How Democrats Deny Science

by Dr. Ed Berry

We all know Democrats and Republicans differ on partisan politics. But there are bipartisan issues where everyone should agree. We should all agree on what facts and science tell us.

Democrats, in general, claim scientists like me “deny climate change.” The truth is these Democrats deny science.

Anyone who has an open mind to scientific truth will understand there is no evidence that our carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous climate change.

Facts prove our carbon dioxide emissions are not dangerous. If anything, facts show we should try to increase the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

In Montana, Democrats promote their candidate for Superintendent of Schools. But Democrats have promoted their false climate religion in our schools and universities. Democrats have dumbed down our whole society.

The strongest argument for electing a Republican to Superintendent of Schools is to stop the destructive promotion of the false climate religion.

Science denial cuts both ways in our governor’s contest. Our Republican candidate believes our earth and universe are 6000 years old. Our Democrat candidate believes our carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous climate change.

Which is worse for a Montana governor? Believing the earth is 6000 years old or believing our carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous climate change?

The answer is obvious. The false climate religion causes far more damage to our economy than the belief our earth is 6000 years old. The false climate religion destroys our abundant cheap energy, the foundation of our economy.

At the presidential level, the choice is even more clear. Hillary will work to shut down America’s best sources of abundant cheap energy. Donald Trump will work to build up America’s best sources of abundant, cheap energy.

In the past month, I posted several new articles on climate change.

My July 5 article, Why Eric Grimsrud is wrong about climate, has 126 comments. My article on Soon’s, Sun not CO2 causes climate change, has 92 comments.

Some Democrat scientists have attempted to show these articles are wrong. They have failed to do so. Read the comments and judge for yourself.

Today, Democrat David Appell added a comment wherein he denied the facts shown in a chart before him. His comment led me to post two more articles today:

Data contradict government Climate Claims is John Christy’s full Testimony to U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology on February 2, 2016. Christy shows why the Democrat climate change agenda is a religion rather than science.

Global Warming for Dummies and Activists is Roy Spencer’s talk at the International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas in 2014. Spencer presents a “sixth-grade” level of climate change that is very easy to understand.

Check out these excellent articles on the truth about climate. Comment as you wish.

15 thoughts on “How Democrats Deny Science”

  1. About 5 to 10 percent of voters say they support Libertarian Gary Johnson. Johnson believes the false climate religion. Johnson can’t win but his supporters will help Hillary win.

    Only Hillary or Trump can win. Fence sitters and third-party voters who claim to be conservatives are not conservatives. They are Democrats.

    True Americans support Donald Trump, not because he is perfect. No one is perfect. But because Donald Trump will be far better for America than liar criminal Hillary.

    I correctly predicted Trump would win the Republican nomination. Now I predict he will win the presidency.

  2. Vox Day explained why he supports Donald Trump:

    I am often asked why I, a Christian libertarian and intellectual, would publicly support Donald Trump, a man of no fixed ideology, no apparent religious beliefs, multiple marriages, visible ties to the Clintons, and whose taste and sophistication tends to resemble that of a nouveau riche rhinoceros. It is a reasonable question. After all, how can anyone support a candidate whose public statements are, to put it mildly, inconsistent—when they are not completely self-contradictory.

    The answer is as simple as it is conclusive and convincing. Donald Trump is the only candidate in either major party whose personal interests are aligned with those of the American public rather than with the interests of the anti-nationalist elite who see America as nothing more than lines on a map and Americans as nothing more than 300 million economic units in the global economy.

    Ask yourself this: why did Donald Trump run for president in the first place? I believe the real reason is that he, like you, is deeply concerned about the current state of the United States of America, and he, like you, fears for its future.

    I support Donald Trump because he loves the America that once was, and he is willing to put both his body and his reputation on the line in order to restore America to that unique state that was the envy of the entire world. That is what he means by Make America Great Again.

    Donald Trump not only wants to make America great again, he wants America to be American. That is what distinguishes him from Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. And that is why I support him.

        1. David, you are out of order in your name-calling. When I had my business, I employed Jewish people and I even let them take their Jewish holidays. So you owe me an apology.

    1. David, Are you so stupid to believe that just because CO2 absorbs infrared radiation that therefore, it causes dangerous global warming?

      Which reminds me, why are you afraid to tell the readers about the PhD degree you claim you have? Was it mail order? Did you do a thesis? If so, where is it?

      One thing is very obvious: you do not know or understand the scientific method.

        1. Appell, you exhibit a trait common among liberals. You think you know more than you do and with anyone disagreeing with you, you must take a condescending tone. Another liberal trait. I see your arrogance only exceeded by your ignorance. Your doctorate credentials notwithstanding. You can't substantiate AGW and that is a fact that Dr. Berry has pointed out to you. Correctly, I might add. So what is your point here? To troll? It appears so. Have a good day.

        1. David, I, like many physicists, have done the simple calculation. Some have spent a lifetime doing it in detail. This is not the subject here.

          Let's get back to the subject. I have shown in this and other articles that the global warming hypothesis make invalid predictions. I have also shown that CO2 changes do not even correlate with global temperature changes.

          The conclusion is the global warming hypothesis is invalid.

          You have not and cannot rebut the fact that the hypothesis you support is wrong.

          Let's put this in perspective for the readers who are not scientists. The burden of proof in any scientific hypothesis rests on those who claim the hypothesis is true. You are one of them.

          The philosophy of science shows it is impossible to prove a hypothesis is true. But if the hypothesis makes only one false prediction then the hypothesis is wrong.

          So your attempt to change the subject and focus on one little detail of the overall hypothesis is irrelevant. You cannot save your hypothesis with physics details.

          It does not take a scientist to understand when a hypothesis is wrong. Anyone can understand the charts I have referenced that show how climate models way over predict realty, and that show CO2 does not correlate with global temperature. Anyone can understand that these charts show the global warming hypothesis is wrong.

          Apparently, this simple concept is above your pay grade. If you were a real scientist, you would acknowledge the global warming hypothesis has failed. The issue is not in the details. The issue is that a prediction of the details failed.

          It's really simple, David. Anyone with common sense can understand this. Why not you?

  3. "Anyone who has an open mind to scientific truth will understand there is no evidence that our carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous climate change."

    And where has your journal paper on this been published?

    1. David, you continue to show that you do not understand the scientific method. Obviously, you did not learn it to get your PhD.

      The scientific method says the burden of proof is on the side that promotes the hypothesis. This means I need to show only one case where your AGW theory makes a wrong prediction. I have shown several. You, on the other hand, must show that the data that proves your prediction is wrong, is incorrect data. You have not done this and you have not even accepted your responsibility as a scientist that you must do this.

      Another AGW prediction failed this week. AGW freaks predicted several years ago that all the arctic ice would be gone by September 2016. As you know, arctic ice is still there, In fact, it has increased this year.

      My conclusion, that you quote above, is correct because you have not shown it to be incorrect. I don't need to publish a journal paper to prove this. You need to publish a journal paper to prove my conclusion is wrong. The burden of proof is on you. Get it?

      For example, if a drug company claimed its new drug did wonders with no side effect, the burden of proof is on the company. Now, if many people die after taking the drug, it does not take a PhD in medicine to determine the company's claim is wrong. Unless the company can prove the data is wrong about people dying, then the conclusion is the drug is dangerous.

      In the AGW game, you are playing the part of the company. Your predictions have failed. It does not take a PhD, or a scientific paper, to show that your predictions have failed. The burden of proof is on you to show that the data that prove your prediction has failed are wrong. You have not done this. And you never will.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.