Elizabeth Warren and Science

elizabeth warren2To an adoring crowd last year, moonbat [mc_name name=’Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’W000817′ ] articulated an Orwellian 11-point progressive manifesto.  Point number two states: “We believe in real science and that means we have a responsibility to protect the Earth.”  This statement makes two erroneous assumptions- (1) conservatives do not believe in science and (2) conservatives have no interest in protecting the Earth.

Of course, she is referring to climate change which, to a progressive, is another avenue for the government to centrally plan an economy and impinge on the everyday lives of citizens.  It is a call for the government to dictate what you drive, where you set your thermostat, how you take your groceries home and a host of other things large and trivial.  She and others are ignorant of the fact that not everyone believes in the coming Armageddon predicted by the likes of Al Gore.

First, one does not “believe” or “disbelieve” in science.  It is not a deity although progressives would like to elevate science to a religion as long as the science can be appropriated for political purposes.  What she fails to mention is that in “real science” the discussion is never over.  Because a group of scientists get together and make some grand declaration does not necessarily make it sacrosanct.  That is not science; that is progressivism.  “Real science” welcomes skepticism because it forces science to look for, document and replicate confirmation of one’s “theory.”  As long as there is a shred of evidence to the contrary, the discussion is never closed.

For example, the global warming crowd cannot explain why in the real world (not computer models that are only as good as the information put into that model) global temperatures have not increased in the past 18 years despite the alleged increased carbon dioxide levels.  Warren and company cannot explain why ice core samples eons old show higher carbon dioxide levels than exist now and there were no fossil fuels back then.  In fact, the “fossils” were still walking the earth and yet here we are.

How come every scientific analysis has proven that hydraulic fracturing has had no effect on ground water (despite what Matt Damon and Yoko Ono say), yet the progressive Left is against hydraulic fracturing?  After all, science has “proven” something.  There are numerous studies which indicate that burning ethanol and electric cars have a more serious adverse effect on the environment than the standard gasoline burning engine, but the progressive Left conveniently ignores these studies and insists on ethanol and electric cars.

James Lovelock, the great British environmentalist and founder of the Gaia Theory, has stated on numerous occasions that if the Earth really wanted to get serious about reducing carbon emissions, they would, in the short term, embrace nuclear energy.  Yet, unless you are France, there is a disdain of nuclear energy in this country even though there is ample scientific evidence showing it is safe, efficient and environmentally friendly.

The problem with Warren and company is their selective embrace of science to the exclusion of competing science.  The result is a silencing of the critics through bullying.  Opponents are ostracized, shouted down, marginalized, and called “flat earthers.”

Conservatives are all for protecting the earth and one of the best methods is through private ownership.  But, private ownership is something alien to progressives and needs to be shunned because it does not comport to central planning by a collection of expert eggheads.  Farmers and ranchers are probably the best environmentalists in the world because they have a financial and ownership interest.  Would a rancher over-graze his land knowing there will be no grass to graze upon next year?

The differences between the Left and Right regarding global warming are twofold.  The first is the application of the science.  We conservatives prefer the question to be settled beyond the shadow of a doubt.  That means that conservatives do not wish to appropriate science for political purposes.  The second difference is the solution.  Redistribution policies like cap-and-trade or onerous regulations like those proposed by the EPA are counterproductive and will do little to solve anything.  Instead, the solution is technology which does solve the problem and creates jobs.  That is the real application of science.  You want real renewable energy while creating jobs?  How about recycling nuclear waste?  France does it and so should we.

For a moment, let’s consider this thought experiment.  Suppose tomorrow a conclave of over 500 of the greatest biologists in the world get together and they determine after a thorough review of all the experiments, studies and literature that a baby in the uterus can feel pain at 5 months of gestation.  Obviously, this has important legal ramifications.  As a result of this scientific consensus, Congress proposes banning all abortions after 5 months of gestation.  Would Warren and her ilk support this measure knowing that there is this scientific consensus?

When science is used for political purposes, as progressives have done with global warming, it simply sullies the discipline.  Lest we forget, we have been down this progressive road before.  The last time the progressive movement bowed at the altar of science, they gave us eugenics.