The Left’s Only ‘Scientific Principle’
There is not a single calendar season during which normal weather patterns and events are not offered as “evidence” of global warming (or substitute the scare term du jour). It’s “science”…or something…
However, climate alarmism isn’t the only dubious “science” out there.
“Political Science” and certain Economics academics, practitioners and allied activists share climate alarmists’ affectation that they are somehow involved in scientific disciplines.
However, “Political Science” and “Climate Science,” at least how the latter is practiced by alarmists, and, to some degree, “Economics” are the only “sciences” that are based solely upon assumptions.
“Assuming that our models are correct…,” “Assuming that markets respond predictably…,” “Assuming voter sentiment and turnout…,” “Assuming the accuracy of guesses we’ve made to compensate for enormous variables….”
In fact, the assumptions underlying those “sciences” are seldom expressed – that fourth one, never – but it’s virtually impossible to escape the “authoritative conclusions” of their practitioners and ideological devotees.
Starting with assumptions, practitioners of all three “scientific disciplines” can produce complex polynomial equations to “prove” almost any predetermined result.
From Study.com: “Polynomial equations are equations that have multiple terms made up of numbers and variables. The degree is the highest exponent of the polynomial. The degree tells us how many roots are found in a polynomial equation. The roots of the polynomial equation are the values of x where y = 0.”
Got that?
“Climate alarmist,” “Economic” and “Political” “scientists” assume that most people will not get it. Often, that’s their only accurate assumption.
If all of their “scientific” assumptions were correct, then, Hillary Clinton would have been a two-term president; we’d now be experiencing 1970s scientists’ predicted Modern Ice Age; according to more recent “scientific” prognostications, glaciers would have melted and polar bears gone extinct; snowfall would be a thing of the past; Manhattan and Miami would be underwater; Earth would have passed non-reversible climate tipping points in 2000, 2012, 2016 and 2024; humans would be gone by 2026; and socialism would be working in the Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela.
But, if socialism is an effective economic system, why is the Soviet Union history, Cuba still an island prison, why has Venezuela suffered hyper-inflation, power outages, and food shortages, and why are millions of Cubans and Venezuelans refugees?
And, if “Say’s Law of Economics” – if you make it, people will buy it – is science, why didn’t people buy Edsels, the New Coke or Cheetos Lip Balm?
If warming is global, why aren’t Europeans, Asians or South Americans predicting inundated coastal cities?
Unsurprisingly, anxious climate dilettantes who majored in English Lit/History/International Relations/etc. angrily reject open discussion. They can be, and typically are extraordinarily angrily dismissive to anyone who questions or openly disagrees with their quasi-religious pretentions. To them, “heretics” are morons who don’t understand their “science.” After all, their panels of “experts” – climate clerisy – aren’t questioning their doctrine, so who can possibly disagree?
In fact, all three “sciences” have become forms of Political Science, or, more accurately, partisan politics as generally practiced by committed socialists.
But, the Poli/Sci landscape is changing. People have begun asking questions.
Even the Democrats’ house organ, the New York Times, has noticed that socialism depends upon public ignorance, reporting, perhaps regretfully, “Americans generally like the idea of taxing other people to provide benefits for people like themselves. But…redistributive policies become less popular as more details about them become known – one reason some Democrats are worried that initial public support for proposals like “Medicare for all” and guaranteed free tuition to…colleges will eventually wane.”
To that list, add “global warming” and the “Green New Deal.”
Attentive observers noticed that only after climate was politicized were common, more-or-less-severe weather phenomena offered as “evidence” that that a climate apocalypse was upon us.
In fact, speculative “science” has become routine left-wing agitprop, pretenses to achieve the left’s usual socialist policy goals – accumulating power, raising taxes, growing government, limiting personal freedoms, hamstringing free markets, and relinquishing national sovereignty at home and abroad.
Amusingly, the Washington Post reported that, according to data from CQ Roll Call, 135 Senate and House members, a full one quarter of the body, studied Political Science.
One supposes that writing this makes me a “science denier” or “heretic” rather than an informed political skeptic.
Frankly, I can handle it.
Call me cynical, but, regarding politicized “science” – a/k/a, politics – cynicism is almost always rewarded.
https://www.pottsmerc.com/2026/06/21/jerry-shenk-politics-the-lefts-only-scientific-principle/
…
[Message clipped] View entire message
