in a 25 MPH zone), sometimes on a major scale (like flipping off the cops as you go 125 in a 25 MPH zone). When it comes to science, mistakes can mean the difference between a new discovery and being the laughingstock of the scientific community. Scientists are human, too, and they are motivated by the same wants, needs, and motivations non-scientists do. In academia, conformance means cash. If you don’t follow the Leftist line, you find funding, job opportunities, and credibility come in shorter supply than alcohol at the Kennedy Compound. So, to keep the coffers full and to keep being seen as credible, scientists can (and often do) ignore their teaching to conform to the ideology-of-the-month.
And that’s where we find ourselves, post-March For Science. We have people pretending to be scientists taking up signs in a march that has little to do with actual science and more to do with being anti-Donald Trump. After all, according to these geniuses, Trump hates science, so it’s up to the same people who marched for women, gays, albino midgets with speech impediments, and whatever cause they wanted to take up for a weekend to keep science alive.
Here’s the thing. Science existed long before the March For Science, and it will exist long after the marchers have posted on Twitter about how they were marching for science. Sir Issac Newton didn’t need a hashtag and a placard to discover gravity; he just did it. If even 1% of the marchers were serious about the subject they allegedly marched above, they would realize what a layman like me figured out in a few seconds: science doesn’t require a march to exist. It requires people with the curiosity and drive to learn. And, no, learning chants doesn’t apply. If you were truly serious about science, you’d be too busy to march in the first place.
Given who you Leftists idolize, however, I’m guessing you’re not that into science.