Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. The Party of Science

 

Let me juxtapose two stories:

Progressives used science to justify killing G-d. Now they use their new religion to justify killing science.

The world around us, we were told, could be explained by random phenomena and adaptation thereto. Now we are told that adaption is insufficient, we must prostrate ourselves for a sin against Gaia, give up our secure and cheap energy, and give up our wealth and comfort in the name of this new G-d.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 15 comments.

  1. Susan Quinn Contributor

    Very well said, @rodin. Isn’t it ironic that those who point to science as most important now what to destroy it? Yes, indeed. And I refuse to bow down to their god.

    • #1
    • July 19, 2019, at 7:09 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  2. James Gawron Thatcher

    Rodin,

    Let me reiterate a comment on the Green New Deal I made on another post. The Green New Deal is a solution that will cost 90 trillion dollars (conservative estimate) money we don’t have, using technology that won’t work, to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

    Of course, AOC’s chief of staff is right it isn’t really about Climate Change but about lunatic socialism and pure economic irrationality. After their little idea runs into some more reality they’ll make up a new explanation. Truly life is so relaxing when you aren’t responsible for anything. If she were a 14-year-old girl doing a book report for her middle school class I’d give her a C (only because she turned in her homework).

    How does a thirty-year-old U.S. Congresswoman get away with this!? Perhaps there is something I’m missing? Maybe it’s those googly eyes.

    Regards,

    Jim

     

     

    • #2
    • July 19, 2019, at 7:54 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  3. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    It is a total shame that millions of Millennials and Zoomers have been fed lies about science their entire lives. And to protect those lies, those generations were never taught how to do actual scientific analysis. 

    It is a greater shame that 4+million Africans die each year, because they don’t have cheap electricity, which they could get from CO2. Anyone not *promoting* the use of fossil fuels is committing a disservice to humanity.

    • #3
    • July 19, 2019, at 8:49 AM PST
    • 8 likes
  4. James Gawron Thatcher

    DonG (View Comment):

    It is a total shame that millions of Millennials and Zoomers have been fed lies about science their entire lives. And to protect those lies, those generations were never taught how to do actual scientific analysis.

    It is a greater shame that 4+million Africans die each year, because they don’t have cheap electricity, which they could get from CO2. Anyone not *promoting* the use of fossil fuels is committing a disservice to humanity.

    Don,

    Yep, the meme, “it’s just aspirational” is a crock. This infantile aspiration beggars, cripples, and kills human beings every day. How many individual aspirations crushed, how many babies not born, how many babies die, for this environmental obsession.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #4
    • July 19, 2019, at 9:37 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  5. Jim McConnell Member

    Much like the universal banning of DDT; some wild bird eggs were saved — nevermind the millions of people in undeveloped countries who continue to die from mosquito-borne diseases.

    • #5
    • July 19, 2019, at 9:50 AM PST
    • 9 likes
  6. Rodin Member
    Rodin Post author

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Much like the universal banning of DDT; some wild bird eggs were saved — nevermind the millions of people in undeveloped countries who continue to die from mosquito-borne diseases.

    My thought exactly.

    • #6
    • July 19, 2019, at 9:51 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  7. Randy Webster Member

    Rachel Carson has a lot to answer for.

    • #7
    • July 19, 2019, at 3:26 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  8. Django Member

    IIRC, one of the architects of ACA/Obamacare admitted that one of its side effects would be income redistribution. 

    • #8
    • July 20, 2019, at 1:16 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  9. Steven Seward Member

    This is a clever post and absolutely true!

    • #9
    • July 20, 2019, at 11:05 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  10. Joseph Stanko Member

    Nothing surprising there, we all could see that the Green New Deal was a watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside.

    • #10
    • July 20, 2019, at 11:07 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  11. Bishop Wash Member

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Nothing surprising there, we all could see that the Green New Deal was a watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside.

    Republicans need to return red on electoral maps to the Democrats. A generation of voters won’t understand these sayings, your watermelon one, better dead than red, etc. Communists are red, not Republicans. 

    • #11
    • July 21, 2019, at 5:26 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  12. Stad Thatcher

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Rachel Carson has a lot to answer for.

    One of the 20th century’s biggest mass murderers . . .

    • #12
    • July 21, 2019, at 5:41 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  13. Henry Castaigne Member

    Rodin:

    Progressives used science to justify killing G-d. Now they use their new religion to justify killing science.

    The world around us, we were told, could be explained by random phenomena and adaptation thereto. Now we are told that adaption is insufficient, we must prostrate ourselves for a sin against Gaia, give up our secure and cheap energy, and give up our wealth and comfort in the name of this new G-d.

    A small minority of people like science. I think a small minority are even capable of liking science. Religion of all kinds has a universal appeal.

    • #13
    • July 22, 2019, at 12:59 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  14. Henry Castaigne Member

    Stad (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Rachel Carson has a lot to answer for.

    One of the 20th century’s biggest mass murderers . . .

    Has there been good evidence that millions of African died because their governments didn’t use DDT? I’ve heard the accusations before but I never crunched the numbers and what not.

    • #14
    • July 22, 2019, at 1:00 AM PST
    • 1 like
  15. Rodin Member
    Rodin Post author

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Rachel Carson has a lot to answer for.

    One of the 20th century’s biggest mass murderers . . .

    Has there been good evidence that millions of African died because their governments didn’t use DDT? I’ve heard the accusations before but I never crunched the numbers and what not.

    Fair question. If you google it there will be pro and con articles. The pro DDT articles tend to run along the lines that there are millions of malaria deaths (not disputed) and there is little scientific evidence that DDT causes the harms that Carson asserted (disputed). The con DDT articles emphasize assertions of environmental harm and their persistence while not disputing malaria deaths. It requires some counterfactual speculation about how many lives would not have been lost had the ban been put into effect. So it really comes down to how you tilt the man-Gaia equation.

    • #15
    • July 22, 2019, at 7:25 AM PST
    • Like