Study: Conservatives' trust in science has fallen dramatically since mid-1970s

Mar 29, 2012

While trust in science remained stable among people who self-identified as moderates and liberals in the United States between 1974 and 2010, trust in science fell among self-identified conservatives by more than 25 percent during the same period, according to new research from Gordon Gauchat, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill's Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research.

"You can see this distrust in among conservatives reflected in the current Republican primary campaign," said Gauchat, whose study appears in the April issue of the . "When people want to define themselves as conservatives relative to moderates and , you often hear them raising questions about the validity of and evolution and talking about how 'intellectual elites' and don't necessarily have the whole truth."

Relying on data from the 1974-2010 waves of the nationally representative , the study found that people who self-identified as conservatives began the period with the highest trust in science, relative to self-identified moderates and liberals, and ended the period with the lowest.

In addition to examining how the relationship between and trust in science changed over almost 40 years, Gauchat also explored how other social and —including frequency of church attendance—related to trust in science over that same period. Gauchat found that, while trust in science declined between 1974 and 2010 among those who frequently attended church, there was no statistically significant group-specific change in trust in science over that period among any of the other social or demographic factors he examined, including gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

"This study shows that the public trust in science has not declined since the mid-1970s except among self-identified conservatives and among those who frequently attend church," Gauchat said. "It also provides evidence that, in the United States, there is a tension between religion and science in some contexts. This tension is evident in public controversies such as that over the teaching of evolution."

As for why self-identified conservatives were much less likely to trust science in 2010 than they were in the mid-1970s, Gauchat offered several possibilities. One is the conservative movement itself.

"Over the last several decades, there's been an effort among those who define themselves as conservatives to clearly identify what it means to be a conservative," Gauchat said. "For whatever reason, this appears to involve opposing science and universities and what is perceived as the 'liberal culture.' So, self-identified conservatives seem to lump these groups together and rally around the notion that what makes 'us' conservatives is that we don't agree with 'them.'"

Another possibility, according to Gauchat, is the changing role of science in the United States. "In the past, the scientific community was viewed as concerned primarily with macro structural matters such as winning the space race," Gauchat said. "Today, conservatives perceive the scientific community as more focused on regulatory matters such as stopping industry from producing too much carbon dioxide. Conservatives often oppose government regulation, and they increasingly perceive science as on the side of regulation, especially as scientific evidence is used more frequently in the work of government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and in public debates over issues such as climate change."

The study also found that the declining trust in science among conservatives was not attributable to changes among less educated conservatives, but rather to rising among better educated conservatives. "It is a significant finding and the opposite of what many might expect," Gauchat said.

As for the study's implications, Gauchat said it raises important questions about the future role of science in public policy. "In a political climate in which all sides do not share a basic in science, scientific evidence no longer is viewed as a politically neutral factor in judging whether a public policy is good or bad," said Gauchat, who is also concerned that the increasingly politicized view of science could turn people away from careers in the field. "I think this would be very detrimental to an advanced economy where you need people with science and engineering backgrounds."

Explore further: More than half of all children in the US will likely live with an unmarried mother

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Peak oil and public health: Political common ground?

Aug 09, 2011

Peak petroleum—the point at which the maximum rate of global oil extraction is reached, after which the rate of production begins to decline—is a hot topic in scientific and energy circles. When will it occur? What ...

Political views are reflected in brain structure

Apr 07, 2011

We all know that people at opposite ends of the political spectrum often really can't see eye to eye. Now, a new report published online on April 7th in Current Biology reveals that those differences in political orientation are ti ...

Recommended for you

Consumer loyalty driven by aesthetics over functionality

1 hour ago

When designing a new car, manufacturers might try to attract consumers with more horsepower, increased fuel efficiency or a lower price point. But new research from San Francisco State University shows consumers' loyalty ...

User comments : 77

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gwrede
3.7 / 5 (19) Mar 29, 2012
I weep for America. At this rate, the U.S. is becoming just another Iran, with Conservative leaders becoming the ayatollahs, and hordes of less educated science opponents rising to power. This would make the nation even more aggressive and unpredictable.

I wonder if an us-versus-them mindset is inherent in the Conservative brain. A kind of need to perceive there is an us-group where one belongs, and the rest don't. I don't see Liberals having such needs. I saw one study about this last year here on PhysOrg, but this should be studied more.
Callippo
2 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2012
Conservapedia counterexamples to relativity or evolution. Many of them are just plain naive and misleading, if not plain religious - but many of them aren't.
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2012
In dense aether model the Universe appears like the water surface, being observed from perspective of its own ripples. With increasing distance scale the spreading of waves becomes more deterministic and we are observing more spherical objects and phenomena, which are easy to describe with low-dimensional physics of general relativity. But when the technological progress enabled us to see even farther, we are getting to observe the distance scale, where the spreading of light becomes indeterministic again, and the relativistic physics becomes less reliable and distrustful here. It's because the deterministic, i.e. low-dimensional and background invariant of energy spreading is domain of only limited scope of energy density or distance scale. The same evolution emerges symmetrically at the small distance scale: atoms and atom nuclei are still quite deterministic, but smaller particles aren't and the classical science fails in their description.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 29, 2012
The collapse of America started with the Reagan Administration and it's Libertarian derived economic policies merged with an anti-scicence fundamentalist Christian view.

Welcome to the NeoConservative American Dark Era.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (17) Mar 29, 2012
Trust must be earned.
Much of what is being reported as science can't be trusted.
If that is the fault of a 'liberal' press, then the scientists must find other ways to earn trust.
Latest examples of the 'experts' fixing of economies are dismal failures and the 'experts' can't understand why they fail. Another is the the 'obesity' epidemic, which is caused by over consumption of sugar and starch, which the govt subsidizes, but the 'science' asserts is caused by too much fat. Eggs are bad this week, good the next.
Maybe, just maybe, if the scientists would refuse to be tools of the state to promote its agenda, trust may, just may return.
People DO have interest in science if the popularity of science programs on cable TV are an indication. And some scientists on these shows have gained a following. So its not science per se that is not trusted. It so those who use science as an excuse for social engineering. Remember eugenics?
Callippo
2.8 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2012
The collapse of America started with the Reagan Administration and it's Libertarian derived economic
IMO the Libertarian derived economy begins and falls with fossil fuel crisis. The only problem is, just the same political forces, which should be interested in fast replacement of fossil fuel economy are those, which guard their oil property and investments in most attentive way.
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2012
If that is the fault of a 'liberal' press, then the scientists must find other ways to earn trust.
I'd say, it's the fault of science itself. The strictly deterministic approach cannot work for ever.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (15) Mar 29, 2012
Trust must be earned.

This is science. You don't need to trust it. That's the point. Just look at the facts.

What has failed here is the education system. It has failed to produce scientifically literate people - especially when combatting against religious indoctrination (as noted in the article that only church attendance seems to be the deciding factor). When even presidential hopefuls clamor against education (like Santorum) - what do we expect?

Over the last several decades, there's been an effort among those who define themselves as conservatives to clearly identify what it means to be a conservative," Gauchat said. "For whatever reason, this appears to involve opposing science and universities

Reason being: Universities tend to be attended with the more intelligent part of society and they tend to produce people with a more inquiring mindset.
OF COURSE will the conservatives define themselves as opposed to that.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 29, 2012
Yes, facts:
The education system in the US is controlled by 'liberal' unions attempting to indoctrinate their socialist agendas.
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2012
This is science. You don't need to trust it. That's the point

But you have to pay it - that's the difference.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (13) Mar 29, 2012
Another 'feature' of US education that began in the 70s was the de-emphasis on grades and rigor which may hurt the feelings of the students.
This was also a time of the creation of 'women's studies' and 'black studies' programs to promote a 'liberal' agenda on campi and employ radical 'professors'.
Modernmystic
3.9 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2012
Much of this probably comes from people using science (be it valid or not) to advance social or political agendas.

The fault of the conservatives is to question the SCIENCE and in general NOT the agenda...
Cluebat from Exodar
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 29, 2012
Big Science is just another racket.

Follow the money.

I didn't leave science, science left me.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 29, 2012
But you have to pay it - that's the difference.

And you're getting a GREAT lifestyle back as a result of it. Don't forget that. Without it you'd still be banging rocks together and chopping wood to stay warm.

Much of this probably comes from people using science (be it valid or not) to advance social or political agendas.

The thing is: if you twist science to advance an agenda then you can be proven wrong by science. And it's blindingly obvious then who does it conscientiously and who doesn't.

I didn't leave science, science left me.

Nope. You stopped being curious about reality and expected everyone to share attitude. Science didn't leave you behind. You let yourself fall behind.
Cluebat from Exodar
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2012
If I were not curious I would not be here. Sharing comments with trolls such as yourself.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2012
if you twist science to advance an agenda then you can be proven wrong by science.

How is the 'science' to be promulgated? By a press that defends the agenda?

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Max Planck
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2012
.. But you have to pay it - that's the difference. ..
And you're getting a GREAT lifestyle back as a result of it. Don't forget that.
It's mostly result of work of engineers and technicians in privately funded labs, not the physicists. The physicists invented nuclear weapon, which I'm very thankful for - and contributed to the devastation of life environment with their ignorance of cold fusion finding. The formally thinking people undoubtedly contributed for the evolution of human civilization, but now they just become a brake of it. After all, like Holy Church, Illuminati and another influential groups of people. These people didn't disappear, but their influence and social support got social feedback. For those, who do prefer spoken word, there is Michio Kaku: How Physics Got Fat (And Why We Need to Sing For Our Supper)
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2012
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

I think you're not getting what Planck is saying here:
Those who work with the 'new science' have got it right in this case. Their science works and the old one doesn't - demonstrably. It's not that the new generation just chooses ANY scientific theory to replace the one that the oldsters work with.

Yes, there is a certain inertia in science. On the other hand it wouldn't be beneficial to dump everything just because of one paper (we'd be switching paradigms every day and getting nothing done that way).

The ones not involved in science are always in a comfortable position. Hindsight is 20:20.

Do some actual science - and then you may understand.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2012
It's mostly result work of engineers and technicians in privately funded research, not the physicists.


Tell me: How far would engineers have gotten without Planck? Or Maxwell? Or Einstein? Or Newton?

Read: Without a FUNDAMENTAL understanding of electricity, magnetism, material sciences, mathematics, relativity, ... All of these are integral part of the products you use every day. And no: They did not originate with 'engineers'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2012
"Study: Conservatives' trust in science has fallen dramatically since mid-1970s"

-Well of course I blame the resurgence of fundy religionism.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2012
Without a FUNDAMENTAL understanding of electricity, magnetism, material sciences, relativity
The equations of Maxwell (derived from aether model) are the fundamental understanding of electricity and magnetism and we actually didn't move forward from this time, because the priests of physics refused to even ask for it. And who actually understands the relativity deeper, than its postulates allows - it's just reduction of dense aether model again. Currently only me and few others are the only people, who are looking for deeper answers.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2012
This discussion is not, whether the scientists, politicians, bankers, lawyers and another groups of people are useful or not, because they're undoubtedly useful. The question is, if their usefulness is useful enough and if its balanced with effectiveness and cost of their activity. As we know, even the most useful people should get the public feedback occasionally and now the scientists are the last group of people, who are payed from mandatory fees and which lacks such public feedback at the institutional level. This should be changed.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2012
Yes, there is a certain inertia in science.

Really?
That's not what you asserted earlier, facts are facts.
BTW, I notice scientists are still validating Einstein.

Why?

We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.
Max Planck

Read more: http://www.brainy...qX7grLtY
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2012
Well, if you want to argue whether you're getting your money's worth - then we should probably look at something like this
http://en.wikiped..._science

2.7% of GDP is going to science. Seeing as all jobs in the US sooner or later come to depend on products that rae only posssible through science that's not such a bad deal.

(As opposed to, say, spending on defense - which produces NOTHING
of future value and takes a much larger chunk of the GDP. So if you really want to rile up about useless spending you're definitely on the wrong website)
Callippo
1.3 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2012
For example, the physicists are asking one billion of dollars for building of new underground detector of gravitational waves - but to discuss with them, whether the notoriously known CMBR noise cannot serve as these alleged waves is virtually impossible. They will not accept any public discussion about it and they're supported with private companies involved in such investments. On the other hand, the public discussion about existing evidence of cold fusion phenomena is impossible too. There are many evidences for it, but it still didn't get the institutional support. These guys are choosing just the research topics, where they could get some employment, while they're avoiding the research of all topics, where they could lost the job positions. They're sensitive to these things in similar way, like the priests in the times of Galileo.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2012
Really?
That's not what you asserted earlier, facts are facts.

Sure. Facts are facts. And if the facts withstand repeated testing then they will win out - never fear.
I'm saying that we shouldn't throw away everything just because of one measurement.

The OPERA results were a case in point. Non-scientists already hailed it as "the end of the standard model".
Scientist said: "Let's verify this first."
Turns out that was the right thing to do.

BTW, I notice scientists are still validating Einstein.

Why?

Because that's what you do in science. Every now and then we go back and check up on the stuff we THINK we know with better apparatus. Check your assumptions - then build on them. If you don't do that periodically you run the risk of building a house of cards that's missing the bottom layer.
randith
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2012

Much of this probably comes from people using science (be it valid or not) to advance social or political agendas.

The thing is: if you twist science to advance an agenda then you can be proven wrong by science.


Precisely. And the more frequently this happens, the less frequently conservatives trust so-called "science."
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2012
2.7% of GDP is going to science
Providing that the cold fusion is real and only moderate research is required for its introduction in praxis, then the price of the mainstream science ignorance goes suddenly a much higher. It corresponds the price of all fossil fuel wars, which we payed during last twenty years and the cost of destruction of life environment, which would be otherwise unnecessary.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2012
..I notice scientists are still validating Einstein. Why? Because that's what you do in science..
This is another problem - the attempts for validation of phenomena, which could REALLY falsify mainstream theories is way less willing, than the experiments, which are just supporting it. For example, Podkletnov or Tajmar's experiments with antigravity are way more important with respect of practical utilization of antigravity - but you cannot find any attempts for their replication in peer-reviwed press in the same way, like the reports about replication of cold fusion at nickel. Whereas the speed of light is measured again and again - because it's uncontroversial safe job. It's not secret for me, this bias is institutionalized and it's not result of any hidden conspiracy: the rules of grant agencies and journal editors are simply adjusted so. For example most of mainstream journals are refusing to publish every finding, which is not supported with some formal theory.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2012
Precisely. And the more frequently this happens, the less frequently conservatives trust so-called "science."

Well, since it's exclusively the conservatives who use twisted science I'm not surprised they back away from it after having been shown to be liars so many times. Can't trust what you thought was a brilliant a weapon that has become blunt so quickly.

Stupid people trying to use smart methods to outsmart smart people - not a winning strategy. Not at all.

Providing that the cold fusion is real

Sweet Lord...Weren't you complaining about 'pointless verbiage' a while ago. What is 'cold fusion' and 'aether theory' but that?
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2012
The OPERA results were a case in point. Non-scientists already hailed it as "the end of the standard model".
It were just the string theorists, who proposed the extradimensions for explanation of this anomaly. I know, you supported string theory heavily before some time here - so it's nice to hear from you, they're actually a non-scientists...;-) To be perfectly honest, just the neutrino case was a rare situation, when the string theorists got something right. I don't consider the verification of CERN experiment with another CERN experiments as a reliable falsification. This falsification must be made somewhere else with using of better methodology, which is not dependent of GPS measurements.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2012
Weren't you complaining about 'pointless verbiage' a while ago. What is 'cold fusion' and 'aether theory' but that?
This is just the ignorant pseudoskeptical attitude, which I'm criticizing here. The labeling something as a nonsense cannot replace qualified argumentation. The scientists should be able to argument their stance at public, or they cannot be considered trustworthy at all. The evolution of heat was observed before many years. We have evidence of formation of hot spots at the palladium electrodes, we have evidence of energetic particle formation from here.

And who attempted to replicate it? Nobody.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2012
What we should simply want is the replication of these important findings of recent era under controlled independent conditions: these three experiments in cold fusion, the Podkletnov antigravity beams, and Tajmar experiment with superconductor and J.F.Prins experiments with superconductive electrons at the surface of diamond. And I'm not talking about Bedini motor and many "free energy" stuffs which are presented on the web.

The mainstream science has whole complex mechanism developed, how to ignore all uncomfortable findings, which don't play well with mainstream theories. For example why the J.F. Kanzius radiolysis of water isn't studied more thoroughly? These experiments holds the key for understanding of both cluster medicine, both cold fusion. Instead of it, the media are pilled with priceless garbage about findings without practical usage.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2012
I know, you supported string theory heavily before some time here

Erm. No. Get your brain checked. I have always said that until and unless string theorists come up with a test for their theory it isn't even science. Currently string theory lacks testability. It also lacks falsifiability since there are still degrees of freedom that can be used to fit any observation.

And who attempted to replicate it? Nobody.

The list has been posted for you many times. You know it. everybody knows it. Google it.

They didn't find anything. It's a fraud. Give it up.
Moebius
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2012
If you are stupid and science clashes with your beliefs, guess which wins? And guess who is more stupid, liberals or conservatives?
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2012
The list has been posted for you many times. You know it. everybody knows it. Google it.
The hydrogen fusion at nickel was replicated with many persons successfully, but no one did in peer reviewed study supported with mainstream physics.

Isn't just this single fact itself a sufficient evidence of incompetence and ignorance of mainstream physics? The most important finding of the century, if not whole millennium is repeated many times - but mainstream physics didn't bothered to analyze it. Do we need some another evidence of its uselessness in this regard?
randith
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2012
Precisely. And the more frequently this happens, the less frequently conservatives trust so-called "science."

Well, since it's exclusively the conservatives who use twisted science I'm not surprised they back away from it after having been shown to be liars so many times. Can't trust what you thought was a brilliant a weapon that has become blunt so quickly.


Exclusively? I hope you don't believe that. I make no claims that conservatives have perfect science. But liberals are the ones trying to shove their agendas on people. Consider Climategate 1 and 2 and the obvious agenda of climate science liberal regulation = more government control.
Simonsez
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2012
If you are stupid and science clashes with your beliefs, guess which wins? And guess who is more stupid, liberals or conservatives?

They are equally stupid, because they are equally fundamentally extreme. Moderate is the only fundamentally "non-stupid". Core beliefs of conservatives defy scientific advancement and especially advancement that flies in the face of their traditions, while core beliefs of liberals demand "free" social services for those who do not work, paid for by an increasingly smaller pool of those who do work.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2012
If you are stupid and science clashes with your beliefs, guess which wins?
Phill Tetlock explains, we shouldn't trust the experts blindly:

"Listen to yourself talk to yourself. If you're being swept away with enthusiasm for some particular course of action, take a deep breath and ask: Can I see anything wrong with this? And if you can't, start worrying; you are about to go over a cliff."

The optimal strategy is the careful judging of the stance of multiple experts with contradicting opinions.
verkle
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2012
Does anyone have any data on the number and percentage of real American scientists before the 1970's who were fundamental in their Christian beliefs? I would expect this number to be quite high.

Then, compare the number of scientists today in the same way, in addition to tabulating those pushing a socialist agenda. I would expect to see a strong correlation there with what the article talks about.

As scientists lose their spiritual insight, their work naturally becomes biased based on their own personal convictions.

It is natural that those who retain faith become suspicious of some of the work of these scientists.

This subject is so complex that it cannot possibly be addressed properly in such a brief article. Personally I feel the article to be quite biased.

axemaster
5 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2012
I'd say, it's the fault of science itself. The strictly deterministic approach cannot work for ever.

Oh my god... this has to the worst sort of thinking. What would you put in place of determinism, then? Randomness? Then what determines the output of the randomness? What a waste of time.

Giving up on determinism is the same as giving up on science by definition. Determinism is the notion that things happen for a reason - any reason. Non-determinism is the very antithesis of logic, and everything in the universe is logical in nature. Indeed, the existence of any non-logical phenomenon is impossible simply because it would instantly introduce infinities and destroy the entire universe.
AWaB
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2012
I read through most of the discussions on this board. I haven't seen the one part of the study that is most intriguing to me:

The study also found that the declining trust in science among conservatives was not attributable to changes among less educated conservatives, but rather to rising distrust among better educated conservatives.


That should bring a pause to anyone who thinks about that.
Shelgeyr
2.8 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2012
The actual study behind this is here:
http://www.asanet...ture.pdf

I agree with Instapundit reader Mary Ritenour:
The GSS asked respondents the following question: "I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them [the Scientific Community]?"(page 172)

The confidence in "people running these institutions" was being measured, not "Science" itself. Huge difference. HUGE!

Maybe we should be skeptical of science reporting, too.


Hear here!

I also fully agree with Glenn Reynolds:
The reason is the use of science as an argument-from-authority for bigger government. If scientists want more trust, perhaps they should try not to be tools.


Sadly, many of physorg.com's comment threads are flooded with argument-from-authority logical flaws.
Callippo
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2012
Nature got it too: Too many sloppy mistakes are creeping into scientific papers. Nature Journal itself leads the record in the sloppy rejections of important findings, often leading into Nobel prices later.
Jotaf
2 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2012
They don't like science because critical thinking gets in the way... As Homer once said, "Facts, schm'acts."
Shelgeyr
3 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2012
They don't like science because critical thinking gets in the way...

...says one who doesn't know what he's talking about, and didn't read the actual study...
runrig
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2012
liberals are the ones trying to shove their agendas on people. Consider Climategate 1 and 2 and the obvious agenda of climate science liberal regulation = more government control.


Bollocks .... Heartland Institute
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2012
Conservatives are more prone to resorting to magical thinking rather than science to support their sick world view.

It is no coincidence that as this form of Neo-Conservatism has grown in America, America has grown increasingly weak on the world stage, to the point where it became the laughing stock of the entire world when George Bush was in power.

America will not exist as a single nation for much longer.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2012
liberals are the ones trying to shove their agendas on people. Consider Climategate 1 and 2 and the obvious agenda of climate science liberal regulation = more government control.


Bollocks .... Heartland Institute

Bollocks, EPA.
"EPA to ban new coal power plants with CO2 cap"
http://junkscienc...co2-cap/
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2012
"Like the rest of EPAs greenhouse agenda, the proposed rule is an affront to the Constitutions separation of powers. Congress never voted to prohibit the construction of new coal power plants. Indeed, Congress declined to pass less restrictive limits on coal electric generation when Senate leaders pulled the plug on cap-and-trade. Congress should reassert its constitutional authority, overturn the rule, and rein in this rogue agency.

EPA of course denies its proposal would interfere with construction of new coal-fired capacity (p. 38). How so? Because a new coal-fired power plant may be able to meet the 1,000 lb CO2/MHh standard by installing CCS [carbon capture and storage] at the time of construction.

"
http://www.global...-plants/
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2012
CO2 caps? Excellent, and long overdue.

"EPA to ban new coal power plants with CO2 cap" - RyggTard

"Bollocks, EPA." - RyggTard

EPA decisions are based on sound science.

Heartland Institute criticisms of that science is created to service the Coal and Oil industry.
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2012
RyggTard's criticism of the EPA quoted above is written by marlo Lewis Jr.

Marlo Lewis, Jr. is a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a corporation set up to serve as a propaganda outlet for it's corporate clients in order to further the interest of those Corporations at the expense of the American people.

There is no real difference between the nonsense propaganda produced by the Corrupt Competitive Enterprise Institue and the nonsense propaganda that comes from the Corrupt Heritage foundation.

Both serve the same pay masters and engage in the same campaign of dishonesty and treason against the American people.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
One of Clarke's laws says: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." Now the whole community of physicists (with few honor exceptions, which aren't payed from our taxes anyway) plays a role of this distinguished but elderly scientist. The things, which I'm taking seriously are for example the extradimensions, multiverses, cosmic strings or gravitational waves. The irony and evidence of separation from reality is, these phenomena are actually all around us - their predictors didn't recognize them.

The worse and less funny is the dual part of this ignorance, when the physicists openly insist, the things like the scalar waves, antigravity beams, homeopathy or overunity motors are impossible. At the case of such refusal of cold fusion we all losing incredible amount of money in this way, not to say about risk of geopolitical and environmental crisis.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
Isaac Asimov had a pronounced take on the subject, too. Ironically (and somewhat expectedly in context of dense aether model causal geometry), the former conservatives and naysayers are becoming a progressive force by now. Analogously, during spreading of ripples along water surface the prevailing character transverse and longitudinal waves alternates and the evolution works in cycles.
Callippo
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
The situation is even more complicated with the fact, many liberals (like our Vendicar Decarian) are actually occupying conservative stances in many aspects, while labeling their opponents blindly, whereas many so called conservatives (like the famous blogger L. Motl, for example) are occupying liberal stance, regarding the support of official scientific research of their pet theories or creationism, etc.. There is no strict dividing line between conservatives and liberals, many people are simply confused and they're rather using the B/W labeling as a way of confirmation of their own identity.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
Trust must be earned.
This is science. You don't need to trust it. That's the point. Just look at the facts.
The problem is, only very few concepts in contemporary science are actual facts. The absolute majority of concepts are the various extrapolation, i.e. interpretations of the observations. Nobody did ever see the electrons, photons, not to say about other subatomic particles. We are observing red shift, yes - but does it mean, we are observing the metric expansion of space-time, not to say about inflation, Big Bang and another things, which are deduced from it? And vice-versa: does the fact, we cannot detect the absolute reference frame for motion mean, the vacuum cannot be described like the material environment and there is no aether in its original meaning?

Of course not - these stances aren't facts, but a deductions of facts. Just the inability to distinguish the facts from extrapolations of facts is what makes the contemporary science untrustworthy in my eyes.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
My problem with science is, it cannot recognize, that many seemingly opposite stances are just dual perspectives of the same fact. For example, the fact that the epicycle model of planets has been replaced with its dual heliocentric version doesn't mean, that the epicycle model is fundamentally wrong. It's surprising coincidence with astronomical observations is not accidental - it just requires to made certain topological transformation of space-time and the epicycle model will remain perfectly valid. In the system of many inertial bodies (like the description of arms of galaxies) the epicycle models become even more useful, than the Copernican model.

What I'm therefore lacking with proponents of mainstream physics is certain flexibility of thinking. The sparse aether model apparently violates the Lorentz symmetry, yes - but does the dense aether model behave in the same way? Nobody cares about it already. The same blind stance we can observe in interpretations of many other theories
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
The apparent disinclination to mutual reconciliation of theories is of psychosocial origin and it's connected with over-employment of physicists as a whole. Which is the remnant of rich years of Cold War, when the physicists got credit and social status for construction of nuclear weapons and rockets. Now the situation changed significantly - and for physicists it's disadvantageous to admit, many theories (like the string theory and loop quantum gravity theories) are just dual versions of the same theory, because the more theories we maintain, the more theorists can keep their job. After all, as Robert Wilson, a former president of American Society of Physics expressed and named clearly before many years.
xen_uno
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
Could be too that those disbelieving conservatives are like some posters' views here .. that science is a fluff pursuit with easily obtained grants and funding, all for projects with little merit. Blows my mind that I see so many comments with that tone by people supposedly interested in science.

As far as the state of the union is concerned, in an attempt to please everyone, no one is pleased. The US reached its zenith years ago. Now like a white dwarf, its slowly cooling down, never again to be the beacon of light it once was. Republic > Democracy > Apathy > Socialism. Politically, the only one that saw the light and had some solutions was Ron Paul.

ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
"But the greens refuse to accept this because, according to their quasi-religious doctrine, industrial civilisation is a curse and economic growth a disease which can only be cured by rationing and self-sacrifice, higher taxes and greater state control.
The real deniers are those ideological greens who refuse to look at hard evidence (not just pie-in-the-sky computer models which are no more accurate than the suspect data fed into them) and wont accept that their well-intentioned schemes to make our world a better place are in fact making it uglier, poorer and less free."

Read more: http://www.dailym...qqGOgejE
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
Yes, but his solution was to immediately implement a decades long grand depression by increasing the unemployment rate to 40 percent.

I admire Paul's integrity, but laugh at his childish Libertarian Liedeology.

"Politically, the only one that saw the light and had some solutions was Ron Paul." - xen_uno
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
"Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA which was at the centre of the Climategate scandal, for example, was given £13.7million in grants for his departments research work; the environmental non-governmental organisations such as Greenpeace came on board because scaremongering helps them raise revenue.
Youre not going to give money to the charitys Project Thin Ice if you think the polar bear is good for another 10,000 years, but you might if youre told its seriously endangered.

Politicians were attracted because it was a good way of being seen to be addressing an issue of popular concern, and a handy excuse to put up taxes.

Big corporations joined in the scam as a) it enabled them to greenwash their image through campaigns like BPs Beyond Petroleum and b) it meant all that extra environmental regulation would be a handy way of pricing their smaller competitors out of the market place."
Daily Mail, 7FEB 12

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
Such is the lie being sold by those opposed to a sustainable economy.

There isn't a physical scientist alive today who doesn't believe that the current global economy is already vastly unsustainable.

But Libertarain/Randite's like RyggTard insist that it is, because their Liedeology would collapse if it were not true.

"But the greens refuse to accept this because, according to their quasi-religious doctrine, industrial civilisation is a curse and economic growth a disease which can only be cured by rationing and self-sacrifice" - RyggTard
xen_uno
not rated yet Apr 01, 2012
Ven .. well if unemployment rate temporarily spiked to 40% because he massively downsized the Fed, would that be such a bad thing? Take Homeland Security. What do we get from those guys? We get TSA muggings, eavesdropping, wiretapping, no knocks, loss of liberty, labels such as domestic terrorists ... I could go on and on. I surely realize that for him to get any of his reforms in would require cooperation from the legislative branch. That wont happen with all their vested interests .. unless we clean house there too.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
From 1990, to 1999, Phil Jones has collected 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants for the funding of the CRU.

Hmmm.. that works out to be 2.3 million per year to run the CRU.

The CRU has a staff of around 43 people. Which means that the total CRU budget amounts to $53,400 per staff member on average.

This does not include deductions for building maintainance, rental, services such as electric power, lawn maintainance, paper clips, computers, printers, scanners, and publication purchases, and all the other trappings of a research facility.

Looks like Phil Jones runs a pretty tight ship.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
You should ask he perpetually unemployed "lost generation" that would result from the 20 to 30 year long depression.

The rest of the world would survive nicely after a short downturn, and America would lose it's engineering and science imports - now working on "genius" visa's to whatever country would take them.

America would never regain the loss in it's competitive advantage.

If third world status is your goal for your nation. Then by all means pursue it.

As long as you take responsibility for your treason.

"Ven .. well if unemployment rate temporarily spiked to 40% because he massively downsized the Fed, would that be such a bad thing?" - Xen
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
That's what you get when you elect a Republican to office.

Too bad for America that the people didn't demand that the rightfully elected man - Al Gore - wasn't recognized as president by the Conservative Cabal on the Supreme Court who appointed Bushie.

"Take Homeland Security. What do we get from those guys? We get TSA muggings, eavesdropping, wiretapping, no knocks, loss of liberty, labels such as domestic terrorists ..." - Xen
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
With Regards to RyggTards tabloid reference "The Daily Mail"

The Daily Mail has been involved in a number of notable libel suits. Among them are:

2001, February: Businessman Alan Sugar was awarded £100,000 in damages following a story commenting on his stewardship of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.

2003, October: Actress Diana Rigg awarded £30,000 in damages over a story commenting on aspects of her personality.

2006, May: £100,000 damages for Elton John, following false accusations concerning his manners and behaviour.

2009, January: £30,000 award to Dr Austen Ivereigh, who had worked for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, following false accusations made by the newspaper concerning abortion.

2010, July: £47,500 award to Parameswaran Subramanyam for falsely claiming that he secretly sustained himself with hamburgers during a 23-day hunger strike in Parliament Square to draw attention to the plight of Tamils in Sri Lanka.

2011, November: the former lifestyle advise
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012

2011, November: the former lifestyle adviser to Cherie Blair and Tony Blair, Carole Caplin received "substantial" libel damages over claims in the Mail that she was about to reveal intimate details about her former clients.

On 16 July 1993 the Mail ran the headline "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding"

And on and on it goes. False accusation, slander and slur are pretty much all you get with that filthy British Tabloid.

No wonder Libertarian/Randite RyggTard turned to it in his attempt to slander an outstanding researcher like Phil Jones.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
Odd that you have only shown yourself to be untrustworthy.

"Trust must be earned" - RyggTard

Deceit is characteristically Libertarian/Randite.
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2012
Much of this probably comes from people using science (be it valid or not) to advance social or political agendas.

The fault of the conservatives is to question the SCIENCE and in general NOT the agenda...


MM --I think you very nearly nailed the problem right there.

I would just modify your statement to "economic agenda", because that is essentially what drives the other two, or at least largely so.

Most science is entirely uncontroversial, and generally only becomes so when it indicates a needed course of action that is going to result in the loss of profit, either through regulation, adoption of different process, or non-privitization(to name a few examples)

This is clearly illustrated by the bulk of the comments made here.

ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2012
"its not science as a method that people are losing confidence in; its scientists and the institutions that purport to speak for them.
"Gauchats paper was based on annual responses in the General Social Survey, which asks people: I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them? One institution mentioned was the scientific community.
"So when fewer people answered a great deal and more answered hardly any with regard to the scientific community, they were demonstrating more skepticism not toward science but toward the people running scientific institutions."

Read more: http://www.nypost...qtBCs81J
Are scientists miffed at not being trusted?
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2012
Vendicar/Scott is such a liar. Either that, or completely ignorant of history. Probably both.

Gore never led. He was never, ever, the "rightfully elected man".

http://www.americ...tio.html

That doesn't stop the liars on the left from still trying to push that tired old deception:

http://www.americ...ore.html

The "Selected Not Elected" meme is false. Don't be fooled. Love him or hate him, the right man - George W. Bush - won according to the law.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2012
"Regardless, while one should trust science as a method honestly done, science remains the best way at getting to the truth on a wide range of factual matters theres no particular reason why one should trust scientists and especially no particular reason why one should trust the people running scientific institutions, who often arent scientists themselves.

In fact, the very core of the scientific method is supposed to be skepticism. We accept arguments not because they come from people in authority but because they can be proven correct in independent experiments by independent experimenters. If you make a claim that cant be proven false in an independent experiment, youre not really making a scientific claim at all.

And saying, trust us, while denouncing skeptics as horror of horrors skeptics doesnt count as science, either, even if it comes from someone with a doctorate and a lab coat."
(See previous link.)
Kinedryl
not rated yet Apr 02, 2012
The scepticism is the whole basis of Popper's definition of scientific method: every acceptance is conditional here. You cannot prove a theory, you can only disprove it. Therefore the conservatives or whoever else can never become sceptical more, than Carl Popper did.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2012
The scepticism is the whole basis of Popper's definition of scientific method: every acceptance is conditional here. You cannot prove a theory, you can only disprove it. Therefore the conservatives or whoever else can never become sceptical more, than Carl Popper did.

Marxist excuses for their failures and the success of Einstein motivated Popper.
xen_uno
1 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2012
Ven ... well it's quite apparent that electing a socialistic democrat to eradicate policies that the disaster known as Bush created hasn't worked either. Obama in fact, has one upped Bush in several areas, with his liberal use of precedents. None of his campaign promises have been kept (maybe except health care which he, national politicians, and favored unions are exempt from). Hope and Change was just a dumb little campaign slogan, he really meant Business as Usual.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.