I got a kick out of this, so I thought I’d share …….
The media calls climate change skeptics “anti-science.” ……..
Then along comes the seemingly un-related death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. And wonder of wonders…suddenly for liberals in the media science is just one big no big deal.
The point is made sadly if exquisitely in the liberal media treatment of the Ferguson Grand Jury’s decision not to indict police officer Darren Wilson.
When one reads the actual transcript of the Grand Jury deliberations one is struck by the degree to which science is used to understand exactly what occurred when Michael Brown was shot by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson.
What kind of science? There was DNA. Photographs were used — yes, photography is a science as well as an art. There was a medical examiner -science a medical examiner’s tools of the trade. Rigor mortis is scientific fact, as is livor mortis — the settling of the blood in a dead body — both described in the proceedings as used in describing Michael Brown’s body. Direction — the science of geography was used to precisely describe the position of the body. The science of pathology was used as was the science of forensics as applied by a scientifically trained forensic anthropologist. Evidence was sent to a chemistry lab — chemistry is science. There was a gun involved, examined using the science of ballistics.
There’s more, of course, much more in terms of the science that was used in investigating the death of Michael Brown. All of it detailed in that Grand Jury report.
But what does the liberal media say of all of this? To borrow a phrase – they are “science deniers.”
There is Ezra Klein over at Vox pronouncing Officer Wilson’s story “unbelievable — literally.” He mentions not a solitary scientific fact in his piece. The New Republic makes the case for racism — science unmentioned. In fact, racism was the not-so-unobvious reason ascribed to the grand jury in all manner of left-wing quarters. The Huffington Post loved this talking point. The New York Times headlined a story:
Reaction to Ferguson Decision Shows Racial
Divide Remains Over Views of Justice
So this means, apparently, that liberals hold to the “truth” that one race believes in science and another race is so, to borrow a Rush Limbaughism, “low-information” that science is just not believable? Really? Nothing racist in that assumption by the Times, eh? ………..
There’s more to read at the link.
Of course, the thing about climate science, (which the lunatics reference when they’re calling people anti-science) is that it is a misnomer. It is a pseudo-science on par with phrenology. It demonstrates itself to be a pseudo-science at every turn. A real science can be reasonably proven or falsified with actual observation, climate science, (as it is commonly held today) cannot be. You like physics? Watch a rock fall to the earth, and you can know Newton was onto something real and demonstrable. Same can be said for biology, chemistry, etc …. Climate science? Well, it tells us a warming world will melt our polar caps ……. except when it doesn’t. The models predict exponential global temperature increases ….. except when it doesn’t. Climate science has told us hurricanes and typhoons will become more severe and more frequent ……. except when they don’t. Polar bears? They’re all suppose to be dead by now.
Skeptics aren’t science deniers, we just have that unreasonable expectation that science should deal with reality rather than some misanthropist’s dark fantasies.