Democrat “Science” is Political Ideology

Democrat “Science” is Political Ideology

by Andy Joppa


“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. “

― Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow


Most who know me…or of me…consider me to be a Conservative.  I do not define myself that way.  However, I generally accept that categorization for lack of something more accurate. Actually, I can best be understood within the negative. That is, I am vehemently against the American Progressive/ Left.  It is within this negative that I’ve found many others also called Conservatives.  It is somewhat like those in the French Resistance during WWII, united in only one way…their hatred of the Third Reich.


When the Progressive/Left uses the appellation, Conservative, they are generally invoking some negative characteristic that they then assign to all within that category.  Particularly offensive is their oft repeated statement that Conservatives are anti-science. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. It is the Left that holds the vast majority of anti-scientific positions. However, the Left raises two theoretic tests of scientific fidelity; climate change and evolution.  These are used to “document” their attack on Conservatives.  Even within these two areas most Conservatives accept the widely held tenets of evolution and all accept that there is climate change… since there always has been.


I have lectured on Evolutionary Psychology and I completely accept that life on this planet has evolved from the simple to the more complex…including Homo Sapien Sapiens. It seems that is the way God did it. Evolution makes no attempt to define the very origins of life. That remains the province of God or the future of science. I respect those on the religious right who fight valiantly to maintain the uniqueness of humankind and will not yield that value. However, science has spoken loudly in support of evolution and it is this thesis that carries the most rigor. Many of my views on evolution had their starting point in the mid-60’s with the reading of Robert Ardrey’s, African Genesis, and have been deepened since then. Surprisingly, it was this same book that started me a on a life-long examination of the concept of climate change.


Ardrey expounded consistently on natural climate variations that produced the ebb and flow of glaciers and their impact on the development of our species.  I held this awareness as the environmental radicals carefully constructed their theory of anthropogenic global warming; now called climate change since their predicted global warming levels have not occurred.  Even if the debatable “science” around this politicized concept is accepted; that is, that human production of carbon dioxide has been causal in creating climate change, it still begs the questions of, how much impact, the influence of other factors, is it a “bad” thing, is the current climate optimal and…if it is as bad as they suggest can we end its implication without decimating the human experience…if we could end it all?  It should be noted that a new study, published in a peer-reviewed journal, finds that climate models exaggerate the global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%.


I don’t offer my previous views to attract you to them, but, rather, to demonstrate that most who are considered Conservatives hold very individualistic and nuanced positions. This can be seen in contrast to the Progressive/Left, where nearly the entirety of their population is in lock-step conformity to many ideas that are definably, clearly, irrefutably in opposition to all that science can offer.  In fact, the majority of their members haven’t the slightest comprehension of the science that is involved…or even an awareness that science is involved at all.


If observation, evidence, validation and replication are the essence of the scientific method then the immediate case can be made that the Left has taken unscientific positions on economic and political systems.  All that we know and can document “proves” that a free-market system, espousing the rights of the individual, is the only one that offers a nation a chance of success.  Yet, the Left promotes a socialist system built around the collective.  To harness the vernacular of today, they are, “free-market, individual rights”…deniers. Of course, their rejection of science and the scientific method doesn’t stop there.


To a modern Progressive, technology is inherently dangerous. That is why Progressives oppose nuclear power and genetically modified food. Nuclear power could drive the world without pollution and GM foods are currently feeding billions. Progressives, however, demand that new technologies be proven safe— a scientifically impossible standard. Yet they consider themselves reasonable and educated people, part of a “reality-based community.” In their minds, they stand in stark contrast to Conservatives, who disbelieve climate change and evolution. While claiming to wholeheartedly trust in science and scientists, Progressives do so only until scientific findings fail to uphold their cherished Progressive values. When that occurs, Progressives accuse the scientists of transforming into shills for big industry or evil geniuses experimenting with world destruction.


The Progressives warn against GM foods. These warnings conveniently fail to mention that there is not even a single documented case of GM food causing a stomachache, let alone any lingering health problems. We can see the ideology driving this by looking at the anti-GM promoter, Whole Foods. 81 percent of counties that have a Whole Foods voted for Barack Obama, compared to just 36 percent of counties with a Cracker Barrel; a strange statistic, but revealing never-the-less.


To rapidly list other areas where Progressives deviate from, or reject science, will reinforce the points elaborated above. They have opposed scientifically validated fracking.  This is not only an effective…but safe mechanism for extracting energy.  Many, if not most, Progressives are in opposition to the use of vaccines, long proven to be effective in saving children’s lives and…safe in their application. In the biologic area the Progressives defend the premise that boys and girls are the same.  That any differences are caused by culture.  There no science to defend this absurdity.


Barack Obama called for more subsidies for clean energy companies despite any evidence they would provide jobs or promote energy independence (think of the Solyndra scandal). Why?…the answer is simple. Green energy is a Progressive pet project. Its adherents will support it on “theological” grounds, even if the costs outweigh the benefits. Hardly science! Al Gore claimed ethanol was going to help save us from global warming, Was there a science basis to it? No, there was only future optimism, where you create some magical curve of research and efficiency going up and cost coming down if you mandate it right now and penalize competitors. Once again…hardly science.


Accusations of a Republican war on science, of Conservative resistance to and defiance of fact, do not contribute in any positive way to the scientific enterprise…nor is that the intent of the Left. These accusations are founded on a mere handful of scientific topics on which slightly more Conservatives hold slightly more “uninformed” beliefs than those on the other side. It blatantly ignores the huge number of ignorant beliefs that those who aren’t Conservatives maintain. Progressives routinely toss the anti-science bomb at Conservatives while their own anti-science beliefs go unchallenged and are sources of incredibly damage.


It is now time to fight back against their ideologically driven ignorance using real science as our warrior. We have too long been contaminated by their drivel.

Phone: 239 348 1073