I think it’s time we stop fighting those who would deny science to support their own, short-term agendas.
Some challenge evolution because it flies in the face of their religious beliefs. Others (though there is some overlap) challenge climate change because it is contrary to their economic interests.
Yes, let’s stop fighting them. Let’s help them instead. Let’s give them another scientific fact to deny.
The female orgasm.
You don’t have to go far to find bloggers who have issues with evolution or climate change. The best place to start is RedState.com. It’s not the far-right fringe of the blogosphere by any means. I consider Erick Erickson, the site’s editor, to be a rational, clear-headed individual with whom I often disagree on public policy matters — a big-tent Republican, as anachronistic as that sounds. His readers are another story. One guy, in a posting headlined “Adios,” gave his reasons why he would no longer contribute to RedState.com: “I do not for the life of me see how anyone here could be pro-abortion, or pro-homosexual marriage, or pro-evolution (well…I guess there could be some “deists” here that go along with theistic evolution), or pro-big government with higher taxes or anti-Biblical principles (upon which this nation was once founded), etc…but many “Redstaters” are for these un-American (I believe) ideas.”
Apparently, this fellow thinks that everything he disagrees with, including evolution, is “un-American”. Maybe his use of the Spanish “adios” was intentionally ironic. Or do you think I’m giving him too much credit?
RedState.com’s attack on climate change is actually more reasoned, or at least more reasonable-sounding. Various contributors show bar charts that don’t show any apparent hurricane frequency or intensity trend over time. They point out that climate has been in flux throughout the life of the planet, including humanity’s own recorded history. We as a species have lived through times both warmer and colder than the present day, and most of that period was before the Industrial Revolution, which is presumably when we gained the ability to influence climate. Fair points all, certainly worthy of discussion in any policy debate we might have on the topic. But I have two problems with the climate change denial.
First is the mocking tone. They underscore one thing that the left has been tone-deaf about: All this there’s-no-global-warming-just-look-at-the-three-feet-of-snow-on-the-ground rhetoric really was ironic. Liberals didn’t give conservatives enough credit on that one. They’re not saying anything I wouldn’t say given a straight line that fat. But between that and the ManBearPig references and all the other snide remarks, there seems to be a dearth of serious heft behind the snark. I understand that is partially a reaction to how most in the scientific community regard their point of view, but maybe that’s a reason to act more serious, not less.
The other problem is the ad hominem broadsides at the scientists involved. Not the science, the scientists. The “corrupt” scientists. And their “agenda”. What exactly do climatologists gain by fudging the facts, if that’s what they’re doing? If they were really corrupt, couldn’t they make more money working for ExxonMobil and arguing against climate change? The only downside to that would be ostracism from the “scientific community” — you know, the people who independently study the same phenomena and come up with the same, predictable, verifiable results.
One more thing I would point out about the climate change deniers. They want to make it clear — perfectly, lucidly clear — that they’re not the same as the evolution deniers. It’s just the company they keep.
So here’s my challenge to you. Add the following comment, or words to this effect, to the conservative blog of your choice, then post a link to your comment here. Feel free to downgrade the spelling to fit the education level you’re dumbing down to. Let’s see if we can begin the long-overdue national debate that will disprove, once and for all, the myth of the female orgasm:
The liberals and their junk science are more insidious that we ever imagined. Not only are they trying to undermine our Christian faith with their evolution dogma. Not only are they trying to weaken our already dismal economy with their global warming lies. There’s another scientific fallacy they’ve been trying to get us to believe for decades, and mostly they’ve succeeded. When are we good, conservative Americans going to wake up to what the liberals are actually teaching in their sex ed classes? This myth of the female orgasm is undermining family values in every community in our nation. By teaching our daughters that they can actually experience pleasure as part of the act of intercourse, they are actually encouraging them to go out and perform impure acts. By the time they realize that they were lied to, that the female orgasm is as much a fallacy as evolution or global warming, the damage is done. This plot, which benefits nobody but the abortionists, has affected even the best of families. If not for the fiction of female orgasm, Governor Palin would not be so young a grandmother. If not for the fiction of female orgasm, Vice President Cheney’s family might be spared the indignity of a daughter’s quest for pleasure from the ministrations of another woman. We urge every American to write his or her school board, and demand that any reference to female orgasm by removed from any lesson plan, whether it be in health, science or any other curriculum.
In America’s Name,
[your pseudonym here]
Director of [your chosen portfolio here]
The American Institute for Fairness In Biological Education