Offering a centralized resource to counter the liberal/leftist/socialist baloney that permeates and dominates the mainstream media... and some brilliant columns by me.
Navigation menu -

Leftwing science – Part 1

May 19, 2011

Hearing liberals talk about science is flat-out funny – almost as funny as watching them stumble over numbers. In both arenas, their assertions and beliefs are often ludicrous (remember when Obama thought ten thousand people had died in a Kansas tornado?), but there’s an important difference: liberal miscomprehension of numbers involves intellectual deficiency, whereas their silliness in science stems from moral deficiency.

The left cynically and ruthlessly misuses science as a vehicle for political propaganda.

One of the first Executive Orders President Obama signed upon entering office was number 13505, which was titled “Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells.” Sounds impressive, doesn’t it? But there was nothing “responsible” or “scientific” about the order, and there were no “barriers” to remove. The pot of federal money remained exactly the same. What Obama did was reduce the amount of money for research into adult stem cells, where hundreds of miraculous treatments have been discovered (and continue to be discovered almost weekly), and transfer that money to research on embryonic stem cells, where no human application has ever been found.

Oh, by the way, this week the world learned about the first man in history to be cured of AIDS. Lo and behold, they did it with adult stem cells… no harvesting of human embryos required.

Executive order 13505 is typical for liberals when it comes to science: use flowery language, be completely wrong, and lie like a rug to cover up the facts. Shortly after Obama signed his executive order, Dr. Bernadine Healy, member of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and former director of the National Institutes of Health, wrote a piece for U.S. News & World Report titled “Why Embryonic Stem Cells Are Obsolete.” How can Obama justify his decision on scientific grounds when his science advisor is writing stuff like that?

The New York Post was less polite than Dr. Healy: they published an article headlined, “THE GREAT STEM-CELL-RESEARCH SCAM.”

Anthropogenic Global Warming, easily the biggest scientific scam in human history money-wise, was the original impetus for, but it’s far from being the only example of boneheaded, dishonest, leftie-skewed science. Certain theories and ideas are crucial for making collectivist political ideology believable, and the annals of science are full of idiotic fancies, silly theories, and outright frauds brought to us by people who have leftwing political agendas and don't care what flavor of baloney they cook up to promote them.

Sometimes they even admit they’re cooking baloney. Here’s former vice president Al Gore, when asked if he exaggerates global warming:
“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”
In other words, “Yes, I’m a damned liar, my Academy Award-winning film was a farce, and my Nobel Peace Prize is utter bullshit.” (I love paraphrasing liberal politicians. It satisfies my inner grump.)

Gore’s admission came in 2006, but we can find earlier admissions by actual global warming scientists. Professor Stephen Schneider, global warming guru at Stanford University, said in 1996 that scientists are ethically bound “in effect” to tell the truth, but:
“[But] on the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings [who want to] capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
They “have to” lie, you see. Otherwise we ignorant peons won’t climb on the appropriate bandwagon and accept collectivist solutions for drummed-up non-existent problems. In 1997, just before the Kyoto Climate Change Summit, Science Magazine journalist Gary Taubes explained that all the wild predictions of disease and public health calamities from global warming, which formed a crescendo of hysteria in the months leading up to Kyoto, were exaggerations concocted for our own good.
“Many of the researchers behind the dire predictions concede that the scenarios are speculative. But they say their projections play a useful role in consciousness raising. ‘What it does is serve notice on us; we need to be aware we’re tinkering with fundamentals, and there could be a range of consequences for human health,’ says Anthony McMichael of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.” –Science, November 1997
Uh huh. The little turds aren’t lying. They’re simply trying to “raise our consciousness.” We should probably thank them.

The hapless Mr. McMichael admits lying to support global warming theories which are themselves lies. What is it called when a scientist lies to support another scientist’s lie? “Liar squared?” (That's a science joke, heh heh.) Mathematically, do the lies cancel each other out and form truth?

In the la-la-land of liberal thinking, the answer to that question is apparently yes. In spite of the various scandals involving fudging and outright fabrication of climate data, President Obama and Democrats in congress are frantically continuing to strangle the American economy with climate change-based laws like “cap ‘n’ trade” legislation that will raise electric rates to the moon, EPA regulations that prevent power plant construction and oil drilling, and Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species decisions based entirely upon far-fetched scenarios for climate doom that sound like they came straight out of Al Gore’s lying mouth.

For example, Fish and Wildlife's listing of the polar bear as "threatened" was based entirely on the scenario predicted by global warmists that Arctic ice will disappear sometime within the next century. The stupid bears are doing just fine, thank you, with more of the vicious beasts every time they count 'em, but Fish and Wildlife is worried sick the poor things will struggle at some point. It's bad science, based on bogus climate theory, utilizing improper statistical analysis, cobbled together by one lone U.S. Geological Services nincompoop who has a vested interest in Arctic conservation issues… but "Gee," you say, "what harm can some bad science really do?"

A lot. That listing by Fish and Wildlife provided ammunition for the EPA, which three months ago denied Shell Oil a permit to drill for oil in Alaska. The EPA is punishing Shell for the magnificently tiny lapse of failing to mention in their application paperwork the effect that diesel exhaust from one ice-breaker boat will have on worldwide global warming. Although it’s so stupid it’s funny, this isn’t a joke. It really happened. Shell, which paid over two billion dollars to the federal government for its oil leases, and spent another two billion getting ready to drill, said they were packing their bags, donning their travel clogs, and klompen dancing back to the Netherlands.

Shell has twenty seven billion barrels of oil up there waiting to be tapped, but not this year, thanks to the Obama administration and leftwing scientists willing to shill for a political agenda. Meanwhile, gasoline prices are above four dollars per gallon.

There is a fundamental reason why leftwing political ideology leads to bad science. Collectivism is, by definition, anti-God, and without the absolute truth which God represents, the solid foundation necessary for scientific advancement is missing. No need to take that statement on faith (pardon the pun) – there are studies with empirical evidence. Baylor University released a study in 2008 showing that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in pseudo-scientific nonsense like palm reading, astrology, and paranormal phenomena. The magazine Skeptical Inquirer published a similar study in 1980, showing that irreligious college students were far more likely to believe in pseudo-scientific crap.

Paraphrasing Jeff Foxworthy, if you have ever asked a ghost what its sign is, you might be a liberal.

Look at areas where political differences cause the most friction – Darwinism, global warming, the beginning of life in the womb, education, DDT – and you will see the war between atheists and believers raging. No scientific theory is more important to the left than Darwinism, because evolution overtly replaces God with random chance and demotes Man to one among millions of co-equal species. Liberals become enraged if parents merely ask that contrary evidence be presented to children in public schools.

Global warming and the environmental movement carry on with that theme, advancing animal and plant rights above human rights… and if you think that's an exaggeration you don't know what happened to the San Joaquin Valley, where a large percentage of the nation's food used to be grown. They took the farmers' water and gave it to the Delta Smelt, with no hard evidence the fish even needed it (or wanted it).

Over and over again, leftwing science is proven wrong by time and facts. After decades of insisting that embryos were not alive and could feel no pain, ultrasound pictures showed the truth: their hearts start beating in the first two or three weeks and by their reaction to stimuli we can see they feel something. Education theories which encourage political correctness, positive reinforcement, and subjectivity instead of God, responsibility, and absolute knowledge continue to fail in the classroom. DDT, which spawned the environmental movement and two of our most intrusive federal government agencies – the EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service – has proven completely safe, and we know now that banning it has cost millions of human lives and untold suffering.

The second part of this three-part series will dissect Darwinism, the archetypal example of leftwing science. The third part will list the various scientific theories embraced and promoted by the left over the years, and subsequently found wanting. There's a bunch of them. You'll be surprised, because much of the science you were taught in school – no matter when you went to school – is pure dee baloney.

From Reno, Nevada, USA

May 19, 2011 - This is addressed to Concerned Citizen North Carolina: Here's an idea for a bright chap like yourself, try reading all of the information contained in this site preceding your response. Please, take a look at the Issues [above right of column], if you will count down seven (7) from the top you will find a heading Global Warming. When you click on that you will find (low and behold) lots and lots of facts about global warming. I know that you would like nothing better than to believe that JP goes off half cocked when writing these articles. I and everyone else I know that enjoys this website has never been able to fault JP on the amount of research he puts into his opinions. So before you go and jump the gun try unlike you liberal counterparts to check your facts first prior to attacking. And rather than condemning the writer with silly snide unsubstantiated garble find a rebuttal that has merit based in logic and the science as JP has. After you get done reading Global Warming check out Evolution/Darwinism you might find that you really did come from a single celled organism and you may still be one. - Lori S., Informed in Nevada

May 19, 2011 - Great read, thanks! To the 'concerned idiot' in NC... go back to watching the propaganda you are obviously being fed by your friends in the liberal media. - Todd L., Michigan

May 19, 2011 - Hey JP or whatever your name is, you offer no science to content there is no Global warming, no theory for why our weather seems to go haywire and then you're all about calling names. That's typical conservative crap straight from the houses, well... It seem that you and your birthers, teabaggers and assorted ilk leave in a world of big business dominance and world exploitation. Well, simply being a thinker I want to hear both sides of the story and then decide for myself. I tired of listening to blowhards like yourself that has nothing better to do than slam a president who's doing a good job, saving jobs and trying to keep a country that didn't respect him for his color to prevent us from falling into the mad hands of idiots like you. You sure you're not Rush? Have a nice Day. - Concerned citizen, North Carolina

May 19, 2011 - Excellent article! You have a way of expressing what many of us are thinking but are unable to articulate. - Samantha, Michigan

May 19, 2011 - First! - Geep, Tennessee
J.P. replies: That's a first all right. First time anybody has claimed "first" on this website. I choose to look on this as a milestone for

Issues - Conservative Resources by J.P. Travis


J.P. elsewhere


Favorite links - Conservative Resources by J.P. Travis

Favorite links



Travelyn Publishing

        World War II book cover

        King James Bible book cover

        Under the Rebel Flag book cover

        V book cover

        Bicycle Girl book cover