The Republican War on Science Returns

Mon, 2011-08-22 09:10Chris Mooney
Chris Mooney's picture

The Republican War on Science Returns


It is not exactly news that many candidates on the GOP side take "war on science" positions, e.g., denying that global warming is human caused, or that human evolution explains who and what we are. Climate and evolution have long been the “big two” issues in the "war," but I would expect that many of the GOP candidates reject modern scientific knowledge on a variety of other subjects as well. (Just ask them about, say, reproductive health and contraception.)

The standard "war on science" saga has droned on—usually in the background--for years and years. But somehow, it all exploded into political consciousness last week with Texas governor Rick Perry’s attacks on the integrity of climate researchers, and his claim that his own state teaches creationism--which if true would violate a Supreme Court ruling. (Actually, this is not state policy, though I suspect much creationism is being taught in many schools in Texas, in defiance of the law of the land.)



Huntsman then followed up on ABC News:




So what follows? Well, a lot.


1.      Bottom Up v. Top Down Anti-Science Attacks. Clearly, the U.S. Republican right has remained at "war" with science—at least on the most hot button issues. Were this not the case, Huntsman’s claim would not resonate, as it so obviously does.

If anything, however, I believe matters have gotten worse. Why? Largely because we’ve swapped the relatively genteel "war on science" of the George W. Bush administration (which was prosecuted in top-down fashion from the White House and administration, largely in service of what various staff believed that the president wanted, or what should or shouldn't be on the public agenda or in the media) for a more populist and bottom-up strain associated with the rise of the Tea Party. This is partly a function of the fact that the GOP is in the opposition right now, rather than running the country; and partly a function of the right moving further to, uh, the right; and partly also, I think, a function of the increasing influence of the blogosphere.





Unfortunately, though, we are not very far along on the road of actually figuring out--and agreeing on--a way to address this problem. Based on what we know about motivated reasoning, though, we know that if science is seen as an attack on people's identities, it will be rejected. So any solution is going to have to make facts themselves seem a whole lot less threatening.

Tall order.


""Flora and fauna moving their ranges upwards in altitude, and pole-wards in latitude"

thats a plus

"The glaciers in Alaska?"

might not be bad"


So advertise for AGW and don't deny that reality (no, non-existent cycles don't help either).


this is evolution in Natural Selection.

About Global Climate Change.
There are differing opinions, ie:
Your Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter
Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
Both use scientific data.

"Is it not an affront against their rights to shove your religion down their throats?" is that not what is being done by mandating that the theory of Evolution be taught in school? I believe that both should be taught, and any other theory out there.
"By the way, I doubt you will let your kids *choose* what to believe. You just want to choose for everyone else's kids."
Can the theories of Evolution, Big Bang, Expanding Universe, Shrinking Universe, String Theory be proven? parts can yes, but the entirety of them- no, that's why they are theories. People believe in them through faith, just like the Divine Creation Theory. There are theories from Math, Physics, Religion, Biology, and Tradition, why aren't they all taught in school? Read up on string theory it is very interesting.

Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

Thank you for your comments, they were great to read.

@Skyler K Zaleski: "There is evidence in Natural Selection, not Evolution.


"There is evidence that what man does has a small effect on the environment,..."
- Big effects, really.

"...but to blame mankind for climate-change is irrational."

"...Look at the history of the earth and you will see that there have been many cycles of climate-change, not man made,..."
- So what? So you will see there have been many forest fires, not man made...

"...and whatever man does we cannot change the cycle."
- Humiliating. You really want to be that small, that insigificant? Do you wish back for babytime's total naiveté and... Irresponsibility for anything? Hm. Wait for senility, it's just round the corner, no?

Yeah, let's believe. I believe from seeing them clearly there's two cars driving up the street. You believe in God and there's only one coming up. Right, cross the street then! Or do you still want a discussion?

Chris Mooney's War On Sanity Continues

More white noise to distract attention from the point Chris Mooney was making. You'll have to go back to the drawing board, because that strategy is far too blatant.

Hey anonymous. I like your new pseudonym "Ethan Greenhart ". You're getting quite a collection. Sooo didn't notice. Completely fooled.

Hey, Brainiac. Arent you supposed to protesting the "convoy of no confidence" so your economy killing carbon tax can pass this fall? Or are you content to be an anonymous poseur on the internet?

It doesn't take you long before you resort to ad hominem attacks. That's a sure sign that you've lost the debate.



If you want a laugh about "climategate", watch this:

I hope it's not too long for your concentration span!

"why wait that long? Read up on Climategate and start laughing now."

I can't decide which bit to laugh harder at. The fact that Jones & Mann were vindicated...or that the deniers didn't actually know enough of what they were talking about to understand what they were reading.

The Dunning-Kruger effect in full flight.

"Just in this thread Filluhm has been found to be math challenged, analysis challenged, an alarmist (the implications of ...), catastrophist (more of the implications of...), and I have found perhaps even a liar."

Ahahaha! Oh A2, you have really whipped yourself into a fervor. You sure you haven't got your threads mixed up? Please point to where on this thread I talked about math's, what analysis I did & how I was being alarmist? Haha. Get a towel for the froth on your mouth, lol.

... resorting to anonymous ad hominem attacks, rather than attempt to refute the point that was being made. It really does show you've lost the argument.

The mother of all deniers....

Sample some Shenton...

"Australia Not Down Under" (May 1978)
"The Earth Has No Motion" (Jun. 1979)
"Nikita Krushchev Father of NASA" (Mar. 1980)
"Galileo Was a Liar" (Dec. 1980)
"Science Insults Your Intelligence" (Sep. 1980)

OMG.. Tell me this isnt Republican reading material...It sure sounds familiar though... sigh.






read more