The Parties of Science

Vincent J. Curtis

1 June 2016

RE: Law change will recognize same-sex parents.  (CP) written by Keith Leslie

RE: Feds need to improve planning, tracking for severe weather events.  (CP) written by Bruce Cheadle.

The first story is about Premier Kathleen Wynne announcing that the definition of parents in Ontario will change from a man and a woman.  Cheri DiNovo had introduced a private member's bill to this effect, and it is supposed to be superseded by a government bill.  The story notes that the Attorney-General says that draft legislation needs to be worked on "because it seems to like it's going to be negative towards other families."  Ya think?

The second story concerns an audit of expenditures in the federal environmental department.  Apparently money intended to be spent on 'climate mitigation' isn't being accessed by the target audience, and the technocrats try to explain why.  Julie Gelfand's remarks inadvertently reveal her assumptions, and through them her utter failure to understand the subject matter before her. 

It is highly amusing to watch members of the parties of science struggle and stumble over basic facts of science.  You would think that science should be like water in their mouths, and yet they handle scientific facts like Homer Simpson handles radioactive material.

Premier Kathleen Wynne and provincial New Democrat Cheri DiNovo are cases in point.  Premier Wynne wonders why same-sex couples have to adopt their own children.  Cheri DiNovo agrees, saying “It’s not right that parents should have to adopt their own children….It’s not rocket science.”

DiNovo is right; it’s not rocket science.  In fact, it isn’t science at all.  It is a fact of biology that if a same-sex couple have a child, one of them for sure is not a parent.  Why the non-parent in a same-sex relationship should have to adopt the child is for the same reason that a step-father or step-mother has to adopt: because the child is not theirs by nature, and to make the child theirs by law requires an act of law, i.e. adoption.

Julie Gelfand, federal commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, was all thumbs when it came to handling the consequences of climate change.  She says that extreme weather is currently at the top of her mind.  She quoted scientists forecasting floods, droughts, and forest fires becoming more frequent.  The story cited the fire around Fort McMurray as just one of a series of recent, large-scale natural disasters.

Ms Gelfand got confused over the difference between climate and weather.  She failed to understand that the consequences of climate change won’t be evident until the end of this century.  The United States has not experienced a major hurricane in a decade, which shows that weather events are highly variable.  Consequently, one can draw no conclusions about climate change on the basis of weather events.  But she did anyway.

The scientific conclusion to be drawn from this is that those who rule over us are not as smart as they think, or as we hope.  The contention of progressivism is that we should be ruled by technical experts.  All the people mentioned here would proudly describe themselves as progressives.  Given their evident lack of expertise, isn't it incumbent upon them to resign their posts and yield them to people who really are expert?

Somehow, I doubt they will.

-30-