Tell me again who is anti-science
It is an astounding demonstration of hypocrisy. Many in the scientific establishment say that if we are not persuaded that global climate change is man-made – and that it is reversible through man-made policy – then we are not simply in error; we are evil.
An online article by Shawn Otto in Scientific American magazine says the following:
We've seen the emergence of a "post-fact" politics, which has normalized the denial of scientific evidence that conflicts with the political, religious or economic agendas of authority. Much of this denial centers, now somewhat predictably, around climate change – but not all. If there is a single factor to consider as a barometer that evokes all others in this election, it is the candidates' attitudes toward science.
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.
One can hardly miss the incendiary tone of the article. Representative Smith is described as conducting not an investigation, but rather a "McCarthy-style witch-hunt." Horror of horrors (excuse my sarcasm), he is issuing subpoenas and demanding testimony from scientists. How unscientific is that?
Also note that those of us who dare to question the high priests of science are not referred to as skeptics, doubters, or simply unpersuaded. No, we are "deniers," a term commonly associated with neo-Nazi propagandists and radical Islamic terrorists who "deny" that the Holocaust happened.
Note also that among the accused are religious people. Perhaps the scientists would care to tell us where, in any major religion, it says that the climate does not change. I wonder what Noah would have to say about that.
If there is any religious connection to this issue, it comes from the (sarcasm again) church of climate change doctrine.
According to a commentary at The Daily Caller:
Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions," writes Lindzen in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
The fact is that a growing number of scientists are demonstrating the courage to speak out against the global cooling-warming-same-ing stance that is the ever changing position of the (quoting from Otto's article) "political ... or economic agendas of authority." See here.
While Otto accuses conservatives of anti-science bias, it is instead those like Otto who take a political and economic position – that of liberal progressivism. It is they who seek to enforce their anti-free market policies on the world by government edict, despite the lack of any substantial evidence that their policies would in the slightest alter the environment for the better.
Note also that their recommendations rarely include anything resembling more individual freedom and less government power. Yet improving the environment is precisely what private innovation can do better and more effectively than any government program. Witness that the worst pollution in the world occurs in China, where the government holds the absolute power to restrict carbon emissions. Instead, China restricts personal freedoms, which is why in that nation, private innovation is stifled.
The left intends to paint us as anti-science, when in fact it is they who are attempting to substitute unscientific force for scientific persuasion. Do they really think we conservatives would ever countenance the destruction of our planet? Of course they do not believe that. The motive of the global warmists is not only unscientific, but anti-scientific. Science cannot thrive without the skeptical criticism of accepted beliefs. Indeed, under the authoritarian rule of the progressive left, science will not even be able to survive.
History has (so to speak) seen this movie many times before, and it never ends well.