You've heard the tired old myth that "conservatives are anti-science."  From an ignorant boob like Ashley Judd to President Obama himself, liberals attempt to cast themselves as "pro-science" - while simultaneously ignoring real science at every turn, especially when it conflicts with their socialist political agenda.

Two of the most obvious examples are global warming and stem-cell research.

Let's start with "man-made global warming" (a.k.a. "climate change" - a term coined to make EVERY change in temperature the fault of humans, after it was discovered that, oops, the Earth had actually been cooling for the past 10 years). In what can only be described as an absolute assault on science, the Left (both here and around the world) declares the issue "settled science." Uuuuuuh, news flash: "settled science" is an oxymoron - science is never "settled."

Now, it is usually at this point that some twit uses the silly "flat earth" argument - after all, isn't it "settled" that the earth is round? But the shape of the earth is not a theory - it is something that we can see, touch, and most importantly, measure TODAY.

Man-made global warming, on the other hand, is a theory about what MIGHT happen, not today, not even next year, but PERHAPS sometime in the next 30, 50, or 100 years. Besides, since the Earth has warmed and cooled over millions of years, long before SUV's, suddenly blaming puny little humans for a tiny bump in temperature over a hundred years is ludicrous on its face.

Worse, most people don't realize that the entire man-made global warming hysteria is based on computer models, many of which have now been exposed as using outright false data, as well as, shall we say, suspiciously slanted assumptions that conveniently guarantee the result the pro-global warming "researchers" want.

Meanwhile, even ignoring the rather "inconvenient" fact that the Earth has been cooling (the last 10 years have been among the coldest on record), the whole structure of man-made global warming has been crumbling, as more and more of its premises come into question.

Take CO2, the foundation of man-made global warming claims. The true believers continue to inundate every corner of our culture, even our kids in school, with propaganda that describes Carbon Dioxide as the villain. One commercial by a company attempting to cast itself as "green" even called CO2 a "pollutant."

Pollutant? CO2 is what plants use to turn sunlight into energy, also producing oxygen in the process. Far from being a pollutant, CO2 is an essential element of all life on Earth.

And besides, recent breakthroughs have shown that increases in CO2 do NOT "cause" a warming of the atmosphere - quite the opposite. Historical increases in temperature actually come BEFORE a rise in CO2, often 200 years before! As a result, more and more people are becoming skeptical - a recent poll shows that for the first time, a majority of Americans no longer believe in "man-made global warming."

But alas, such scientific facts interfere with the real goal of the global warming extremists - forcing Americans into a government controlled socialist world by limiting our ability to produce and use energy. And energy is the engine of prosperity, so naturally liberals hate it (unless of course, it comes from grossly inefficient and impractical methods like windmills or solar panels).

But what about "stem-cell research" - isn't it those right-wing Christians who want to keep Michael J. Fox from being cured of Parkinsons disease? In a word, NO. The "stem-cell" debate is a perfect example of where conservatives' position is the one that just happens to coincide with science, while liberals are once again ignoring it.

How so? First of all, the debate is NOT about "stem-cell research" - it is about WHICH stem-cell protocols work, and which don't. Often lost (or hidden?) in the debate is the fact that there are essentially TWO kinds of stem cells: adult stem cells, and embryonic stem-cells. And there is extensive scientific research on both.

Adult stem cells have actually been used to develop cures for dozens of ailments, and have successfully been used to cure real people, thousands of them. Additionally, treatments utilizing adult stem cells have extremely low incidences of negative side affects. In other words, SCIENCE has shown efficacious treatments with little downside from ADULT stem cells. Great news, yes?

Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, have been the subject of research for over 25 years, both here and around the world. Hundreds of millions of dollars has been dumped into embryonic stem cell research. And how many people have been successfully treated using embryonic stem cells?

Zero.

That's right. Not a single viable treatment has been developed using embryonic stem cells, and not a single patient has been cured. And there's more. The few attempts at embryonic stem cell treatments have shown a high rate of negative side affects, including malignant tumors. One of the few human trials involved a man in China who was treated with embryonic stem cell therapy - he developed so many tumors that he died.

OK. So we have two types of stem cell treatments: Adult stem cells, that have a demonstrated record of success, with minimal side affects. And then we have embryonic stem cells, with an abysmal record of failure, along with numerous side affects. Now, which treatment would be the one that SCIENCE indicates is the one where we should put our money? Obviously, adult stem cells are the way to go.

And who supports more ADULT stem cell research, the one that science shows actually works? Conservatives.

And who supports dumping millions, if not billions, into embryonic stem cell research, the one that SCIENCE clearly shows does NOT work? Liberals. California even mandated that $6 Billion be used EXCLUSIVELY for embryonic stem cell research.

Yet even with all the evidence in support of adult stem cell research over embryonic stem cells, you will not hear me, or any other conservative, claim that the science on stem cells is "settled" - because tomorrow might bring a breakthrough that changes everything. But for now, SCIENCE compels us to give the nod to adult stem cells.

Now, I will not go into all of the bizarre reasons that liberals seem to have an obsession with destroying human embryos. That isn't relevant, just as it isn't relevant that many conservatives oppose the destruction of human embryos for religious reasons.

What IS relevant, and a fact, is that conservatives are on the side of science, while liberals are on the side of...well, liberalism.