Wednesday, June 10, 2009

So science doesn't support your 'progressive' worldview agenda? Just ignore it!

In my previous post, we touched on how "progressives" use their smoke and mirrors technique in the dismal science of economics. Now we shall examine the smoke and mirrors they use in the other sciences.

Ben Shapiro talks about how our "progressive" pals are so fond of telling us they are "advocates" of science, unless the science inconveniently contradicts some cherished worldview agenda items, like sex education for kids, abortion, and gay marriage.

Key point:
"For years, liberals have complained that conservatives ignore science. The truth is that mainstream conservatives often refuse to accept dubious science (e.g. global warming and population bombs). Far more often, it is liberals who ignore hard science in order to promote their agenda of irresponsibility, consequence: free living, and destruction of traditional family values. "


  1. I took you up on the challenge of researching auto emissions. There is not a doubt that the carcinogens in auto emissions affect human health. Same goes for factory emissions and toxic dumping. I tried to find research to refute this, but I just couldn't. I would appreciate it if you could point me towards research that states otherwise, because as far as I can tell, you are the one who is ignoring the science. I know I know, I'm a dummy, but I'm really trying to see it your way. It's an important issue and if you are right, then we are setting ourselves up to waste a lot of time,money and manpower to fix a non-existant problem.


  2. "There is not a doubt that the carcinogens in auto emissions affect human health."

    Hey, Junior!

    Where did I say that the were not any toxic emissions from autos?

  3. "Where did I say that the were not any toxic emissions from autos?"

    --Hey Gramps,

    You told me days ago that if I look into it for myself, I would be amazed with what I read with regard to left wing environmentalism. I haven't been able to locate any kind of research that disputes the commonly held belief that 1.humans pollute. 2pollution is harmful = humans are harming themselves and the world around them with our lifestyles.


  4. "Anonymous said...
    As far as I know, you could very well be right about co2. Is that to say that using fossil fuels is not harmful? Does it not contribute to respiratory problems and cancer? I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand you.


    Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:35:00 PM

    Bubba said...
    Look up the other components in current auto emissions, and see how harmful they actually are.

    I think you will be surprised.

    Sunday, June 07, 2009 9:59:00 PM"

    --Bubba, is it your opinion that added co2 does not contribute to global warming also? I understand the climate fluctuates, that does not prove to me that we have no effect on our environment. I was not suprised when I read about pollutants from auto emissions or the effect they have on our health. What is it that you expected me to be suprised about? I do have to say, I did learn quite a bit about the alleged harm co2 does. I learned a lot more about the pollutants that co2 is generally lumped together with. Conclusion: co2, not a pollutant and not the only component in emissions from autos or manufacturing. We are still killing ourselves and the world around. Co2 not being so harmful as I was taught does not erase the fact that arsenic is.


  5. Let me repeat what I asked you before, Sonny Boy:

    Where did I say that the were not any toxic emissions from autos?

    Now pay attention to this:

    Emissions from automobile exhausts are no where near as harmful in the overall scheme of things as you portray them to be.

    Why do you think the subject of these other emissions hasn't come up in the issue of EPA carbon regulation?


    It's a loser.

    The EPA knows, and it's well known in the non enviro-whacko clean air community that these other emissions today are INFINITESIMALLY SMALL compared to levels because of the process by which emissions are handled in vehicles today.

    You will find the same thing in industry emissions, despite what the Alarmist Kooks want people like you to believe.

    And THAT'S the bottom line, whether you like it, or not.