Conservatives Losing Trust in Science, Study Finds

[futurecurrents]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

What exactly is meant by a question like, "Do you believe in evolution?"

My understanding is that the term covers a vast range of observations, deductions, assumptions, and outright guesses. That's why it is a theory, not the Law of Evolution.


Do I believe that a sample of bacteria exposed to an antibiotic will produce some survivors which will reproduce, eventually leading toa population that is resistant to the antibiotic? Yes.

Do I believe that changing enviromental conditions will gradually result in the extinction of some species and the flourishng of others? Yes.

Do I believe that remote pacific islands contain species never found elsewhere? Yes.

Do I believe that all animal species originated in simple organisms and somehow mutated over eons into their current form? No.

So do I "believe" in evolution? You tell me. The question is idiotic.

Similarly with "Do you believe in AGW?" Like mav, I am willing to believe there has been a gradual increase in temperatures, although the data leave much to be desired. Is the theory that greenhouse gasses lead to heating preposterous? No, it isn't. Is it proven? Not to my satisfaction. Should we wreck our economy in a Quixotic pursuit of greenness, when our efforts will have no discernible effect? No, of course not.

Ultimately, these types of questions reveal more about the group doing the polling than those answering. They are agenda-driven. Science isn't confirmed by polling, nor are skeptics undermined by it.

Sorry, but if you don't believe in speciation you don't believe in evolution and you belong in the stupid/ignorant grouping of conservatives and your opinion on AGW is therefore also not worthy of much consideration.

And the same question (you can read them) was asked of both dems and pubs so regardless of any possible "agenda", the ratios are still valid.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Tom B:

+1

And who has more power and money to "buy" scientists, the vast green power industry or the weak and ineffective fossil-fuel industry ?

I keep hearing about the supposed political bias of scientists but there is absolutely no proof this is happening. Scientists get into science because they love science, not because they are money-hungry political ideologues. The idea that all the world's climatologists would abdicate their intellectual and moral integrity just to put out bad news about the state of the earth is absurd.

 

[jficquette]

Quote from futurecurrents:

68% of republicans don't believe in evolution, compared to 40% of democrats.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx

An almost exact same ratio occurs in the understanding and beliefs about man-made climate change.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107569/climatechange-views-republicandemocratic-gaps-expand.aspx

These figures demonstrate that republicans/conservatives are, as group, simply stupider, or at least more ignorant, than dems/liberals.

Dems voting for Obama proves that they are stupid.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

When scientists can't get past their political bias they are no longer scientists. They are political hacks, bought and paid for....

+ 2

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from jficquette:

Dems voting for Obama proves that they are stupid.

An undeniable indisputable inconvenient truth.

 

[bigarrow]

I don't recall the mention of any terms like conservative, liberal, republican, Jesus or god in any of my chemistry, biology or math classes at Tech? Has something changed since I was a young man ?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from bigarrow:

...Has something changed since I was a young man ?

Yes, unfortunately "science" has become politicized.

Oh...and one more thing has changed since then, Al Gore invented the internet.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from bigarrow:

I don't recall the mention of any terms like conservative, liberal, republican, Jesus or god in any of my chemistry, biology or math classes at Tech? Has something changed since I was a young man ?

The job of academics now is to raise grant money. Anyone who tells you different is either a liar or clueless. University departments are nothing more than grant-application offices. They have their superstars and rainmakers, just like law firms and investment banks. Believe me, they are not the professors who the students love or who are inspired teachers. They are the ones who bring home the bacon.

Most grant money comes from the federal government. The climate-related grants are coming from organizations that have a clear political agenda. Everyone in academia knows this and they know that they willnever ever get another grant if they whisper even the tiniest doubt about the most speculative scaremongering over AGW.

 

[bigarrow]

That's what I love about this site. You can find an expert in polotical science, science, Florida law, constitutional law, labor law, macro and micro economics, business, battlefield methods, psychology, university grant programs, immigration, foreign policy, religion and history. And it's all from one person, thanks AAA.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The job of academics now is to raise grant money. Anyone who tells you different is either a liar or clueless. University departments are nothing more than grant-application offices. They have their superstars and rainmakers, just like law firms and investment banks. Believe me, they are not the professors who the students love or who are inspired teachers. They are the ones who bring home the bacon.

Most grant money comes from the federal government. The climate-related grants are coming from organizations that have a clear political agenda. Everyone in academia knows this and they know that they willnever ever get another grant if they whisper even the tiniest doubt about the most speculative scaremongering over AGW.

Riiiight, the vast green energy industry just crushes the weak, profitless fossil-fuel interests. Seriously, what do you use for a brain?