Leftism Manipulates Science Language
Leftist academia pretends to be pro-science, but the politics drives their positions.
A funny thing happened in the Inspector General’s report (see Breitbart News) on abuses by the FBI in early December, 2019. The IG found 17 abuses they committed in obtaining FISA Court authorization to spy on the presidential campaign. The funny thing was, all 17 of the mistakes and abuses helped the Democrats, but hurt the Republicans. Some commentators noted that all the “mistakes” worked to try to hinder the Trump campaign and administration once he was elected. This undercut any claims of objectivity by the FBI agents.
A similar thing is going on in “political” science (meaning: science that intersects with governmental policies). No matter the subject, it’s always anti-Trump. It’s uniformly in favor of Leftist ideals, including global governance, redistribution of wealth, and radical environmentalism. The conservative Trump administration is always cast in the worst possible light, but the same scientists and media people completely ignore or excuse similar policies or actions by the past liberal administration of Obama. This also undercuts any claims of objectivity by Big Science and Big Media who also, notably, accept Darwinian evolution uncritically. Let’s look at some recent examples.
It would take Iran more than 4 months to develop nuclear weapons (New Scientist). Debora MacKenzie says this in the acclaimed atheist/leftist science magazine only to contradict the Trump administration. She defends the Iran Nuclear Agreement (JCPOA) signed without Congress by President Obama, and lays all the blame on Donald Trump for ending what conservatives universally deplore. Some call the JCPOA the worst international agreement in American history.
The risk of Iran getting nuclear weapons has risen this week, as tensions increase after the US assassination of a senior Iranian military official, Qassem Soleimani, on 3 January. His death is the latest example of President Donald Trump’s escalations against Iran, following the US withdrawal from a nuclear deal that Iran continues to unravel.
Any statement about Iran being the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, and Soleimani being a ruthless murderer of thousands, including over 600 Americans? Nothing. MacKenzie instead highlights all the European countries that supported JCPOA. Not only that, she opens with a photo of Iranians marching in the streets for Soleimani’s funeral! Praise for a vicious terrorist – in a “science” magazine?
Stick to science (Science Magazine). The acclaimed AAAS magazine prints this editorial by H. Holden Thorp, who assumes that all scientists must necessarily be anti-Trump. Thorp is incensed that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) under the Trump administration is revising four rules in order to achieve more transparency and efficiency in the agency. You would never hear that from Thorp in “Science” Magazine. Notice how he assumes that science (which is not supposed to be a pressure group) uniformly agrees with his leftist position – no debate or dissent allowed.
Scientists must speak up. In June 2019, Patrick Gonzalez, the principal climate change scientist of the U.S. National Park Service, testified to Congress on the risks of climate change even after he was sent a cease-and-desist letter by the administration (which later agreed that he was free to testify as a private citizen). That’s the kind of gumption that deserves the attention of the greater scientific community. There are many more examples of folks leading federal agencies and working on science throughout the government. When their roles in promoting science to support decision-making are diminished, the scientific community needs to raise its voice in loud objection.
Translate “scientists” into “Leftists” and you get a clearer picture of his message. Thorp defends the Swamp, the term conservatives use for bureaucratic holdouts in the federal government who are disloyal to the administration and work to undermine it. Where was Thorp when Obama instigated policies that were not “evidence-based”? You have to go outside the Big Science media to find some balance. WND reported on some of the rules changes at EPA that Trump’s administration was advocating (allowing 60 days for public comment). Trump’s EPA is not stopping environmental scrutiny. He just wants to promote efficiency across the federal government, and lubricate one highly-inefficient, bulky bureaucratic monstrosity that punishes legitimate businesses trying to obey clumsy laws.
The new policy, he said, dubbed “One Federal Decision,” requires agencies “to work closely together to promptly deliver one decision.”
It took just four years, he pointed out, to build the Golden Gate Bridge, five years to build the Hoover Dam and less than one year to build the Empire State Building.
“Yet, today, it can take more than 10 years just to get a permit to build a simple road,” he said.
And it’s unusual to obtain such a permit, Trump added.
“It’s big government at its absolute worst,” he said. “And other countries look at us and they can’t believe it.”
Thorp (and Science Magazine) doesn’t mention any of this. Whatever Trump proposes is bad by default. Is that an “evidence-based” scientific approach?
Pathways to changing the minds of climate deniers (Science Daily). Stanford’s School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences put out this press release that was dutifully echoed uncritically by the usual science media. If this had been a “scientific” article, it would have included debate and discussion among proponents and skeptics of global warming, even if the skeptics (some with PhDs in the related fields) are a minority. (Science is not consensus, and consensus is not science, remember?) Instead, Stanford sees skeptics as mentally ill. They are “deniers” – a loaded word with nefarious overtones.
Denying the effects of climate change serves as a barrier to taking the actions needed to mitigate the worst effects, including rising seas, more intense hurricanes and increased droughts and heatwaves. However, the researchers found that those who deny human causes for climate change can be swayed through conversations that appeal to their different identities, reframe solutions – or even embrace their climate views.
Stanford sees its duty as using gentle propaganda (brainwashing) tactics to nudge the skeptics back in line with the Ministry of Truth. It’s OK to appeal to their views, even “embrace” their climate views (i.e., smile and lie to them as you nudge). While some of the recommendations seem gentle, the ultimate goal is not: All Citizens Must Agree: humans are to blame for causing global warming. If you dissent, Big Science will nudge you, or bully you, back into the Consensus. What happened to Thorp’s plea to “stick to the science”?
Glacier National Park is replacing signs that predicted its glaciers would be gone by 2020 (CNN). Being a Leftist means you never have to say you were wrong. Ten years ago, Glacier National Park said its glaciers would be gone by 2020. Well, 2020 is here, and the Park Service is quickly replacing the signs with newer ones that say “When they will completely disappear depends on how and when we act. One thing is consistent: the glaciers in the park are shrinking.” No apology, no admission of misinformation to the public for a decade. No; it’s the public’s fault! It “depends on how and when we act,” they say. So where are the congratulations for park visitors? They must have acted swiftly and correctly, if the glaciers are still there.
CNN does its best to defend the failed prognosticators at the US Geological Survey who motivated the park to put up the signs ten years ago. It takes conservative websites like WND to point out the culpability of the “experts” who were so wrong: “What a snow job: Glacier Park changing signs warning of glacier meltdown,” their headline says. The park’s boo-boo is not the only falsified prediction made by leftists who love to say the sky is falling and therefore the global government needs to punish humanity. John Nolte at Breitbart News made a long list of failed doomsday predictions since 1961 by the “consensus” of climate scientists. Their score is 0-41, Nolte points out. When caught, they just move the goalposts and claim to ‘speak for science.’
See also Dr Jerry Bergman’s article here at CEH about Paul Ehrlich’s failed 1968 prediction of a “Population Bomb” (26 April 2019) and the “wave of repression” it triggered, causing terrible harm and death to poor people around the world, including China’s perverse “one-child policy” that led to millions of abortions and altered the social structure of one of the largest nations on earth. Ehrlich never apologized.
As usual, we encourage our readers to find science news articles that support Trump, embrace conservative values, or find criticisms of Leftist policies with equal emotional disdain that they vent against conservative policies. Good luck; share a link in a comment if you find one! Our point is that Darwinian evolution is part and parcel of the Left. With few exceptions, if you are a Darwinist, you are a Leftist embracing all these other positions like global warming, abortion, and the LGBT agenda. If you are a Leftist, you are a Darwinist. It’s a package deal. Be aware of that.