• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged US conservatives' trust in science has fallen dramatically since the '70s

Idiots:

Anti-evolution, climate change denial, Christ is coming so we don't need to take care of the planet. What an embarrassment.

Paul Krugman said:
Republicans Against Science

The scientific consensus about man-made global warming — which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences — is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting.

In fact, if you follow climate science at all you know that the main development over the past few years has been growing concern that projections of future climate are underestimating the likely amount of warming. Warnings that we may face civilization-threatening temperature change by the end of the century, once considered outlandish, are now coming out of mainstream research groups.
Click to expand...
Hey, what the hell does the National Academy of Sciences know about science anyway? We should be consulting Republicans, right?
 
Where the hell were these GOP scientists...

...when Bush was covering up the facts.

Scientific Integrity in Policymaking said:
source

However, at a time when one might expect the federal government to increasingly rely on impartial researchers for the critical role they play in gathering and analyzing specialized data, there are numerous indications that the opposite is occurring. A growing number of scientists, policy makers, and technical specialists both inside and outside the government allege that the current Bush administration has suppressed or distorted the scientific analyses of federal agencies to bring these results in line with administration policy. In addition, these experts contend that irregularities in the appointment of scientific advisors and advisory panels are threatening to upset the legally mandated balance of these bodies.
Click to expand...
Yeah, piss on me and tell me it's raining.
 
RandFan said:
Oh, sure. You bet.

Boy, I bet heads will explode over that one. 6%? Wow.
Click to expand...

You need a little training in logic. Just because far more scientists are liberal than conservative, does not mean that liberals in general are more scientifically literate or numerate than conservatives.

Nice try, though.
 
RandFan said:
Anti-evolution, climate change denial, Christ is coming so we don't need to take care of the planet. What an embarrassment.?
Click to expand...

Anti-vaxxers, anti-nuclear power, anti-GM foods, yeah, liberals really are an embarrassment.
 
Republicans used to fund science, but then the Soviet Union collapsed, and they lost their boogeyman.
 
The amateur psychologist in me thinks this is because science contradicts many ideas that they as conservatives feel compelled to hold to. It's a reaction to defend their conservative identities.
 
Brainster said:
Anti-vaxxers, anti-nuclear power, anti-GM foods, yeah, liberals really are an embarrassment.
Click to expand...
Anti-vaxxers are more often Libertarian or FOTL. As for anti-nuke, Fukushima. It is not settled science that frankenfoods are harmless or that they will not pollute the genome of long-cultivated crops in some disasterous way.
 
Humes fork said:
The amateur psychologist in me thinks this is because science contradicts many ideas that they as conservatives feel compelled to hold to. It's a reaction to defend their conservative identities.
Click to expand...
They are given to some rather bizzare superstitions and get really defensive about them when challenged.

Take piddle-down ecconomics. (You need not bother to bring it back when you finish examining it.)
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I recall one Congressman who was an anti-vaxxer. He's a Republican.

I'm not saying these woo causes aren't often associated with liberals, but the Democratic Party does not court their votes.
Click to expand...

I recall reading that in Alabama, more people have their children vaccinated than in Washington (the state, not DC).

We shouldn't deny the anti-science you can find on the left, such as organic food myths and oppotion to genetic modifying. People who strongly identity with their political viewpoints will be wary of science that contradicts them.
 
Humes fork said:
I recall reading that in Alabama, more people have their children vaccinated than in Washington (the state, not DC).
Click to expand...

I find that a little puzzling. But then, we do have a lot of whackadoodles living as isolates on the west slope, and some real rednecks on the east slope.

Would you happen to have access to data that shows a distribution by county for that data?
 
RandFan said:
Anti-evolution 1, climate change denial 2, Christ is coming so we don't need to take care of the planet 3. What an embarrassment.
Click to expand...
1. People who deny the possibility that regional varieties of human may diiffer systematically in nervous system function (e.g., Richard Lewontin, S. J. Gould) are anti-evolution.
2. Natural climate variability is an element of the opposition's case.
3. Whoever said that? RandFan argues with a strawman.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
1. People who deny the possibility that regional varieties of human may diiffer systematically in nervous system function (e.g., Richard Lewontin, S. J. Gould) are anti-evolution.
Click to expand...

Cow cookies. Gould does not deny evolution, but does maintain that regional variations in brain structure do not support an assertion of racial superiority.
 
Brainster said:
You need a little training in logic.
Click to expand...
Really? Me? Are you sure.

Just because far more scientists are liberal than conservative, does not mean that liberals in general are more scientifically literate or numerate than conservatives.
Click to expand...
We are talking National Academy of Sciences here. Do you know what that is? It's the best of the best. The brightest. So, by your logic conservatives are more scientifically literate and numerate but just can't seem to get more than 6% into the National Academy of Sciences. Is that what you are going to go with? Is it statistically likely that the group with the best and brightest scientists only contribute a small percentage to the organization comprised of the best and brightest?

Nice try, though.
Click to expand...
Tell me about it.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Anti-vaxxers, anti-nuclear power, anti-GM foods, yeah, liberals really are an embarrassment.
Click to expand...
I don't accept that "anti-nuclear" is anti-science. Chernobyl, 3 mile Island, Japan, There are some serious safety concerns that are not lacking in empirical basis.

That said, please to show me the think tank liberal groups forumlating policies against vaccines and GM foods? Please to show me the liberal equivalent of Republicans falsifying scientific reports or passing laws based on pseudo-science like abstinence only education?
 
Humes fork said:
I recall reading that in Alabama, more people have their children vaccinated than in Washington (the state, not DC).
Click to expand...
We have a cluster of anti-vaxxers here in the state. I believe they are split between the Green Party and Ron Paul. :p

Humes fork said:
We shouldn't deny the anti-science you can find on the left, such as organic food myths and oppotion to genetic modifying. People who strongly identity with their political viewpoints will be wary of science that contradicts them.
Click to expand...
No liberal skeptics I know deny this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom