It is a common mantra of most liberals or self-proclaimed “progressives” that, if you don’t believe in global warming, you don’t believe in science. The fundamental beliefs of most modern liberals contradict all lessons of science, from Anthropology to Zoology. I’ll highlight the most controversial views, but first, let’s consider Global Warming.
The earth was getting cooler or warmer long before the presence of humans. At first, plant life became a part of that cycle, taking advantage of the warming while mitigating extremes. Then animals became part of the cycle, devouring plants and returning nutrients to the soil. Then it all came to an end with an extraterrestrial event that destroyed plants and animals alike.
The byproducts of those decomposing carcasses and plants remain an important part of the earth’s cyclic temperatures. When life recovered, animals were entirely dissimilar from the dinosaurs, and humans came along, uniquely developing qualities that were way beyond all other creatures. Eventually, people discovered that burning fossil fuels, from the decaying matter of the earlier era, was far more efficient at producing heat and light than destroying living matter. No longer did trees or whales have to be sacrificed to keep humans warm and safe.
But today, liberals want to stop using this decomposing matter (fossil fuels) for the modern energy needs of people, instead of expending limited assets on the development of so-called “renewable” energy sources, employing devices that require rare minerals and metals that are limited on earth. Lithium, titanium, neodymium, and dysprosium (for wind turbines, solar cells, and batteries) are not “renewable resources.” This is in complete ignorance of geological science. There is no question that humans should strive to maximize the efficiency of using earth’s resources. Extracting energy from decomposing matter is more efficient than using rare resources from remote mines.
Science also tells us that the earth has a natural self-healing feature that helps mitigate the effects of the heating and cooling cycles. When the earth cools, less seawater evaporates, resulting in less precipitation and less plant growth, and more warming from the sun. When the earth warms, there is more evaporation resulting in more rain and snow, and more fresh water for plants to thrive producing more oxygen, and natural cooling. Inserting a human finger on earth’s thermostat may not be the best dystopian objective.
Liberals are also hysterical over the possible demise of the polar bear, penguin, and many other animal species due to Global Warming. The science of zoology tells us that the warmer any zone on earth, the more species exist in that region, and the diversity of these species is so great, it can only be estimated.
From a single species of animal that might live at each of earth’s poles, the tropical zone contains more than 40 million species. One might even imagine a future green bear in a rain forest to replace the polar bear. Far more species will be developed than lost for every fraction of a degree of global temperature increase.
Anthropology tells us that the survival of early humans can be attributed to the formation of natural families with the roles of provider and nurturer divided between two parents of biological compatibility, producing offspring requiring the protection of both parents. As the millennia passed, and the family structure survived and thrived, the roles became ingrained in the genetic makeup of succeeding generations.
As societal structures formed, the divided roles between parents also became entrenched in behavioral norms as well as psychological, legal, and religious. Today’s liberals consider this scientific fact as nothing more than an imagined “glass ceiling” which prevents mothers from playing the role of father.
Liberals get a failing grade in all areas of human biology. They do not believe that a human life is created at conception. They believe that the human life within a mother’s womb is nothing more than a growth which may be extracted and destroyed at the whims of the mother, up until the time it is fully out of the uterus and crying. They also believe that the female body is physically as strong as the male body and capable of tasks that were predominantly reserved for males.
Combat soldier, fireman, or policeman, have been sought out as career choices for women, while mysteriously avoiding jobs such as construction worker, trash man, or football player, though this might be due to the unavailability of lactation rooms. Jobs that were once deemed as potentially hazardous to a developing life within a female employee (i.e. chemicals, stress, or physical demands) are now open to women while the employer is legally prevented from inquiring about the possibility of pregnancy.
Liberals do not believe that the female body requires unique medical and personal care, at a cost that is ten times that of males, yet they expect that lopsided differential to be leveled by men in the office, factory, or village. It is a legal requirement that health care payments are the same for men and women. The actuarial tables for insurance coverage of males vs. females are difficult to obtain. But it is easy enough to compare the numbers of men and women in nursing homes, hospitals, and doctor’s offices, or the amount of shelf space in pharmacies allocated to the respective personal hygiene products to recognize the differential.
Biology and psychiatry seem to be a fantasy to most liberals when it comes to sexual disorders. Even the fact that males and females have distinct chromosomal differences, liberals created a “gender spectrum” with as many as 58 variations. Apparently, this disrupts 100,000 years of animal and human development on earth. No longer do we have real mental disorders, classified as such in scientific publications (e.g. early editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) used in research and development of a treatment or cure.
Instead, we have parades and banners celebrating the disorders as if they were “special” superpowers of comic book heroes. But not all the previously identified sexual disorders are treated equally by liberals. While some sexual disorders are celebrated with parades and flags, others are condemned and persecuted. In some cases, the same disorder is feted for one career (e.g. hair stylist) while persecuted in another (e.g. priest) as in the event of homosexuality. Note: It was not “pedophilia” in the priesthood. Liberals are prone to mislabeling people.
Another aspect of the biological incongruity for liberals is the matter of natural selection and survivability of the fittest in relation to human anthropology. In short, how does “same-sex marriage” fit into any configuration of nature that results in species propagation and proliferation?
Real scientists who publish the results of their research in professional journals have been besmirched and criticized by liberal reviewers if the data seems to go against their politically correct sensitivities, even if entirely factual and accurate — especially if the data is factual and accurate! These overzealous critics would rather destroy the reputation or career of a scientist or author than recognizing the value of the research to the betterment of mankind.
Books about I.Q. and more recently DNA have been particularly frustrating for some world renowned authors like Charles Murray (The Bell Curve) or Bryan Sykes (DNA USA). The gathering of DNA samples in all countries around the world for anthropological research was possible except in the United States where such data collection is legally prohibited due to governmental support of the pagan religion of Native Americans. This information is critical to understanding the causes and progression of human diseases, disorders, and immunities which will enhance the survivability of the entire species. It must go through an unscientific liberal filter first.
If liberals believe in science as they claim, they should respect the lessons of science including the research, publications, and classifications that have evolved over time. The redefinition of words, terms, phrases, and facts for political palatability have no room in science