By Tom Klocek

Leftists like to claim that whatever program they are pushing is based on science, and the science is “settled.” They do this to try to squelch any opposing commentary or argument. What it really shows, however, is their ignorance.

The encyclopedia Britannica defines the scientific method as follows: the “mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis.” It utilizes mathematical and statistical tools to examine hypotheses with rigorous requirements for data collection, data quantities, and experimental controls. Credible scientific journals require these steps to be followed and specified in their studies, following up with peer reviews by fellow scientists in the field to ensure quality of results. When these processes are ignored or violated (e.g., by insufficient sample size, uncontrolled data collection, improper statistical analysis, etc.), the results can be invalid or at least suspect.

Many studies of late, including some supposedly “peer reviewed,” on closer review have been found to have “overlooked” or even violated some of the processes. For example, as we look into more details about some of the COVID vaccines, we find that there was data that was ignored (all data validly collected needs to be included or the results are invalid or, at best, incomplete). Many studies today have already reached a conclusion and become selective in the data used. Others violate the principles of statistical analysis by incorrectly applying confidence-level tests. Often these actions are taken to support some political position, forgetting that, as one scientist said, “When science becomes political, it ceases being science.”

The latest “scientific” findings used to support some green programs on the basis of safety is the one to denigrate and potentially “outlaw” gas stoves. On the surface, it is facetious and specious because the supposed link to asthma is not only weak but without causality. And if keeping people from contracting asthma is really important, wouldn’t saving lives be even more important? So why haven’t cigarettes been completely banned? There is a proven causality between cigarette smoking and various respiratory problems, including lung cancer.

When someone starts throwing around the “settled science” phrase, I immediately get suspect. Even those whose only understanding of science is science “history” should know better. They are quick to denigrate the Catholic Church for “denying” Galileo’s science (although that is not what happened between the Church and Galileo — and he wasn’t imprisoned; at worst he was under “house arrest”), but when “settled science” is challenged they cry “foul” and attempt to suppress any opposition. Let’s face it: If they were that sure their science was correct, they would welcome a challenge, as it would only serve to reinforce their version of things. Instead, they deny funding, discussion, further experimentation, or even serious investigation into their findings (Pfizer wanted to suppress its studies on its COVID vaccine for 55 years).

And from a historical standpoint, certain aspects of the “settled science” of Newtonian physics were overturned when Einstein introduced his theory of relativity. In today’s world, if any semblance of science was being taught in the schools, this should be common knowledge.

Sadly, today, people whose business is based on science want to deny these things. Otherwise, there would be no doubt that a man is a man and a woman is a woman. One has to wonder about the education of our school system when a candidate for the Supreme Court couldn’t tell that she was a woman because she wasn’t a biologist. And psychologists would understand gender dysphoria and the fact that 85%-90% of children outgrow it and that for the remainder, there is usually some underlying cause that in most cases can be addressed through therapy. Apparently, however, therapy, as costly as it is, isn’t as lucrative as chemical dependency and multiple complex surgeries. However, those pushing the LGBT+ agenda deny those statistics and any real science behind them. Science has repeatedly shown that there is no “gay gene” (i.e., genetic basis for someone being homosexual), nor is there a transgender gene. And the science actually shows that whatever sex you are born with is the sex you will have all your life. You can mutilate the body and try to make it look like something else, but the genes will not change. And, biologically, it is clear that men and women are made for procreation. Homosexuality is contrary to procreation, as a homosexual couple cannot naturally procreate.

To declare that Christianity, because it teaches these principles, is homophobic is the real lie. Homosexuality and transgenderism are actually anti-Christian (besides being anti-science), and their anti-Christian activism is an attack on religion, which is protected by the Constitution. This is not stereotyping, it’s reality. To deny the biology and science (supposedly in the name of science) is to deny reality.

Instead of being a tool for learning and advancing civilization, science is becoming a weapon to control an ignorant and easily frightened populace. There are still people who truly believe the world will end in 5-7 years. Consider who made that claim: Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), a former bartender whose science credentials are extremely limited (if she has any at all). Add this to the fact that climate fears have been loudly vocalized for over 50 years and have yet to meet up with any of their predictions.

We are still learning the intricacies of our planet, our solar system, and our universe. We are just beginning to fully understand solar activity, how it affects our planet and our climate, as well as their cycles. Oceanic cycles, which have a significant effect on weather and climate, are still in early stages of understanding. And yet a very vocal segment of the scientific community (and non-scientific community — Al Gore’s scientific expertise is suspect, especially considering all that he was wrong about) has managed to capture the limelight and the backing of a political party bent on imposing fear and control on the population it is supposed to protect.

Other evidence of the politicizing of science is the issue of electric cars, wind energy, and solar cells. If one were to examine the whole picture of climate, environment, resources, and manufacturing, one would realize that “going electric” and “going green” will have an adverse impact on people and the planet. The science reveals it.

The fact that the bulk of the citizenry doesn’t realize this is an indictment of our public education system, which is too full of a sense of its own importance.

When political agendas and money are involved, science becomes a form of manipulation rather than a search for the truth.