The science is settled: US liberals really are the dumbest creatures on the planet

Science settled on liberal folly.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews: journalism needs less truth, less balance

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: journalism needs less truth, less balance

Today I am in New York on my publicity tour for Watermelons and as I sat at breakfast this morning, chomping on an Ess-a-bagel and reading Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics I found myself wondering – not for the first time – why it is that liberal-lefties manage to be so utterly wrong about everything.

“Because they’re stupid,” said a libertarian friend of mine.

“Oh come on, not all of them surely? A bit misguided, maybe but…” I protested.

“No really they’re stupid because they’re not interested in facts. They just want to construct their pretty little narrative about the world, regardless of whether or not it has any bearing on reality. And then they want to dump it on us. And ruin our lives. So not just stupid but evil too.”

Well, you know me: what a big-hearted, sensitive, caring, emollient kind of guy I am. I thought these words were harsh, really harsh. But that was before I saw this video.

It features Chris Matthews, one of America’s most popular liberal talk show hosts, talking to a liberal journalist from liberal blogsite Salon called Joan Walsh and another liberal journalist from liberal Rolling Stone magazine on the liberal politics programme Hardball. And guess what these liberals believe the problem with Climate Change is? Go on: think of the most stupid, reality-denying, fact-ignoring, evidence-torturing tosh anyone involved in the media could possibly have to say on the subject. (H/T  Climate Depot)

Yes, that’s right.

They think that the naughty yellow pixies who pull the special, magic Climat-O-Levers which control the weather have been paid by evil capitalists with fat cigars in their mouth and $ signs on their pinstripe suits to make the world’s climate all horrid so that poor, underprivileged and disabled people and endangered creatures suffer – and that the reason we don’t know about it is because the media is run by evil Conservatives who want to keep this truth a secret.

Well, almost. What these liberal opinion-formers actually think – and you’ve really got to hand it to them: not even a lobotomised amoeba could beat them in a competition for dumbest creature on the planet, these three are absolute champs, Matthews especially, make no mistake – is as follows.

They think the main reasons for the public’s growing scepticism on Climate Change are 1. The media has been far too balanced on the subject and is not pushing the eco-message hard enough. 2. Big business is funding Climate Denialism. 3. Evil Conservatives – led by Evil Talk Show Hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck – are deliberately telling lies about Climate Change. 4. The Republican party is “anti-science”.

My favourite bit is the one where Chris Matthews, who I believe takes himself seriously as a journalist, declares: “I hate that even-handed, so-called objective journalism. You know, you can’t say something isn’t true if it’s true….”

Do you know, on that last point at least I totally agree with Chris Matthews. So let’s examine a few of the claims which he and his two guest liberal echo chambers made on Hardball.

1. The media under-reports climate change. Oh yes. That will explain, for example, the recent widely reported story Decline Of Oceans Worse Than Previously Thought – given unquestioning coverage everywhere from the Sydney Morning Herald, the New York Times and Time magazine to the BBC. Yet as research from Ben Pile at Climate Resistance shows, most of these experts offering their supposed expert views on the imminence of pelagic climate doom were in fact just an ad hoc group of activists from heavily politicised organisations like Greenpeace and Pew Environment Group. Such is the state of Environmental reporting around the world these days: it consists of little more than lovingly transcribed press releases from hardcore ecoloon pressure groups.

2 Jo Nova has estimated that the amount spent by government agencies, left-leaning charitable foundations and big business promoting “global warming” is approximately 3,500 times more than the amount spent funding climate change scepticism.

3. With notable exceptions such as Fox news, US conservative talk radio, the generally right-leaning blogosphere and one or two papers such as Canada’s National Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Daily Express (and increasingly, the Mail) there are few media outlets in the world which broadcast anything other than green propaganda. Far from being evil, the likes of Beck and Limbaugh are islands of truth in a (presumably doomed, increasingly acidified) ocean of lies. (I’d be interested if Matthews could produce some concrete examples of these “lies” that Limbaugh and Beck have told on climate change).

4. Would that be “science” in the sense used by Al Gore, as in the received wisdom of a self-selecting cabal of post-normal activist scientists who dominate organisations like the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society. If so, then the Republican party is indeed “anti-science” because – with notable exceptions such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, of whom more in a subsequent post, very likely to be entitled “Mitt Romney prefers dog poop yogurt” – bases its scientific views on old fashioned virtues like rationalism, empiricism and open-minded, honest research rather than junk science dogma.

If we’re talking about science in the more old fashioned sense of the word as it might have been understood by, say Newton or Popper, rather than James Hansen or Al Gore, then no, the Republicans are not “anti-science.”

Related posts:

  1. Why aren’t there more rewards for being right?
  2. Conservative blacks are fed up with being patronised by liberals and bureaucrats
  3. ‘Post-normal science’ is perfect for climate demagogues — it isn’t science at all
  4. 10 Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Be In Libya

20 thoughts on “The science is settled: US liberals really are the dumbest creatures on the planet”

  1. Todd says:24th June 2011 at 12:36 pmYou should write for The Onion. That’s some of the best satire i’ve ever read.
  2. Peter says:24th June 2011 at 2:58 pmWhen I read this post, I honestly wondered whether the author actually believed what he had written, or whether the post was intended as an ironic demonstration of conservative stupidity.

    While intended to demonstrate how dumb liberals are, the author quotes his libertarian friend in stating, “No really [liberals are] stupid because they’re not interested in facts. They just want to construct their pretty little narrative about the world, regardless of whether or not it has any bearing on reality. And then they want to dump it on us. And ruin our lives. So not just stupid but evil too.”

    However, here is the irony. That statement is more applicable to conservatives than liberals, making the entire article an exercise in psychological delusions and imposing the insecurities of one ideological community on its competition. Kinda the same way Fox News is always attacking the “mainstream media” for liberal bias when the truth is that Fox News is designed to appeal to conservatives, and therefore anything left of right, even when it’s in the center, is part of some evil conspiracy.

    Democrats listen to scientists and form their public policies based on what scientists tell them need to be done. Doing what the smartest guys in the room tell you to do isn’t dumb. It’s smart. Republicans, on the other hand, treat scientists with hostility if whatever the scientists say runs counter to what common conservative thought.

    Same deal with economists. In the past four years, Democrats have followed the advice of our nation’s smartest economists, who nearly unanimously warned that if action wasn’t taken, America would sink into a second Great Depression. Republicans advocates courses of policy which many economists came out as saying would stagnate and ultimately destroy the American economy. When President George W. Bush was presented with those choices, he was forced to pick between doing what was right for America versus what was right in terms of conservative thought. And he picked America. I know some of Congress’ top economists, and they’ve all told me the same thing. Liberals come to them looking for advice as to what policies would do America the most good, whereas conservatives come to them looking for advice as to how to make it look like their policies would do the most good. And this has apparently been a trend for decades.

    There is a reason the vast majority of scientists are Democrats. And it’s not because scientists are dumb. And it doesn’t have to do with feeling insulted because mainstream conservative America has an open hostility towards intellectualism and science. It’s because conservative public policy, in its current incarnation, contradicts what our brightest minds tell us needs to be done, and repeatedly uses every opportunity to advance ideological goals rather than advance intelligent public policy which will make America a better and stronger nation.

    Despite what the author implies, and what most conservatives believe, liberalism isn’t about taking a dump on America or freedom. Or ruining people’s lives. And being evil. In fact, true liberalism is nothing like what the conservative media paints it as.

    Modern liberalism is about true fiscal responsibility, which is more complex and intricate than one tax cut for the rich after another. What conservatives don’t want us to notice is that the debt we have today is in large part the consequence of the conservative economic policies of the past decade in which massive tax cuts were granted without being paid for, on the assumption that the stimulus of the tax cuts would produce higher revenue streams as the economy improved. This has been proven false. And it only costs us trillions of dollars to learn the lesson: conservative economics doesn’t work. At least, not in the real world.

    Modern liberalism is about freedom. Be it women’s freedom over their own bodies, to religious freedom and people’s right to be free of others imposing their religious teachings on them.

    Modern liberalism is about information, and making the best decisions based on what our most brilliant scientists, economists, and sociologists tell us needs to be done to make tomorrow better than today.

    Modern liberalism is about personal responsibility and communal responsibility. And no, that’s not the same thing as communism. Or socialism. Or whatever the bobble-heads at Fox have instructed conservatives to believe. It’s about rewarding personal responsibility, such as buying health care, and punishing irresponsible behavior. It’s about looking after each other since everyone can have a run of bad luck, rather than living in a purely competitive society lacking in compassion.

    Modern liberalism is about being strong and sensible, and an advocate for freedom all across this great globe – not hunting down evil people (though Obama proved we’re better at that too).

    If I believed everything that this author, not to mention conservatives in general, seem to believe about liberalism… now THAT would be dumb.

  3. billy says:24th June 2011 at 3:15 pmTortured verbal stylings, in your face provocation, logical callisthenics. It’s all been done before, and so much more amusingly, by much more intelligent writers.
  4. Frank Tavos says:24th June 2011 at 3:38 pm@Peter:

    Is this some kind of satiric piece you’ve written?

    Here’s my favourite bit from your post:

    “Modern liberalism is about personal responsibility…”

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha… (takes large breath)…hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    Funniest thing I’ve read in a long time.

  5. Hilary says:24th June 2011 at 5:42 pmPeter, your verbose and bloated comment is the satire. The great thing about Delingpole is that his hilarity is based on the reality that libs are LOONS, the skunks at the birthday party dressed like Lady Gaga and stinking to high heaven and ruining everything they touch.
    Your comments are hilarious because one reads them realizing you are clueless.

    Frank Tavos says it best HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

  6. Frank Tavos says:24th June 2011 at 6:58 pm@ Peter:

    No wait, here’s an even better one!

    “It’s about rewarding personal responsibility, such as buying health care, and punishing irresponsible behavior.”

    Do you mean irresponsible behaviour like:

    – wanting big government to stay the hell out of our lives?
    – wanting to benefit from the fruits of our own labour and initiative?
    – saying whatever one wants, whenever one wants, as is the right of all free people?

    Need I go on? You sir, like all liberals, are a lover of government tyranny. You want to tell everyone how to live their lives, to fit your own small-minded image of how society should be. You want to stifle discussion and legislate everyone to think as you do.

    Since I can’t believe that someone who writes as well as you do is as naive and ignorant as the content of your post indicates, I am forced to conclude that you are truly dumb.

  7. clair voyant says:24th June 2011 at 7:13 pmYou’ve come upon the only way to deal with Chris Matthews, and all Liberals for that matter, and that is to laugh at and ridicule everything they say.

    The other night on Hardball, I heard Matthews say “we all know that Obama is a genius…”

    What???….Where are the facts to support that? Certainly not in the manner in which he has led his country.

    Keep exposing, laughing, ridiculing. It may not make them watch what they say, but it is great fun and we all can use the good laugh.

  8. Brent S says:24th June 2011 at 8:43 pmConservatives want to control your life – Abortion, Gay Marriage, et al. Don’t think for a second they’re about “freedom” – if it was, they’d stay out of it. And you got to love how they love the fetus up until the moment the thing is born – then it’s “fend for yourself, and don’t make me pay for the extra roads, schools, prisons this extra sea of unwanted children will require”.
  9. Enigman says:27th June 2011 at 8:47 pmPeter,
    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha……….Thanks, I haven’t laughed so hard in a long time.

    Hey look, there goes a personally responsible person with my tax money to buy dope.

  10. Andrew Ryan says:29th June 2011 at 9:54 amFrank Tavos: “wanting big government to stay the hell out of our lives?”

    Brent S is quite correct. If Republicans didn’t want to interfere in people’s lives then they’d ALL stop opposing gay marriage, let people take whatever drugs they wanted, stop trying to force people to say prayers in schools, stop forcing soldiers to take part in religious activities, and stop trying to interfere with women’s reproductive rights. I’m not saying these are all necessarily evil things to do, just against libertarian principles.

    Republicans who support these policies should remember that when they point the ‘interfering government’ finger at liberals, they’re pointing three of their own fingers back at themselves.

    “saying whatever one wants, whenever one wants, as is the right of all free people?”

    As opposed to – “I don’t want to do it, therefore it should be illegal”.

    Keep laughing, because the joke is on you!

  11. Frank Tavos says:29th June 2011 at 4:53 pm@ Andrew Ryan

    You haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about. You appear to have mistaken me for a Republican. Your comments are founded on ignorance, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.

    The fact is, I don’t want to control your life or anyone else’s. I’m a conservative of the libertarian persuasion. I agree with you on the some of the points you raised. I’m also not saying government has no role to play in society. I just think it should play a much smaller role. I don’t think government should be forcing soldiers (or anyone) to say prayers or take part in religious ceremonies. On the other hand, I also don’t think that the government should forbid soldiers or citizens from practicing their religion openly. I also don’t think that recreational drugs should regulated by government. The so-called War on Drugs is an incredible waste of time and money.

    As for gay marriage, the term itself is meaningless. Marriage has been defined since time immemorial as a union between a man and a woman. It is of benefit to society to enforce social mores through social means, not by getting the government to change such a fundamental principle of our society to pander to a vocal minority. It is the left in general and gays in particular who are the ones who are trying to force the issue (through government coercion) by redefining the very essence of the meaning of marriage.

    As for the ridiculous euphemism, “women’s reproductive rights”, if you are saying the government doesn’t have the power to enforce the criminal law to protect the lives of unborn human beings, then you’re advocating anarchy. I’m not an anarchist. As I said before, the government has a small role to play in society, and enforcing laws against murder fall into that limited bailiwick.

    So I stand behind my original statement in saying that I believe in and want:

    – big government to stay the hell out of our lives;
    – everyone to benefit from the fruits of their own labour and initiative; and
    – the right to say whatever one wants, whenever one wants.

    So, actually, the joke’s on you, because you’ve set up a straw man and knocked it down, but you haven’t even begun to deal with the issues I’ve raised.

  12. Andrew Ryan says:29th June 2011 at 7:23 pmActually Frank, I prefer to base my opinions on fact. You might want to try that some time. The blog we are commenting on specifically refers to US politics. Congrats on your liberal stance on drugs and on religious freedom – you are at odds with the GOP on these positions. The rest of your post is apologetics justifying government control, as I expected. I’d engage more with your points – there is certainly a good discussion to have on the crossover opinions shared by liberals and libertarians on many subjects, but given your initial ‘ha ha ha’ posts, my response was as much as you deserved.
  13. Frank Tavos says:29th June 2011 at 7:46 pmYeah well… fuck you, too, Andy.
  14. Nige Cook says:29th June 2011 at 8:34 pmThe French for f*** is foutre, which would sound more polite, although maybe that would not be understood so clearly.

    (I hope James will be OK selling Watermelons at a discount on this website, when Amazon in the past has refused to sell books which are available cheaper online elsewhere? Although maybe this policy has changed, or maybe it doesn’t apply since it is (USA), not Is Watermelons going to come out in the UK, or are all the publishers here too biased to bring it out?

  15. Frank Tavos says:30th June 2011 at 2:32 pmNige:

    I also c0uld have said it in Latin, but philistines like Andy-boy would probably consider that a “dead language”. To wit:

    Futue te ipsum, et caballum teum. (trans: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!)

  16. Andrew Ryan says:30th June 2011 at 2:55 pmOdi profannum vulgus.
  17. Frank Tavos says:30th June 2011 at 5:42 pmWe’re making some progress, then. If you hate the vulgar rabble, then I guess you hate liberals. There’s nothing more vulgar than a liberal.

    Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!

  18. Frank Tavos says:1st September 2011 at 1:37 pmYawn… could you two wankers please turn out the light when you’re finished your pointless gab-fest?
    1. James Delingpole says:1st September 2011 at 1:56 pmIt’s OK Frank. I’ve just spammed the trolls. One of the privileges of web page ownership.
  19. Frank Tavos says:9th September 2011 at 4:56 pmMerci beaucoup, Jimbo.

    When’s the next Coward novel out? Not trying to put any pressure on you, but I need another fix!

Comments are closed.