An article published by PoliticusUSA on 14 August 2013 noted:
"It is mindboggling there are so many Americans opposed to science and steeped in myth and superstition in the 21st century. Most Americans embrace science and appreciate scientists’ work that society is reliant on despite conservative claims it is a liberal plot to frighten and control the people. Part of the problem is a 40-year conservative campaign to demean science as a corrupt institution existing by virtue of liberal deceit, and it helps drives their objection to climate science because 'if the left is responsible for science, it’s responsible for climate science which is another attempt to expand government power.'"
How has this been possible? How has it been possible to convince otherwise intelligent people that science is bunk; that science is the pawn of big government liberals; that science itself is the problem to be solved?
Is the problem one of politics or of fundamental scientific literacy?
In some countries, a majority of voters go by "instinct" and gut feeling when they vote. The anti-education, anti-science approach that some demagogues take appeals to them. It makes one feel important voicing an opinion, despite the fact one knows next to nothing about the subject. The hate vote is the same way--it makes you feel important exercising your hatred.
This is a universal phenomenon--all countries, all political parties have used it at one time or the other. It simplifies things. Makes it easy to vote for war or to kill your neighbor, like in Rwanda or Syria. President Bush used it to justify invading Iraq to get the oil. (Do you remember Americans saying, "It's our oil." Talk about a wild one that moves beyond anti-science and anti-factuality and toward nihilism.)
Propaganda, political contributions and "research" funded by business and fundamentalist religious organizations also play a role in anti-science attitudes and politics--e.g.,big oil, big coal, big electric power and evangelical Christians preaching creationism and myths about alleged ill-effects of vaccinations.
How exactly did either President Bush (as you do not specify which President Bush) use an anti-science message to justify the Iraq War? And when exactly did either claim that Iraqi oil was the possession of the US?
People saying it is "our oil" were shown on TV.
George W Bush said, "I did not talk to my father, I talked to God about making the decision to go to war."
People? Just generic people? People talking on TV do make policy.
And as for President George W. Bush noting that he prayed prior to making a decision to commit to a war: Read some US presidential history. ALL American president claim to pray to God before engaging in combat. Presently, President Obama is making the same claims.
Some science is without doubt fact and some is about getting more funding to project ideas about belief in their own theories.
Governments love science as it advocates taxation and spending.
So, the anti-science worldview---one which includes the claim that governments "love" science so they can tax and spend, is little more than one more knee-jerk reaction to a larger anti-government minset; an anti- government mindset that equates ( in this specific case) science (and associated research) with needless taxing and spending?
Who funds climate change research by scientists? And the who taxes the people based on the findings?
It's a circle of research and taxation.
How did they come to the conclusion that carbon tax would reduce carbon emissions!
I don't believe governments are anti science I do believe however they are anti reality.
"How did they come to the conclusion that carbon tax would reduce carbon emissions!"
This concept originated from traditional economics and has been supported by conservative think tanks and by many Republicans.
That's true. But it's been blocked by the Koch suckers, coal fired power plants, Big Oil and Big Coal and other malefactors of evil in the world.
Yes the USA, Russia and China resist it the most. Maybe they know it increases unemployment, poverty and profits. The great EU dictatorship will have non of the counter arguments, we will do exactly what we are told or be gassed (with co2 apparently).
Who funds the climate change deniers?
What if the growing anti-science mentality of Americans is NOT a function of money or politics or political spending.
What if it is a function of something else---something much more problematic?
There is two sides to the argument, if there wasn't the government would be able to tax you on the air that you breath.
I do believe that humans are polluting the earth but I don't believe taxation is the answer. Governments see it as another form of income stream and very little goes back into stopping or slowing climate change.
The issues is not so cleanly divided between liberals and conservatives. Are we talking about religion (debating evolution) or climate change or abortion or something else. These are complex issues and not everyone can be pigeon holed into Group A or Group B. When I attended a Catholic high school I was taught genetics by man who was a Christian Brother. His Catholic religion taught creationism yet he taught his students genetics, the principles of evolution, and the scientific method. How did he reconcile those two "world views" in his heart and mind? I do not know. But he sure knew a lot about genetics!
My understanding is that Catholicism and many protestant religions teach that God created the earth and evolution is how this was accomplished. I'm not Catholic, but my understanding that Catholicism does teach that there is a conflict between creation and evolution. ( Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. I know this is true of the Christian faith in which I was brought up. )
Correction: Catholicism does NOT teach that there is a conflict between evolution and God's creation of the world.
I was educated by Catholic priests from elementary school through college. Never once did I hear anything that suggested any conflict between Creation and evolution. In fact, we were taught by the priests that the creation story of the Bible was, essentially, a myth.
In fact, several popes have reiterated that creation and evolution are, in fact, compatible.
Remember, it was a Catholic priest who discovered the Big Bang and the Vatican observatory that has made significant discoveries which have proved it.
It is because the political elites promote anti-science for its' economic feasibility.
I thought maybe it was a clear interpretation but after reading it a few times I can see some murkiness in it.
The scientific studies and theories of global warming is what I am referring to as any conclusion that may be drawn as it is not one favorable towards the oil and coal industries. Therefore much doubt is thrown at the conclusions so as to keep the mines mining and the oil wells spigot open.
On a different note the theory of evolutionary science is at great odds with the fundamentalists view of the bible and the origin of man. Of course this has been going on since Darwin's time.
Western governments love the idea of climate change because they can place a tax upon it, companies are not really bothered about it and the tax doesn't really affect them as they pass the cost onto the customers.
The UK government spends a fraction of what it collects in carbon taxation on reducing carbon pollution.
And you really think that this is the definitive statement about climate change. That is, that climate change is the great fraud of tax revenue seeking western governments?
If this is true, then explain why non-western governments, including China and India, are making efforts to curtail emissions and deal with global climate change?
Because most of their markets are in the west. Western governments are pressurising China and India to clean up its act, this will lead to higher prices and more taxation, so western governments are in a win win situation.
If any government was serious about climate change it would be seeking to limit human population.
I know the drill: Anything and everything about the west is evil and and everything about the non-west is laudable. The west is the great hegemon; the non-west its victim. The west is the Great Satan; the non-west the global redeemer.
Is it? Is that what you think I was saying?
What I have said and continue to say is that the climate of the earth is changing, as it has on many occasions and that human pollution is increasing the speed of climate change, however I state that no government is doing anything concrete about reducing climate change, you can see that in their actions.
If the reason for climate change is because of humans shouldn't governments have policies on population limits, taking away private privileges (like owning a motor vehicle), closing businesses that pollute or at the very least banning their products?
But the only thing they can come up with is taxation, that is why they don't close companies that pollute, or stop us from driving etc etc because they couldn't tax it when its been taken away.
I think you are stuck on a the idea that the only cause of global climate change is population and that the only way to deal with the problem is to reduce the population.
No problem, no climate change and not any problem ever confronted by human kind was a function of one variable. And not one problem was ever solved when solutions were deemed to be possible only in term of eliminating one variable.
Clearly, a great deal more is going on than taxation. Efforts to reduce fuel consumption in everything from cars to appliance and from industrial buildings to private homes is happening every day. New technologies are being developed every day and implemented every day to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and to reduce our carbon footprint which is responsible for a great deal of climate change.
Clearly, you are intentionally refusing to acknowledge the work that is being done and equally clearly intentionally refusing to acknowledge the progress that is being made as acknowledging either would deflate your contention that the only solution is to reduce the population by X-number of people.
Well the UN report will be debated by scientists and governments this week, the conclusion will be that humans are the cause of global climate change, are you disputing this?
All the measure taken so far have been insufficient because of the growth rate of the population.
Thinking that something can be changed by not tackling the primary cause makes any other process or operation ridiculous and superfluous.
It is not possible to discuss an issue with someone who will not acknowledge that the number of people on the planet is one variable AND that the activity of those people---which is proportional to the many discrete and aggregated demographic variables of these people (variables which are not consistent across the population of all people), is another variable AND that each of these is a variable among many other variables AND that this complex of variables when taken together---in the aggregate, is among the sources of global climate change that can be attributed to humans. There is ample evidence that some global climate change is also the result of naturally occurring phenomena of which there are also many and many variables and many complex aggregations.
Seems to me that at any given time the climate is the product both of natural forces beyond our control and man-made factors, primarily CO2 emissions from coal fired power plants, motor vehicles, etc, which are within our ability to control. While it's true that the more people on earth the greater the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. However, changes in technology can reduce harmful emissions even as population increases. Changes in natural forces could neutralize the effect of greenhouse gas emissions, accelerate their effect or they could reduce the effect of man-made emissions and, theoretically, bring on another ice age.
Thank you Ralph Deeds for your reasoned and thoughtful comment. It is much appreciated.
Well said Ralph, but there would have to be vast changes to accommodate the forecasted pollution from population growth.
All coal powered stations would need to be closed down and any vehicle over a few years old would need to be scrapped. I don't think china and India would like that.
Maybe if the government stopped spending the taxes collected on wars and making bankers rich they could provide solar panels for everyone, that way both energy for your home and to charge your electric car would at least be green.
Governments need to do more than lip service as by 2050 there will be 8 billion humans to polite the planet.
You got to love that good old American ingenuity! Never let a good crisis go to waste.
I don't think there is a growing anti-science mentality.
There is a growing anti-false-and-unproven-theory mentality, yes indeed. Most conservatives know the difference between fact and theory, as well as fact-based theory and wild-imagination theory that has no basis at all.
We also know how politics plays into the psuedo-science mentality.
Stick to your Biblical myths and cute stories, it's obvious that you, and 90% of conservatives don't know squat about science or theories.
I'd say most conservatives DON'T know the difference between "scientific theory" and "fact" - in science, a theory IS almost fact. Evolution is a fact, we've witnessed it, that's why you get flu shots every year. Climate change is a fact, we know the ice caps are melting. Theory means, in science, that research has repeatedly and consistently come up with the same conclusion (e.g. evolution), it's a hypothesis supported by substantial research that isn't disproven. In my experience, conservatives tend to think that theory is a "guess" or something, which is absolutely wrong, and they tend to reject science that doesn't fit their agendas (again, global warming and evolution are two prime examples).
Here's my best Brenda impression:
"LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU THEORIES ARE JUST GUESSES YOU'RE WRONG WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS LA LA LA"
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/sci … hicker.htm
Maybe just a glitch in the theory.
Lol why are you giving me a news article from 2002? And you might want to fact check that.
http://environment.nationalgeographic.c … /big-thaw/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/a … ate-change 2013, from a reputable source. Science. The earth is warming.
Apparently there has been more ice at the poles this year than any other since 1970 maybe that's a second glitch then.
Governments finance climate change science, what major changes have governments done to stop climate change?
All they have really done is tax anything that the scientists say causes climate change. What do they do with the tax? Nothing.
http://www.wri.org/press/2013/07/statem … -essential
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/busin … .html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007 … 0.html?8qa
There has been progress but not enough.
One scientist debunking another because they don't think the same.
My concern is not with climate change, my concern is that scientists work for the government and neither have the faintest idea what to do except tax everything the scientists say is causing global warming.
Now lets look at what's really causing the climate change. Without doubt its humans, so how many of us would you be prepared to cull to save the earth?
It seems the UN is reluctant to publish its report as it may not show what governments want it to show so they can increase taxation based on it.
According to leaks reported governments with the most to lose like the UK are debating the fact that figures may give climate change debunkers fuel for their argument.
I doubt if it will make any difference though as governments will press ahead with taxation based on climate change as it has become one of the main income streams for them.
That's the thing for sure Silverspeeder. It is becoming obvious that the earth is overpopulated and the planet won't be able to sustain us all for too much longer but who can really top over population? Most people still want a family and a normal life. So how can anyone ever persuade everyone in the world to go along with a rescue plan? It seems an impossible task when countries rarely agree over anything as it is. There's the problem.
Over population is an issue. However, even the current level of population is producing and emitting sufficient greenhouse gas to make global warming a serious concern. The science is pretty clear. The task is a worldwide political and educational one of convincing nations to take action before it's too late.
Easier said than done though. Its a mammoth undertaking to get all the different nations of the world to even acknowledge the scientific facts about global warming, never mind getting them all to agree to do something about it, unfortunately.
But the science isn't clear Ralph, even climate scientist will agree that climate change science is not an exact science and are offering all sorts of explanations for the lack of increase in temperature.
There is no doubt climate change has happened since the dawn of time, there is no exact science to it. However you may think that I am denying that humans are polluting the earth, I am not, it is without doubt they are.
Governments take £billions in taxation from what climate scientists have put forward as their theory, those same governments fund the climate scientists.
Without doubt governments have no answers to the problem except taxation, however taxation has not reduced carbon emissions, in actual fact carbon emissions have increased, based on the fact that carbon emissions increase with population why aren't governments trying to control population?
by mbuggieh3 years ago
In May of 1950 President Harry Truman signed a bill---passed by Congress, that created the National Science Foundation. In signing the bill, Truman noted:"Throughout our history, scientists and scientific knowledge...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter7 days ago
Why do emotions run so high between some Republicans and some Democrats? Is there any room for compromise? Does being a member of the "other party" make a person a bad person?
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/polit … nfair.html"It's been unrelenting. The day after Obama took office, Rush Limbaugh told Sean Hannity he wanted him to "fail." Later, Glenn Beck called the...
by My Esoteric2 years ago
47 conservative Republican Senators signed a letter to Iran intended to undercut Presidential foreign policy. This breaks over 200 years of precedent, and probably violates the separation of Powers part of the...
by cooldad11 months ago
In another forum, someone posted that they dumped their significant other because he/she voted for George Bush. I was kind of shocked by that. It seemed incredibly shallow to me, but I don't know either of...
by Susan Reid2 years ago
excerpted from Liberals pride themselves on being tolerant. Are they really just suckers?"Does fear and intolerance actually work better? I find it interesting (not surprising) that research actually shows...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.