A Bad Week for The Science™

The late comedian Mitch Hedberg, known for his clever one-liners, had a great quip about following his dreams. 

“I’m sick of following my dreams,” he said. “I’m just going to ask them where they’re going and hook up with them later.” 

If you’ve been following The Science™—and boy had you better, lest you risk being accosted by a self-appointed member of the mask police in the supermarket—you might be feeling a little bit like Mitch Hedberg felt about his dreams. 

Monday, we learned that the Center for Disease Control (CDC) was consulting teachers’ unions about whether it was safe to reopen schools. 

This might strike you as odd. You probably thought the CDC was following The Science™, and kindergarten teachers, to be sure, are not scientists. 

Could it be that our esteemed government scientists are beholden to certain political interests, and not necessarily just to The Science™? Could it be that nobody working for the federal or state governments knows what the hell they’re doing? That doesn’t seem right. These are professional scientists, and The Science™ is sacred, we’ve been told. 

Of course, there was a period in time when following The Science™ meant not wearing a mask. Masks weren’t effective in fighting the coronavirus, The Science™ said at the beginning of the pandemic. These days, The Science™ says double-masking—wearing two masks instead of just one—is a more effective measure in stopping the spread of the coronavirus. Following The Science™ in 180 degree circles can be dizzying, but who are we to argue?

Following The Science™, we were led to believe that locking down the country for 15 days would “stop the spread” of the coronavirus, and then we could resume our lives as normal. We’re now on approximately day 11,496 to “stop the spread,” and if you’ve been following The Science™ for this long, your legs are probably getting tired.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo followed The Science™ by herding sick coronavirus patients into nursing homes. The result was a lot of death, which The Science™ was supposed to be helping us avoid. 

There are many such cases of The Science™ seemingly gone awry in during the pandemic, but Texas would have to freeze over before I even consider questioning the wisdom of our very smart government-employed scientists. 

Which brings us to the next major bummer for proponents of The Science™ this week. 

The Science™ says that windmills are an effective green energy alternative to fossil fuels, which we’re told we must cease using before we have “The Day After Tomorrow” plot on our hands, and Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal have to come to our rescue.  

But it got cold in Texas, and a bunch of wind turbines froze up, causing some parts of the state to lose power completely. Non-scientist left-wingers, the most insufferable public worshippers of The Science™, are particularly aggrieved by the fallibility of windmills, because now we, “deniers” of The Science™, get to point and laugh at them. 

As many Texans whose homes are powered by frozen windmills are currently learning, when the windmills stop working, you’re forced to live by candlelight like Texans did during the Alamo. And as it turns out, windmills have a tendency to stop working when there is no wind, or in this case, when they’re covered by snow and ice. They’ve also been rightly described as an “aesthetic disaster” known for killing bald eagles. 

Similarly, proponents of The Science™ blather on about the divinity of solar energy, but never seem to mention what happens when it gets cloudy. 

The fact of the matter—and one that proponents of The Science™ never seem to account for in this public debate—is rather simple: at this point in history, there is no green energy alternative to fossil fuels capable of meeting the demands of modern life. In fact, all of the green energy alternatives to fossil fuels combined could not power a First World society for a single day. 

That pesky fact about the shortcomings of green energy alternatives is rather inconvenient for the left-wing, non-scientist doomsayers, who are particularly dedicated to following The Science™ all the way back to the 18th century. At this point, a life without fossil fuels would mean no cars for driving and no electricity for charging an iPhone, among other major inconveniences. Bear in mind, the climate zealots tend to be the types who can’t live outside a five-mile radius of a Whole Foods. Roughing it with a non-existent power grid doesn’t seem to suit them. 

As usual, the political Left is acting in bad faith. 

Leftists are no more or less prone to following The Science™ than any Republican. 

In the case of the coronavirus, they are simply less skeptical of the federal government’s scientists, and the motives of those scientists, than Republicans are. As usual, they are unquestioning quislings of the dominant power structure. In the case of “climate change,” they feel virtuous when they say they support green energy, as though supporting something that doesn’t exist at the necessary scale to power the world somehow makes them more eco-friendly than their counterparts on the political Right. 

In simpler terms, The Science™ has become politicized.

So, like Mitch Hedberg, I think I’m going to stop following The Science™. I’ll wait to see where it’s going, and meet up with it later.

 

About Peter D'Abrosca

Peter D'Abrosca is a conservative campaign strategist, author, and columnist. A proud law school dropout, he is not a decorated member of the fancy credentialed class, and that's just the way he prefers it. He considers himself a political outsider who seeks to give a voice to the long-forgotten American working class.

Photo: Getty Images

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.