Those anti-science scientists are at it again!

The Left has been altogether successful in painting conservatives as anti-science simply because many of them have doubts as to how much man's activities contribute to the "supposed" warming of the earth's climate. According to the Left the "science" on climate change is "settled."

That seems a bit absurd to me since scientists, using scientific principles, are always making new discoveries that totally blow old assumptions and models away. I would venture to say that if some of these anti-science scientists had been around when Galileo was living, they would have censored him for denying the "settled" fact that the sun revolved around the earth.

Or when Wilbur and Orville Wright were testing their airplane, I can imagine these guys arguing that, in their scientific opinion (Lord Kelvin), "heavier-than-air" flight was simply impossible. But, then, we must remember that arrogance is no stranger to the learned, and knowledge can be a dangerous thing when it becomes politicized for ulterior motives.

I read recently where even asking questions about how man's activities might affect the climate is tantamount to being a climate "denier," which has -- apparently for political, or is it religious reasons? -- come to stand for the worst sort of infidel. And make no mistake about it -- the doctrine of human-caused climate change is held religiously by those on the Left. And, make no mistake about it, some of these guys are religious fanatics. Unfortunately, unbelievers may not go unpunished.

One of the points raised by those who believe man's activities are the main cause of global warming is that there are no, or not many, "peer-reviewed" articles written proving that global warming is not a result of man's activities. Well, duh? If no professional publication will publish your work because it goes against "settled science," there may be a lack of "peer-reviewed" work to quote. Or, maybe, if you can only make money by promoting the human-caused climate change model and your source of income is dependent on what you say and write, you might be minded to say and write what's expected of you. Or maybe it's kind of scary to stand up to the immense peer pressure found in today's politicized scientific community. I'm just saying it might not be a level playing field when it comes to being open-minded about the source of climate change.

And why is there no good news associated with climate change? Carbon dioxide is a plant nutrient after all? I just saw an article the other day that an area three times the size of Texas has been found with trees growing that had not been counted as foliage before. Trees store immense amounts of carbon and so does pasture land (not to mention putting off vast amounts of oxygen), but we seldom hear the positive news about a warming earth -- such as the fact that it will be easier to raise crops to feed a growing population, or that more people die because of cold temperatures than warm ones.

But what about some of the openly anti-scientific positions that some scientists are beginning to defend? For instance, what are we to make of supposedly fact-based people who are denying plain biology in order to support a totally new interpretation of gender that, in some cases at least, can include as many as 30 or more choices when it comes to identifying a person's gender? As scientists, what should be supported: facts or feelings?

Or, consider the practice of giving sex hormones to young children in order to make their bodies conform to the gender with which they identify. Are these youngsters old enough to make an informed decision on the matter? Could someone else's agenda possibly be at work here? What about the potential for harmful side effects?

And what is to be made of folks who are promoting baby formula over breast-feeding because breast-feeding is unnatural? And, in support of that argument, they maintain that it is natural for the father to feed the baby. I say, more power to him if he can, but don't throw the baby's milk out with the bath water. We are mammals after all.

Or, what can be said for those who argue for the woman's right to do with her body whatever she pleases but do not recognize the uniqueness of the baby's DNA? Or that that uniqueness makes them a totally separate human being? Or that that uniqueness and separateness is totally a scientific fact?

Sam Byrnes is a Gentry-area resident and weekly contributor to the Eagle Observer. He may be contacted by email at [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.