Democrat Anti-Science
Other people here only focus on Republican anti-science and ignore Democrat anti-science such as Democrats who believe in flaky New Age religion, who throw around the word “quantum”, Democrats who say they believe in evolution but then say “of course God was behind it”, Democrats who refuse to use the words “embryo” or “fetus” when talking about abortion because they pretend that there is no such thing as an embryo or fetus, Democrats, motivated by their New Age religion worshipping the Mother Earth Goddess, who promote the ludicrous claim that global warming will cause the End of the World, and the extinction of the human species. They promote a ludicrous vision of apocalyptic cataclysm, contrary to what all scientists say. Whenever a bad thing happens, they reflexively assume that it was caused by global warming even if it had nothing to do with global warming. They suggest you do meaningless symbolic things in your daily life that will have no effect on global warming. Obviously, if you refuse to fly on an airplane, the airplane will fly anyway, without you on it. They toss around anti-science phrases like “extinction event”. Democrats support “medical marijuana” even though it has not been approved by the FDA because they are convinced by anecdotes alone. If you are so convinced that is real, then why not submit it for FDA approval, which the law requires? If an organism produces sperm but not eggs, it is by definition “male”. If a man says he’s a woman, a Democrat would say “He really is a woman”. If you show the Democrat scientific proof that he’s a man, the Democrat would say “I don’t care what you show me because he’s a woman anyway in some higher reality that is more true than physical reality”. It is anti-science to ignore the proof right in front of you, or claim there is a “higher reality that is more true than physical reality”. It is anti-science to say that an organism that produces sperm but not eggs is not male. It is anti-science to say that a human fetus is part of its mother’s body in the same way that her left arm is part of her body. So you see Democrats are at least as anti-science as Republicans but you don’t mention that in your talk because of your own partisanship. The real problem is that Democrats have deluded themselves into believing that their anti-science is science. If you are pro-science, and therefore don’t believe the Democrat’s anti-science, the Democrats will call you anti-science.
You need look at the greater context of Democrats being intensely anti-science in general while simultaneously deluding themselves into believing that their anti-science is science. Deepak Chopra and numerous other New Age gurus constantly throw around the word “quantum”. Their followers believe that this anti-science is science. In the 1975, in San Francisco, they founded the “Fundamental Fysiks Group”, where New Age hippies claimed to use quantum mechanics to achieve spiritual enlightenment. In 1996, the Sokal Hoax exposed that Democrats will blindly mistake anti-science for science. Also, in the 1990s, the Democrats coined the phrase “The Science Wars” to refer to the disagreement between science on one side versus Democrat anti-science on the other side. The misleading phrase “Science Wars” gives the false impression that it was a war between two equal sides, and that there was science on both sides. In reality, there was science on only one side, with typical Democrat anti-science on the other side, and the two sides were not equal, since knowledge and ignorance are not equal.
Let’s look at the example of global warming.
According to the NOAA 2019 Global Climate Summary, the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880.
Climate Change: Global Temperature
According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by a little more than 1° Celsius (2° Fahrenheit) since 1880.
World of Change: Global Temperatures
Most people would be shocked to find out that it was such a small increase in temperature. Of course there are negative consequences to global warming, and we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but that it totally different than Democrats believing that global warming will cause the End of the World, and the extinction of the human species.
We Might Be Reaching ‘Peak Indifference’ on Climate Change
Here you see this article talking about “12 years to act on climate change” but a lot of Democrats misunderstood, and thought that the global warming will cause the extinction of the human species in 12 years.
What Does ’12 Years to Act on Climate Change’ (Now 11 Years) Really Mean? — Inside Climate News
However, if you are a mainstream climate scientist who says, of course humans are increasing the temperature of the Earth, of course there are negative consequences, of course we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it’s not going to cause the End of the World, or the extinction of the human species, the Democrats will believe that you believe that there is “no such thing as global warming”. They will laugh their heads off, and gleefully shout, “This clown thinks there’s no such thing as global warming!…HA! HA! HA!…Say goodnight Gracie!…HA! HA! HA!”. One time, I tried to explain to a Democrat on Facebook that global warming was not going to cause the End of the World, and he literally replied, “It won’t be the end of the world. It will be the end of fucking humans on it.”
You can also read the following articles about global warming.
https://nypost.com/2019/01/27/what-science-could-teach-ocastio-cortez-about-climate-change/
https://friendsofscience.org
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/rational-responses-to-climate-change
On the website of the American Physical Society, they sometimes interview physicists about their jobs. Here is an interview with Andrew Shepard, a physicist who studies climate science.
Q&A: Keeping a Watchful Eye on Earth
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v9/45
At the end of the interview, he laments that despite the fact that he’s a well respected physicist, who would never imply that there is any debate about the undisputed scientific fact that humans are increasing the average temperature of the Earth by a very small amount, if he were to simply report objective scientific data that a given glacier wasn’t currently shrinking, which no scientist would dispute, he would be viciously personally attacked by the Democrats who would scream that he was “denier”. The Democrats attacking the physicist have zero background in science themselves, and yet they wouldn’t hesitate to reflexively label a physicist as “anti-science”, just because he had the audacity to publish objective scientific data that contradicts the politically correct narrative.
Here are examples of Democrat anti-science on global warming.
- They make ludicrous claims of apocalyptic Armageddon that they claim will result from global warming. They rattle off a litany of cataclysmic disasters that read like the Book of John. There is zero evidence for any of those claims. They have been making these claims for a long time, and none of it has come to pass. Part of the motivation is they reason that if they just scare the public enough, then everyone will do their part.
- Whenever a bad thing happens, Democrats reflexively ascribe it to global warming, even if it had nothing to do with global warming. Obviously, there were hurricanes, forest fires, droughts, floods, and coastal erosion before global warming, but today, whenever it happens, Democrats scream that it is global warming. They also assume all bad things are always caused by global warming even if we know that it had nothing to do with global warming. Joe Biden believes that tornadoes are caused by global warming. Bernie Sanders believes that terrorism is caused by global warming.
- They are hysterical about small things that do not hurt people at all. Who cares if a glacier is smaller? Who cares if a bird flies south two weeks before it used to? Who cares if a weed grows ten feet higher up a mountain side than it used to? They believe these are “harbingers of doom”. They also believe that humans do not have the right to modify the Earth is any way. It is not to prevent people from being hurt. They oppose modifications that do not hurt people.
- They advocate that you do things in your own personal life that have literally no effect on anything. If you, as a single individual, ride a bicycle to work that will have no effect on the global output of CO2 by the human species. If you, as a single individual, put in LED lights, your local coal fired power plant will not burn one gram less coal. If you, as a single individual, refuse to fly on an airplane, that same plane will still fly without you on it. Democrats babble about “reducing your carbon footprint” even if it has absolutely literally zero effect on global temperatures or CO2 emissions, just so you can look in the mirror and congratulate yourself for being a moral person.
All of this indicates that Democrats are anti-science on global warming. Their real motivation is their flaky New Age religion worshiping the Mother Earth Goddess, invented by the hippies in the late 1960s as a reaction against mainstream religion, which includes the religious belief that humans do not have the right to modify the Earth. They believe that the Earth is in some mystical balance. They believe that if we modify the Earth is any way, we’ll be punished for it, and they assume that the punishment will be the End of the World. These are the same people who previously claimed that acid rain and ozone depletion would cause the End of the World.
Also, Democrats imagine that ecosystems are in some mystical balance, and that humans have disturbed the balance. In reality, ecosystems are chaotic systems, never in balance.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/PT.3.5075
Another issue that Democrats are anti-science on is so-called medical marijuana. We have a long tedious scientific process and legal process that must be gone through to get medical drugs approved in the United States. When you first hear rumors of folk medicine involving a plant that is the very beginning of the process. That is when you start the science. You do chemistry experiments with test tubes. You isolate the active ingredient in the plant. You do biology experiments with cell cultures in petri dishes. You do experiments on rats. You keep going. At some point, you have enough evidence that you request permission to do the first clinical trials on small groups of volunteers. If it is successful, you keep going, Stage I trials, Stage 2 trials, Stage 3 trials. You do very detailed statistical analysis of the results. What actually are the measurable benefits? Is it statistically significant? You have to then investigate what are the effects on different demographic groups? How does it affect people with different pre-existing medical conditions? How might it interact with other drugs? After all of that, you begin a very long tedious bureaucratic legal process of formally submitting your proposed medical drug to the Food and Drug Administration. Only after you receive FDA approval, can you legally sell a medical drug in the United States. If you sold a medical drug that has not received FDA approval, you be arrested and go to prison. The Democrats said, we not going to do any of that. Instead they just skipped from the very first step, which is anecdotes that a plant has medical benefit, to the very last step, which is commercially selling it the public while calling at a medical drug, without FDA approval, even though it is illegal to sell a medical drug without FDA approval, casually skipping over the thousands steps in between. If you could sell a medical drug without FDA approval, then why do pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars to get FDA approval? The point is, this is part of the Democrat anti-science. Because Democrats are anti-science, Democrats are against the scientific process which is part of obtaining FDA approval. They think, well we do not need to do any scientific testing because we already know there is medical benefit to marijuana. Why are they so convinced? Just because they have heard anecdotes? It is anti-science to be convinced by anecdotes alone. A pro-science person would consider anecdotes to be a reason to do scientific testing. An anti-science person would consider anecdotes to be a reason not to do scientific testing. It is the same as someone convinced by anecdotes of ghosts, UFOs, or Bigfoot.
Democrats are anti-science on the issue of evolution. Everyone remembers the Republican primary debate when the candidates were asked if they believed in evolution, and they said no. However, people should remember the Democratic primary debate where the candidates were asked the same thing. They all initially said they believed in evolution, but all hastened to add that of course God was behind the scenes guiding the process, not realizing that if you say that, that means that you do not believe in evolution. Before Darwin, people knew how evolution could happen with external intelligence guiding the process. That’s called artificial selection, and was used in agriculture. What Charles Darwin discovered is how it could happen without a person guiding the process. If these Democrats don’t believe that evolution can happen without an external intelligence guiding the process, then they don’t believe in what Charles Darwin discovered, which means they don’t believe in evolution. To not believe in evolution, and think you believe in evolution is more stupid than not believing in evolution.
Another issue that Democrats are anti-science on is the issue of abortion. In reality, the abortion debate should be the same as the debate on animal rights, in that you are debating whether a type of organism is a person. You would expect the Democrats to simply say that a human fetus is not a person. However, that is not what they say. Instead they pretend that it does not exist at all. If you watch MSNBC, none of the hosts or guests ever use the word “embryo” or “fetus”. This is while they are advocating for killing human embryos and fetuses. Instead they use the word “woman” over and over and over again, just because a human embryo or fetus could be inside of a woman’s uterus. Well, a dog could be inside of a blonde person’s house. It’s exactly the same as of they never used the word “dog” while advocating for killing dogs, and instead used the word “blonde” over and over and over again just because a dog could be inside of a blonde person’s house.
Scott Pederson is on death role because he killed a fetus. If the same fetus had been killed by the mother instead of the father, the Democrats would say it would be unconstitutional to pass a law against it. So you have the following situation. If a man kills a human fetus, we kill the man. If a woman does the same thing and kills a human fetus, we say it would be unconstitutional to pass a law against it. The Democrats say it would be unconstitutional to pass a law that made it slightly inconvenient for a woman to kill a human fetus. Democrats go beyond that and claim that simply believing a human fetus is a person is prejudice against women. Democrats never use the word “fetus” while advocating for killing human fetuses, because they pretend that they do not exist. Instead they use the word “woman” over and over and over again, just because a fetus could be inside a woman’s uterus.
It’s exactly the same as if you had the following situation. If a brunette person kills a dog, we kill the brunette person. If a blonde person does the same thing and kills a dog, we say it would be unconstitutional to pass a law against it. The Democrats say it would be unconstitutional to pass a law that made it slightly inconvenient for a blonde person to kill a dog. Democrats go beyond that and claim that simply believing a dog is a person is prejudice against blonde people. Democrats never use the word “dog” while advocating for killing dogs, because they pretend that they do not exist. Instead they use the word “blonde” over and over and over again, just because a dog could be inside a blonde person’s house.
Democrats are anti-science on the issue of abortion. There is a philosophical debate as to whether a human embryo or fetus is or is not a person. I personally do not believe that a human embryo or fetus is a person. It is similar to the animal rights debate as to whether non-human animals are people. In both cases, you are debating whether a type of organism is a person. A dog could be inside of a blonde person’s house but the debate as to whether it is right or wrong to kill a dog has nothing to do with blonde people, houses, or blonde people’s houses. A human embryo or human fetus could be inside a uterus or a woman’s body but the debate as to whether it is right or wrong to kill a human embryo or fetus has nothing to do with women, uteruses, or women’s bodies. If you ever turn on MSNBC, you will notice that all of the hosts on MSNBC will never ever ever use the word “embryo” or the word “fetus”, because they don’t want to admit that they exist. Democrats pretend than human embryos and fetuses do not exist, that killing them does not involve killing anything because they don’t exist, and instead it is a woman having a woman’s health care service, and anyone against it is prejudice against women. It is the same as if Democrats pretended that dogs do not exist, that killing them does not involve killing anything because they don’t exist, and instead it is a blonde person having a blonde person’s health care service, and anyone against it is prejudice against blonde people just because a dog could be inside of a blonde person’s house. It is anti-science for Democrats to pretend that human embryos or fetuses do not exist, are not alive, are not human, are not human life, do not come into existence at conception, or are somehow part of their mother’s body in the same way that her left arm is part of her body.
Both Democrats and Republicans have a religious point of view, and therefore, an anti-science point of view, on the issues of global warming, evolution, and abortion, which lie at the intersection of politics, science, and religion. Republicans who anti-science are more likely to be aware that they are not representing the scientific view. Democrats who are anti-science, are much more likely to believe that their anti-science view is the scientific view. To be anti-science, and think you are pro-science is more stupid than being anti-science, and knowing that you are anti-science. All religion is anti-science. To believe in a religious belief, and think that the religious belief is science, is more stupid than believing in a religious belief, and knowing that it is a religious belief. Inside the Democrat mind, anti-science = pro-science and pro-science = anti-science. If you are anti-science, Democrats will say you are pro-science because you are anti-science. If you are pro-science, Democrats will call you anti-science because you are pro-science.
Let’s look at another example of Democrat anti-science.
There is no such thing as “transgender”. Here are the genders.
produces sperm at some point in its life and not ova — male
produces ova at some point in its life and not sperm — female
produces sperm and ova at the same time — concurrent hermaphrodite
produces sperm and ova not at the same time — sequential hermaphradite
produces sperm first and ova later — protoandry
produces ova first and sperm later — protogyny
goes back and forth between produces sperm and ova — serial bidirectional
never produces either sperm or ova — asexual
Sometimes in the literature, they refer to “sex changing” fish but that is inaccurate. Their gender is “sequential hermaphradite”. They never switch to one of the other categories so their gender does not change. They can change the gamete’s they produce, although a human can not even do that.
So, to make it clear, there is no such thing as “transgender”. It is not possible to change your gender.
If a man is mentally ill, and because he’s mentally ill, he thinks he’s a woman, a Democrat would say, “He’s not mentally ill because he really is a woman”. If you show the Democrat scientific proof that he’s a man, the Democrat would say, “I don’t care what you show me because he’s a woman anyway in some higher reality that is more true than physical reality”. It is anti-science to believe that there is a higher reality that is more true than physical reality. It is anti-science to believe something after being shown scientific proof that it is false. It is anti-science to believe that what is “really true” is what you believe is true, or what you say is true. How is a man thinking he’s a woman any different than these men who thought that a family member was a robot?
This Strange Syndrome Causes People to Think Their Loved Ones Have Been Replaced by Impostors
So we know that Democrats are anti-science. So obviously, it is not true that the majority of scientists vote Democrat.
I could have given other examples of Democrat anti-science but I didn’t want the article to be to long.
Another example of Democrat anti-science is Democrats assuming that artificial = bad. Look at food companies that brag that their products do not have GMO, growth hormones, steroids, artificial flavors, colors, sweeteners, that they do not use pesticides, etc.
I’m Done with fearing food and done with A&W: Andrew Campbell
None of those things are dangerous or unhealthy. They are all approved by the FDA. Why brag that your product does not have something that is not dangerous or unhealthy? It is to get more Democrats to purchase their product because Democrats reflexively assume that artificial = bad because Democrats are anti-science.
Here is an example of how some people are against science because they think it is supposedly “playing God”.
