If a a man is a creationist, is he more likely a Democrat, or a Republican?
If a man supports teaching creation (or ‘intelligent design’) alongside evolution in school, is he more likely a Democrat, or a Republican?
If a man believes global warming is a fantasy, is he more likely a Democrat, or a Republican?
If a man believes that global warming is real, but is not due in large part to human influence, is he more likely a Democrat, or a Republican?
If a man believes that birth control is a sin or otherwise wrong, is he more likely a Democrat, or a Republican?
If a man believes that homosexuality is a choice and is not due to genetic or biological factors, is he more likely a Democrat, or a Republican?
If a man believes that the best way to achieve energy independence is drilling lots more oil wells, is he more likely a Democrat, or a Republican?
Most of us know that the answer to each of the above questions is that the man is much more likely to be “Republican”. This is not to say that there are not Democrats who believe each of those – I’m sure there are. Conversely, there are Republicans (and other conservatives) who take the opposite view in each (Clavos, for one, has stated that the fight against global warming has been a conservative talking point).
But in each case the likelihood remains significantly stronger that the man in question is a Republican. This begs the question: who is more likely to ignore scientific fact (or at least strong scientific indications)? The above examples (with the possible exception of birth control) would point to the Republicans. Yes, this will outrage our conservative readers — but for those conservatives who would consign me to the lower depths of left-wing punditry, I challenge you to prove me wrong. It is apparent that, given scientific evidence that flies in the face of political dogma, Republicans are much more likely to ignore or even suppress that evidence to protect their own agenda.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Cannonshop
Glenn, it's not the fact of climate-change, only an absolute MORON would assume that the Climate isn't going to change-we live, after all, on an unstable spinning rock in a varying elliptical orbit around a G-2 Variable star, our atmosphere is composed of mostly-nitrogen with a dose of Oxygen and trace gases, and the planet wobbles.
The argument is about what's Causing the climate to change-notably, it's interesting that the same folks who've failed to generate a single accurate model of the climate on their super-computers are the ones whose work is being used for a POLITICAL agenda- Read more than the cover-sheet of the report, Glenn. Until they build an accurate model without cooking the books (ala the Mann Hockeystick-which was and continues to be the foundation of your global-warming dogma-said dogma having taken a black eye when a test that assumed it to be going on showed the ocean to be COLDER than predicted, and dropping in temperature...) it's all hypothesis, and has aobut the same scientific grounding as the Y2K panic did.
2 - Cannonshop
Flatly, to clarify: You dont make public policy on shit you can't back up without cooking the books, Glenn, whether it's allowing black citizens to fly fighters in 1943, or deciding to create an economic garrote on the west via Kyoto today.
3 - Bob Lloyd
Global warming is a fact, which is evidenced by temperature measurements. The cause of global warming is also to be determined by analysis of the data. We can dismiss the political dogma which says the planet has always had hot and cold times so there's nothing to worry about.
The International Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the warming trend for the last fifty years is twice that of the last hundred years, and most of it happened in the last fifteen years. So global warming is a fact.
We know that carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas and that production has been increasing dramatically. The inevitable consequence is to add to global warming. Atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from 280ppm to 380ppm in the last 150 years. Anything more than 350ppm is long-term catastrophic for the atmosphere (see 350.org). The rise in carbon dioxide correlates perfectly with the rise in temperature. The IPCC showed that it was human activity, and not sunspots or the other suggested causes, that was responsible and they presented evidence that was solid enough to withstand global scrutiny.
We could sit back and say, I won't listen until you've built me a nice computer model, but frankly we have more of those than we know what to do with. It's the lack of political will that is by far the most scary aspect of global warming. Maybe it is Republicans who are more reluctant to move on the issue, but the Democrats have been almost exactly the same.
4 - Arch Conservative
Ah yes......Al Gore and those supporting him were cut from God's own cloth this very morning and are beyond reproach.
Anyone questioning them, no matter how educated in climatology or any other scientific field is nothing but a tool of the greedy evil oil companies, rolling around naked in his or her millions of oil company dollars, laughing like a madman as the sun surely burns us all to a crisp.
There is absolutely no room for debate. There is only time to do what we are told by the great and all knowing Al Gore.
Is that the gist of it Glenn?
5 - jtsgrandmom
Bob Llyod, you speak with much conviction. I am curious, doe you have the bona fides or qualifieds to say "Global warming is a fact" or is it a layman's opinion?
I've no doubt that you are sincere in your conviction and no doubt you are wrong.
Perhaps you are not old enough to remember the 70's, 80's when the experts announced we were entering a new, "Little Ice Age."
Yes, they DID.
Have you read weather scientists' dissenting opinions?
Are you aware that Mr. Gore is HEAVILY invested in the fledgling global warming industry and technology and stands to make 10s of millions?
Are you aware that as DC passes global warming legislation along with the draconian taxes and unconstituional infringments of our liberties, Europe and Australia are dancing away?
I submit to you sir, that global warming is indeed a hoax, 31,000 scientists with the bona fides and qualifieds hold this opinion.
despite the bully tactics and assault on many of their 1st Amendment rights to express said opinion with the revokation of their Meteorogical weather certification.
There can not be honest debate when opposing opinion is quashed. I suggest you look at the sources of your info and then, for true intellectually honesty, look for sources that hold dissenting opinions.
It ain't all black and white as you hold.
6 - Jeannie Danna
#5 jtsgrandmom,
someone needs to call you on your comment!
Are you aware that Mr. Gore is HEAVILY invested in the fledgling global warming industry and technology and stands to make 10's of millions?
my my grandma, I thought the conservatives/republican-party of greed believed in the FREE MARKET.
Isn't this the number one excuse for not developing a more just and morally responsible society?
(President)Gore has every right to make as much money as all of you put together!
7 - Dave Nalle
Jeannie, you seem to have gotten Gore's title wrong.
As for the article, the title tells more than the article itself does about why Republicans think the way that they do on these issues.
It's not a matter of being against science, it's a matter of being skeptical (the way scientists are supposed to be) of scientific positions which seem to be used to advance political agendas.
Republicans don't oppose global warming because they don't believe in it. They oppose it because they believe that it is being advanced as a concern primarily for political rather than scientific reasons. Ask a Republican and you'll find they're perfectly happy with reducing emissions and cutting carbon output. They just don't like the idea of the restrictions being focused on America while ignoring polluters whose output relative to GDP is enormously greater. They see that as political and rightly so.
The same holds true with your other energy-related issue, drilling oil wells. Republicans don't see why we have to cripple ourselves in the short term while looking for long-term solutions to energy problems. The fact is that green technology (except nuclear) is not ready to go off the shelf at a reasonable cost. We still need the oil to keep industry going while we find better solutions.
And your homosexuality example is just retarded. The only people who care whether homosexuality is a choice or genetic are a small body of relatively conservative homosexuals who are too weak to make the proper argument for their homosexuality and want to hide behind science. The truth is that we are self-aware and rational beings and even if we are born homosexual by genetics, we do have the ability to alter our behavior. We're not slaves to our genes. And there also remains a percentage of homosexual behavior which is clearly not genetically motivated. An honest Republican will tell you that it doesn't matter whether homosexuality is genetic or a matter of choice, it's the behavior which has to be judged as right or wrong. And there's a close to even split between those Republicans who find homosexuality acceptable and those who don't.
As for your general premise, I could easily write just as troubling a list for Democrats, but the focus would by hypocrisy rather than the perception of opposition to science, and it would be a rich list given the recent behavior of the Obama administration.
Dave
8 - Glenn Contrarian
C-shop!
Hey, whaddaya know! A conservative actually tried to talk SCIENCE! And guess what? He's smarter than ANY of the 97% of the thousands of climatologists who said global warming is at least partly due to humanity! Congratulations, C-shop!
Sarcasm aside, when nearly all of the scientists of a certain field are telling you something presents a danger to humanity, and it's something that they don't WANT to happen but believe IS happening, you'd better listen.
You see, C-shop, you HOPE you're right...but they HOPE they're wrong. And unlike you, they've got all their education, all their research, and millions of years of data to back them up.
It is at best naive to believe that the gases produced every day by hundreds of millions of vehicles, tens of millions of cattle, tens of thousands of aircraft flights, and tens of thousands of factories doesn't have an effect on our world's climate...'cause this world ain't that big, in case you haven't noticed.
So if YOU are right and 97% of the climatologists are wrong, fine - we have some more financial difficulty and hassle...and that's it. HOWEVER, if YOU are WRONG and 97% of the climatologists are right...what happens? Say goodbye to Florida and the densely-populated coastal areas of nations throughout the world. At least 75% of humanity lives at or near coastal areas C-shop...and most of them will have to move. What happens when most of humanity has to shift locations? War, and everything that comes with it.
That's your wager, C-shop. If you're right and we still fight global warming, economic difficulty. If you're wrong (and 97% of climatologists are RIGHT) but we do nothing....
Ah! But I forget! Science that tells conservatives something they don't want to hear must therefore be WRONG science! Oh, silly me....
9 - Jeannie Danna
Dave #7
No,I didn't get Al Gores' title wrong.
I placed it in parentheses because he was voted in by the people who know global warming is the symptom of our disregarded of the environment.
Take the blinders off.
10 - Jeannie Danna
It's also snowing outside my window right now..:(
11 - Glenn Contrarian
jtsgrandmom -
I suggest that before you start posting references, that you check the veracity of those references. Your '31,000 scientists' signing on against global warming is easily debunked. For example, only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.
ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT of your 'scientists' have ANY education in climatology. Compare that to 97% of ALL climatologists who DO know better than you, who DO say global warming is real.
Click here to find out why the National Academy of Science said the petition was so misleading that they felt it necessary to issue a news release stating: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."
One more thing - you mention the 'little ice age'. Scientists will ALL tell you we don't know everything...but it is a logical error to assume that because they scientists were wrong about something at one time in the past, that they must be wrong now.
Claiming the 'little ice age' is proof against global warming (in the face of all evidence to the contrary) is akin to claiming the one-time belief in phlogiston is proof that nuclear power is impossible.
One last thing - do you live near Washington state? Go to Mount Rainier - they've got old pictures of the Nisqually glacier at the visitors center. Then step outside to see that the Nisqually glacier isn't even one-quarter the size it was sixty years ago....
12 - Doug Hunter
It is estimated that the use of genetically modified foods with their disease resistance and increased growing areas has saved around 1 billion people from starving since the 70's - Who's most likely to oppose that?
Here's a link and a quote:
"Environmental critics faulted the father of the Green (as in crops) Revolution for promoting the heavy use of pesticides and fertilizers. They succeeded in persuading foundations to slash their support of Mr. Borlaug's work. He told Atlantic Monthly: 'If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for 50 years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things.'"
It is also estimated that the ban of DDT, conveniently after the US used it to eliminate Malaria here, has resulted in the unneeded death of 20 to 50 million people. For example in Sri Lanka, thue use of DDT took Malaria cases from 3 million to 29, after stopping DDT use this went back to 600,000. Who is most likely to oppose that?
Here's a quote from Wikipedia
"According to Amir Attaran and Roger Bate, many environmental groups fought against the public health exception of DDT in the 2001 Stockholm Convention, over the objections of third world governments and many malaria researchers. Attaran strongly objected to an outright ban, writing, 'Environmentalists in rich, developed countries gain nothing from DDT, and thus small risks felt at home loom larger than health benefits for the poor tropics. More than 200 environmental groups, including Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility and the World Wildlife Fund, actively condemn DDT...'"
As for Global Warming. Very few dispute it his happening, they simply oppose the ridiculous and unnecessary political solutions being put forward. Here are some facts for you.
Fact: in the last 15000 years recovering from an ice age (a blink in history) sea levels have risen over 400ft averaging 2.5ft/century, estimated sea level rise this century is 9 inches less than 1/3 the long term average.
Fact: The CO2 greenhouse effect alone does not explain recent warming. Water vapor is the main driver behind the greehhouse effect, only when assuming a positive feedback from water vapor can you massage the numbers to blame warming on CO2.
Fact: Computer models are sorely lacking in being able to predict cloud effects and many don't even make an attempt. Since water vapor is the main driver of climate change and cloud/rain plays a huge role in determining water vapor levels (and clouds have their own cooling effect) you'd think this would be something to fix before mankind makes major decisions.
Fact: Ocean heat content and World temperatures have plateaued and even gone down slightly over the last few years which none of the models predicted.
Leftists also like to ignore the hoards of research showing government growth negatively effects economic growth. You have to really rig the study to show no correlation and some have shown a positive for specific spending such as education, but the balance of the science is in favor of limited government. Who cares about economic growth you say? Long term differences in growth rates create large disparities, similiar to how compounding interest will boost your bank account.
So yes, a few currently on the right oppose science on meaningless historical points like whether the big bank or the big god created the universe. The left opposes the science of progress and growth which in turn kills million or billions of people.
13 - Doug Hunter
Only 10,000 (again, a blink of an eye in goeological terms) years ago glaciers were a mile thick over much of the midwest and many northern areas in the US. I think glaciers have been retreating for awhile now, manmade global warming or not.
14 - Doug Hunter
Sorry, I love facts. If your worried about the doomsday scenario of Antarctic icecap melt. Just remember the AVERAGE temperature in Antarctica is -56F. That's 88 degrees below freezing by my calculation. It ain't gong to happen.
15 - Rey Lopez-Calderon
Dave said: "Republicans don't oppose global warming because they don't believe in it. They oppose it because they believe that it is being advanced as a concern primarily for political rather than scientific reasons."
Does that hold for evolution and intelligent design as well?
16 - Doug Hunter
"Does that hold for evolution and intelligent design as well?"
Are you really that dense or do you just find it enjoyable to troll dumb questions?
17 - Rey Lopez-Calderon
"Sorry, I love facts. If your worried about the doomsday scenario of Antarctic icecap melt. Just remember the AVERAGE temperature in Antarctica is -56F. That's 88 degrees below freezing by my calculation. It ain't gong to happen."
Me too. The average daily temperature in Chicago was 49 degrees Fahrenheit (above freezing), therefore it will never snow in Chicago.
18 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
As for the article, the title tells more than the article itself does about why Republicans think the way that they do on these issues. It's not a matter of being against science, it's a matter of being skeptical (the way scientists are supposed to be) of scientific positions which seem to be used to advance political agendas.
Dave, you're ASSUMING that the scientists don't have a healthy sense of skepticism. Beware of such assumptions. If you know ANYthing of academia - and you DO - then you know how professors (regardless of their academic field) take a nearly obscene delight in tearing down the research and conclusions of other professors. You know better than I what 'peer-reviewed' means.
But when it comes to global warming, those who are most qualified, who have done by far the most peer-reviewed research, are almost completely united in raising the alarm...and they hope they're wrong because NObody wants to see just how bad it can get!
Republicans don't oppose global warming because they don't believe in it.
WRONG! A Pew Research poll and a Gallup poll BOTH show that a MAJORITY of Republicans don't believe in global warming AT ALL.
They oppose it because they believe that it is being advanced as a concern primarily for political rather than scientific reasons. Ask a Republican and you'll find they're perfectly happy with reducing emissions and cutting carbon output. They just don't like the idea of the restrictions being focused on America while ignoring polluters whose output relative to GDP is enormously greater. They see that as political and rightly so.
Dave, I'd LOVE to see you provide ANY proof that Republicans are happy with reducing emissions and cutting carbon output. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT that it's all political...because the Republicans are putting politics ahead of scientific FACT.
The same holds true with your other energy-related issue, drilling oil wells. Republicans don't see why we have to cripple ourselves in the short term while looking for long-term solutions to energy problems. The fact is that green technology (except nuclear) is not ready to go off the shelf at a reasonable cost. We still need the oil to keep industry going while we find better solutions.
Um, Dave, guess what? If we opened up ANWAR and got ALL the oil that's there, it would provide less than five hundred days' worth of America's oil demands. The answer ain't more drilling - you don't treat alcoholism by giving the guy more alcohol. The answer IS solar power on an industrial Manhattan-project-size scale...and nuclear power (which I most strongly support).
And your homosexuality example is just retarded. The only people who care whether homosexuality is a choice or genetic are a small body of relatively conservative homosexuals who are too weak to make the proper argument for their homosexuality and want to hide behind science.
'Relatively small body'? Gee, then WHY did 3/4 of Republicans vote for Proposition 8? WHY, if they didn't care whether it was choice or genetics, did they even CARE to vote one way or another? Dave, you're tap-dancing...and it shows.
The truth is that we are self-aware and rational beings and even if we are born homosexual by genetics, we do have the ability to alter our behavior. We're not slaves to our genes.
And neither are animals? Homosexual activity has been observed in the great majority of mammals.
And there also remains a percentage of homosexual behavior which is clearly not genetically motivated.
"Oh, today I think I'll make a CHOICE to get aroused with someone of my own sex!" Oh, that's rich! Dave, do you not realize that if arousal were a CHOICE in the manner you believe, Viagra would've never made it to market?
An honest Republican will tell you that it doesn't matter whether homosexuality is genetic or a matter of choice, it's the behavior which has to be judged as right or wrong.
And I guess that the 'honest' Republicans are a very small minority, because a significant MAJORITY of Republicans are against same-sex marriage.
And there's a close to even split between those Republicans who find homosexuality acceptable and those who don't.
Is this really true? Please provide proof...especially given the opposition by the great majority of Republicans to gay marriage.
As for your general premise, I could easily write just as troubling a list for Democrats, but the focus would by hypocrisy rather than the perception of opposition to science, and it would be a rich list given the recent behavior of the Obama administration.
THEN PLEASE DO SO BY ALL MEANS! I'm really eager to see such a list, especially since only SIX PERCENT of scientists are Republican, and slightly more than half of scientists (52%) describe their own political views as liberal, including 14% who describe themselves as very liberal.
Dave, 'liberal' means 'change'. 'Conservative' usually is in opposition to change. Scientists by their very nature are eager to CHANGE things...and that's why scientists are MUCH more likely to be liberal than conservative...and that's ALSO why most conservatives are skeptical of scientific research - because conservatives don't like change.
19 - Rey Lopez-Calderon
Glenn,
more than a few people in this country do not understand science. Part of the problem is that science is poorly taught in schools. This is not a republican or democrat problem. Sure, Republican politicians have been the most vocal with regard to denying the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community in public (it's good populism), but it's a non-sequitur to conclude therefore science-deniers are more likely to be Republican in general. Many Democrats and apolitical folk mistrust and/or don't understand science as well.
As evidenced by the comments here, partisanship further clouds many people's already murky understanding of science.
20 - Rey Lopez-Calderon
Doug said: "Are you really that dense or do you just find it enjoyable to troll dumb questions?"
Doug, I wasn't asking you. Perhaps that's why you didn't understand the question (i.e. "you" found it dumb).
21 - Doug Hunter
"The average daily temperature in Chicago was 49 degrees Fahrenheit (above freezing), therefore it will never snow in Chicago."
I'll grant you this, during the summer the antarctic temperature does rise up to a balmy -20F on average (a mere 52 degrees below freezing)
22 - Christine
I'm a conservative and do believe in Global Warming, however, Al Gore has hijacked this issue for MONEY & POWER! Did anyone see Gore's latest public speaking engagement?
Daring to Question Al Gore
Guess Gore didn't want to answer the question but even shut down a reporter who asked about the "9 Significant Errors in Gore's Movie" from a judge in the British High Court. HMMM
23 - Clavos
The author's entire premise, both in the article, as well as in his responses in the comments thread is a combination of two logical fallacies often committed by those not well schooled in logic: the first is the Appeal to Authority argument, which is fallacious because it assumes the infallibility of the authority, in this case, those scientists who support the idea that GW is anthropogenic. The author's second fallacy is employed to bolster the first, and is known as the Argument by Consensus, or Authority of the Many. This argument assumes that "If many believe so, it is so."
24 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
'Logical' refutation fails where hard, measurable evidence proves the claim of the authority...and particularly when there is a dearth of evidence proving otherwise.
When it comes to theories, Clavos - and Dave - perhaps neither of you are aware of the standard to which most scientists hold eacy other. 'Gravity' is still a theory...yet we all know it's quite real. 'Evolution' is still a theory...yet scientists have documented many instances of observed evolution in species of every kingdom.
One global-warming denier above made many claims...but provided NOT ONE link proving those claims other than something having to do with genetically-engineered crops. Big whoop.
I would REALLY like it if the conservatives on BC would learn to provide PROOF of their claims from reputably sources, rather than simply leaning on personal opinion and 'logical' arguments not much different from the type of arguments the Jesuits used to refute Galileo.
But the BC conservatives won't - because they can't. That's not a dare...that's a statement of fact.
25 - Doug Hunter
You couldn't kill em by shutting down access to modern crops and farming methods, you didn't get em all by banning DDT and watching them suffer with Malaria, you've tried to hand out condoms and offer abortion service but it's been insufficient, you're against economic growth and capitalist policies that countries could use to pull themselves out of poverty, maybe when you shut off the power in the name of global warming it'll do the trick!
Dogma over facts.