I think the Republican Party supports science denial - Here is Why (1 Viewer)

[Captain Cranks]

Hot Take Alert!

I don't like the use of the term 'climate change deniers' because it gives them too much credit.  They're not denying climate change.  They're denying the science that shows the statistical significance of climate change.  And this isn't an isolated issue for them.  They denied the big bang theory.  They denied the use of stem cell research.  They denied evolution.  So I think it's time to call a spade a spade; especially if you're a Democrat running in 2020.  Your opposition is anti-science and they need to be called out for it.    

Edited Title To Make It A Discussion

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

All sides have belief systems.  But I think the difference is that the democrats have more abstract or conceptual beliefs that are applied to the facts at hand to lead to muddy, maybe even "wishy washy" "for it before against it"  positions.  The GOP on the other hand is dominated by an all encompassing belief system that molds facts to those beliefs or rejects those facts completely.  That leads to denial of facts for science.  But it also leads to such denials for economics and many other subjects.   Because of this the GOP ends up dealing in absolutes and the democrats in nuances and all too often the "absolutes", even when clearly wrong is the preferable message to the masses.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Edited Title To Make It A Discussion

 

[supermike80]

Blah...quit generalizing.   It's annoying.   That's like saying every democrat is a socialist...Is that fair?

I;m a republican..I don't deny the big bang, I dont deny stem cell research.   So I guess I just proved your entire premise wrong

 

[Ilov80s]

Blah...quit generalizing.   It's annoying.   That's like saying every democrat is a socialist...Is that fair?

I;m a republican..I don't deny the big bang, I dont deny stem cell research.   So I guess I just proved your entire premise wrong

Do you not deny climate change and human impact on climate change? If so, why is that science different from big bang or evolution?

 

[timschochet]

Depends on the issue. Many conservatives deny the science of climate change. Some conservatives deny the science of evolution. 

But on the other hand, anti-vaxxers are often progressives AND conservatives. Homeopathic remedy believers are sometimes progressives. And in the past, whenever any debate over nuclear energy comes up, it is my impression that conservatives tend to be more grounded in facts while progressives rely on fear and paranoia. 

There is a fine book on this subject: Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten our Future by Donald A Prothero, which discusses the denials that arise from both conservatives AND progressives. 

 

[supermike80]

Do you not deny climate change and human impact on climate change? If so, why is that science different from big bang or evolution?

Are you just looking for a fight?

The OP stated that all republicans have these opinions, I pointed out that as a republican I do not agree with what he posted.  Or is this thread yet another one about climate change only?

And PS..I don't deny climate change or the human impact of it.   

 

[Opie]

Who's denying "climate change"? 

The climate has been changing since the dawn of time.

 

[Ilov80s]

Are you just looking for a fight?

The OP stated that all republicans have these opinions, I pointed out that as a republican I do not agree with what he posted.  Or is this thread yet another one about climate change only?

And PS..I don't deny climate change or the human impact of it.   

No, the first thing the OP brought up was climate change. I was following up your response about it. 

 

[timschochet]

Here’s the data on anti-vaxxers: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.precisionvaccinations.com/childhood-vaccination-programs-should-be-exempt-political-bias%3famp

12% of liberals

10% of conservatives

Seems evenly split.  

 

[supermike80]

No, the first thing the OP brought up was climate change. I was following up your response about it. 

Ok..I hope I cleared things up for you. 

 

[Ilov80s]

Who's denying "climate change"? 

The climate has been changing since the dawn of time.

LOL, true. I just assume when people mention "climate change" that the connotation is that the behavior of humans is speeding up the change and that it will have negative outcomes. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Here’s the data on anti-vaxxers: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.precisionvaccinations.com/childhood-vaccination-programs-should-be-exempt-political-bias%3famp

12% of liberals

10% of conservatives

Seems evenly split.  

Don't ruin these sweeping generalizations with actual data...

 

[Ilov80s]

Ok..I hope I cleared things up for you. 

You did, may I ask another question. I am not looking for a fight and am not someone that generally picks fights here. How important/significant do you think the human impact on climate change is? Are you pleased with the Republican Party's handling of the issue?

 

[Da Guru]

Depends on the issue. Many conservatives deny the science of climate change. Some conservatives deny the science of evolution. 

But on the other hand, anti-vaxxers are often progressives AND conservatives. Homeopathic remedy believers are sometimes progressives. And in the past, whenever any debate over nuclear energy comes up, it is my impression that conservatives tend to be more grounded in facts while progressives rely on fear and paranoia. 

There is a fine book on this subject: Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten our Future by Donald A Prothero, which discusses the denials that arise from both conservatives AND progressives. 

I know many conservatives who I play ball and work out with who are big believers in homopathic remedies.   This is why I hate slapping
"labels" on people.  I know many people from both sides who have a wide variety of views that are not all lock step with their labels.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Edited Title To Make It A Discussion

Another dumb thread imo

Some republicans are undoubtedly "science-deniers"  Some democrats are probably "science-deniers", and some independents are probably "science-deniers".

You should either nix the thread - or remove the connection to "republicans", and have the discussion about climate change or, alternatively, have the discussion about specific people who might be "science-deniers"

 

[supermike80]

You did, may I ask another question. I am not looking for a fight and am not someone that generally picks fights here. How important/significant do you think the human impact on climate change is? Are you pleased with the Republican Party's handling of the issue?

Its important and significant

And define handling of the issue.

 

[Ilov80s]

Here’s the data on anti-vaxxers: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.precisionvaccinations.com/childhood-vaccination-programs-should-be-exempt-political-bias%3famp

12% of liberals

10% of conservatives

Seems evenly split.  

Yep. Some of the most liberal people I know are anti-vaxxers. I think science denial isn't sweeping but more issue based. Just like conspiracy theories. 

 

[supermike80]

Another dumb thread imo

Some republicans are undoubtedly "science-deniers"  Some democrats are probably "science-deniers", and some independents are probably "science-deniers".

You should either nix the thread - or remove the connection to "republicans", and have the discussion about climate change or, alternatively, have the discussion about specific people who might be "science-deniers"

Hey board folks.  I'm new here.  But is Sinn the designated judge of thread value?   Just curious.

 

[Ilov80s]

Its important and significant

And define handling of the issue.

Do you feel the Republican Party has a plan to address it? Are you happy with how they are messaging themselves as it relates to climate change? Do you trust that the party will take steps to lessen the impact?

 

[supermike80]

Do you feel the Republican Party has a plan to address it? Are you happy with how they are messaging themselves as it relates to climate change? Do you trust that the party will take steps to lessen the impact?

1) No.

2) I can't comment on the message really.  I dont see a lot of push on it

3) no

 

[Sinn Fein]

For the record - I think many republicans are not "science-deniers" I think many that appear that way - don't care about the science, they simply think the societal benefits are greater for pollution than for "green" solutions.

 

[timschochet]

Here’s an article from the New Republic, hardly a conservative source, about how Democrats cannot be called the party of science: 

https://newrepublic.com/article/139700/democrats-party-science-not-really

It raises many of the same issues I’ve brought up already: anti-vaxxing, homeopathy, nuclear energy, and also discusses product labeling, which Republicans have been more in favor of than Democrats. 

But I need to add: though I don’t accept the premise of the OP, I  do think that climate change is THE issue of our time, more important than any other, and on this issue many conservatives have simply failed to accept science, and therefore deserve whatever criticism they get for it. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

For the record - I think many republicans are not "science-deniers" I think many that appear that way - don't care about the science, they simply think the societal benefits are greater for pollution than for "green" solutions.

I think you're probably right about this, but I think it's undeniable that many people in the GOP backwards-engineer arguments about why man-made climate change is fake or overblown as a way of propping up their ex ante belief that we shouldn't do anything about climate change.  It's a lot more palatable to hold the view "We shouldn't do anything about climate change because climate change isn't real" than it is to say "We shouldn't do anything about climate change because the short-run cost of reducing carbon emissions outweighs the long-term benefits."

 

[Captain Cranks]

Another dumb thread imo

Some republicans are undoubtedly "science-deniers"  Some democrats are probably "science-deniers", and some independents are probably "science-deniers".

You should either nix the thread - or remove the connection to "republicans", and have the discussion about climate change or, alternatively, have the discussion about specific people who might be "science-deniers"

I did.  They're called Republicans.  If you feel differently, please specify where the Republican party has openly supported taking steps to reverse climate change, stem cell research, etc rather than attempt to thwart such efforts.  

Yes, this is a sweeping overgeneralization I'm making.  Those who consider themselves Republicans but support scientific findings are going to be offended.  However, you have to reconcile those beliefs by the actions of your party.  

 

[Sinn Fein]

However, you have to reconcile those beliefs by the actions of your party.  

new here?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

But on the other hand, anti-vaxxers are often progressives AND conservatives. Homeopathic remedy believers are sometimes progressives.

Yep, in my experience you get all kinds of different people and backgrounds including political beliefs when talking holistic medicine.  It really has zero to do with politics and what you trust and what you believe.

 

[Captain Cranks]

new here?

1. SF says thread is dumb and doesn't foster discussion.

2. SF posts condescending emoticon and snarky remark.

You're really owning this thread.  Great job.   

 

[Dedfin]

For the record - I think many republicans are not "science-deniers" I think many that appear that way - don't care about the science, they simply think the societal benefits are greater for pollution than for "green" solutions.

Right. If anything the thread should be about comparing republicans value systems vs democrat value systems 

 

[rockaction]

I think you're probably right about this, but I think it's undeniable that many people in the GOP backwards-engineer arguments about why man-made climate change is fake or overblown as a way of propping up their ex ante belief that we shouldn't do anything about climate change.  It's a lot more palatable to hold the view "We shouldn't do anything about climate change because climate change isn't real" than it is to say "We shouldn't do anything about climate change because the short-run cost of reducing carbon emissions outweighs the long-term benefits."

There are certainly people who are major players and have been covered in news outlets over the past several years that don't deny anthropogenic climate change but propose a different scale of reduction in carbon emissions because of cost and what they believe to be an overestimation of the complications from climate change. 

But your main point is taken. The GOP often backwards-engineers arguments about climate change. 

I personally am very pro-science compared to an average Republican, it seems.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

1) No.

2) I can't comment on the message really.  I dont see a lot of push on it

3) no

Actions speak louder than words. One can say they are aware of scientific consensus on climate change and the need to address it, just like one can call themselves a proponent of state's rights and small government, or of fiscal responsibility, or an ally in the fights against misogyny, Islamophobia and xenophobia, and so on.  But if a person supports leaders who take the opposite position in both words and deeds, how much does it really matter what that person tells people?  Not much IMO.

 

[supermike80]

Actions speak louder than words. One can say they are aware of scientific consensus on climate change and the need to address it, just like one can call themselves a proponent of state's rights and small government, or of fiscal responsibility, or an ally in the fights against misogyny, Islamophobia and xenophobia, and so on.  But if a person supports leaders who take the opposite position in both words and deeds, how much does it really matter what that person tells people?  Not much IMO.

Well, if were gonna go there..What if a person REALLY is anti abortion?  Hugely so.  And willing to vote for republicans that want to stop that practice, even though they may not agree on climate related issues with them.  Since they voted for a particular candidate because of his or her position on abortion are you saying that they automatically agree with every single thing that person stands for?  That's your argument?

 

[Ilov80s]

1) No.

2) I can't comment on the message really.  I dont see a lot of push on it

3) no

So is your position as a Republican that then Democrats don't have any better answers or that there are other issues that are significantly more important as to outweigh the issue of climate change? If so, which ones?

I am not trying to quiz you, just curious. 

 

[Ilov80s]

Well, if were gonna go there..What if a person REALLY is anti abortion?  Hugely so.  And willing to vote for republicans that want to stop that practice, even though they may not agree on climate related issues with them.  Since they voted for a particular candidate because of his or her position on abortion are you saying that they automatically agree with every single thing that person stands for?  That's your argument?

That is certainly fair and I do know people who vote Republican purely on abortion. Although I do wonder if climate change gets as bad as some suspect what they will mean for millions of children in the next 2-5 generations. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Well, if were gonna go there..What if a person REALLY is anti abortion?  Hugely so.  And willing to vote for republicans that want to stop that practice, even though they may not agree on climate related issues with them.  Since they voted for a particular candidate because of his or her position on abortion are you saying that they automatically agree with every single thing that person stands for?  That's your argument?

It has been since the 2016 election season

 

[supermike80]

So is your position as a Republican that then Democrats don't have any better answers or that there are other issues that are significantly more important as to outweigh the issue of climate change? If so, which ones?

I am not trying to quiz you, just curious. 

I don't think the democrats have better answers....yet....And I don't necessarily think its only the democrats that are trying to find changes.   Again, that's a silly generalization that I flat out refuse to get behind.

 

[JuniorNB]

For the record - I think many republicans are not "science-deniers" I think many that appear that way - don't care about the science, they simply think the societal benefits are greater for pollution than for "green" solutions.

I don't believe anyone who says they don't believe in evolution or climate change. There's simply so much proof that it's not even deniable. They have to pretend to not believe it because it contradicts with their religious and political beliefs. Obviously, evolution wasn't mentioned in the bible. And to admit you believe in climate change, and the problems it creates, you'd be obligated to want to do something about it. And a lot of that would be factory emissions, water run-off, etc. Regulations. So they just wait for a cold day and say "see? no global warming'"

 

[supermike80]

That is certainly fair and I do know people who vote Republican purely on abortion. Although I do wonder if climate change gets as bad as some suspect what they will mean for millions of children in the next 2-5 generations. 

My point, simply, was that to generalize any particular person simply for their decision to be a republican or democrat is wrong and part of what causes such division amongst us these days.  

 

[timschochet]

It has been since the 2016 election season

I know you think this. It’s not quite accurate. 

What many of us have said is this: there are certain things that Donald Trump has said, and certain ideas he believes in, which are so offensive and antithetical to our traditional politics that they cannot be ignored, and if you voted for him, you therefore support him on those issues, at least by default. That is not true of any other major political candidate in modern history. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

Well, if were gonna go there..What if a person REALLY is anti abortion?  Hugely so.  And willing to vote for republicans that want to stop that practice, even though they may not agree on climate related issues with them.  Since they voted for a particular candidate because of his or her position on abortion are you saying that they automatically agree with every single thing that person stands for?  That's your argument?

  

In that case they would just be irrational, since no federal authority can stop legal abortions from happening without violating violating the supposedly core conservative principles of Constitutional originalism, state's rights, and limited federal intrusions.  At best they could overturn Roe v Wade, but that still leaves the states in charge of the decision. 

So if they support a federal statutory abortion ban they could not also call themselves supporters of Constitutional originalism, state's rights, and limited federal intrusions, because actions speak louder than their words. And if we're talking about support for Trump and his defenders they could not call themselves supporters of fiscal responsibility or allies in the fights against misogyny, Islamophobia and xenophobia because at a minimum they would be placing very little value on those things if they're willing to support people who are the opposite just because they want decisions on abortion to be left to the states.

 

[supermike80]

I don't believe anyone who says they don't believe in evolution or climate change. There's simply so much proof that it's not even deniable. They have to pretend to not believe it because it contradicts with their religious and political beliefs. Obviously, evolution wasn't mentioned in the bible. And to admit you believe in climate change, and the problems it creates, you'd be obligated to want to do something about it. And a lot of that would be factory emissions, water run-off, etc. Regulations. So they just wait for a cold day and say "see? no global warming'"

I don't agree that if you admit to there being climate change means your obligated to do something about it.  

Also, I despise the cold day analysis.  Every time a person points out how cold it is today, the response is "weather is not climate"  Which, is 100% true.  HOWEVER, when there is a strong hurricane, during hurricane season for crying out loud, its due to climate change and no one is allowed to say "weather isnt climate"

Pet peeve issue

 

[SoBeDad]

Economics is not a science yet, but many why do many conservatives exaggerate the trickle down effect when there is so much  hard data to the contrary. Economics deniers and wishful thinking.

 

[timschochet]

I don't believe anyone who says they don't believe in evolution or climate change. 

You should. 

Yiu can apply this rule to politicians if you want, but please don’t apply it to the public at large. When it comes to political opinions, the public is often stupid, often uneducated, often misguided, sometimes malicious, sometimes stubborn. But very rarely are they disingenuous or dishonest. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

My point, simply, was that to generalize any particular person simply for their decision to be a republican or democrat is wrong and part of what causes such division amongst us these days.  

I wouldn't do that. I'm not talking about party labels, I'm talking about specific actions.  If a person claims that they acknowledge man-made contributions to climate change and the importance of addressing the problem, but supports politicians who do the opposite, the latter is a lot more meaningful. 

Certainly they can explain themselves and address the apparent inconsistency between words and actions, as you tried to do with the abortion hypothetical. But at a minimum that still means they place more value on removing the Constitutional protection for abortions than they do on addressing climate change, and that action means more than their words.

 

[supermike80]

I wouldn't do that. I'm not talking about party labels, I'm talking about specific actions.  If a person claims that they acknowledge man-made contributions to climate change and the importance of addressing the problem, but supports politicians who do the opposite, the latter is a lot more meaningful. 

Certainly they can explain themselves and address the apparent inconsistency between words and actions, as you tried to do with the abortion hypothetical. But at a minimum that still means they place more value on removing the Constitutional protection for abortions than they do on addressing climate change, and that action means more than their words.

I agree..there are many..MANY who feel more strongly about abortion than climate change.  And they will vote to support that feeling.

 

[Stealthycat]

I don't like the use of the term 'climate change deniers' because it gives them too much credit.  They're not denying climate change.  They're denying the science that shows the statistical significance of climate change.  And this isn't an isolated issue for them.  They denied the big bang theory.  They denied the use of stem cell research.  They denied evolution.  So I think it's time to call a spade a spade; especially if you're a Democrat running in 2020.  Your opposition is anti-science and they need to be called out for it.    

I'll take this as a Trump voter and conservative 

Climate change is absolutely real and it has happened since this planet was born. This earth has seen massive warming, massive cooling .... over and over and over. The Big Bang is a theory, not fact. 

Stem cells is research by science and in some cases using the stem cells harvested by killed unborn babies. that's what we're against

evolution is a theory - not fact. Adaptation is real, but evolution where one animal turns into another? theory

science is wrong - a lot ..... 

 

[Ilov80s]

generalize any particular person simply for their decision to be a republican or democrat is wrong and part of what causes such division amongst us these days.  

Yes I agree with that completely. I was just curious about that specific view point since I feel so often the climate change threads turn into believers vs non-believers. 

 

[supermike80]

Yes I agree with that completely. I was just curious about that specific view point since I feel so often the climate change threads turn into believers vs non-believers. 

totally does...and there are a few very long threads on here that delve deeply into that.  Including one where I did a tad bit of trolling to get the discussion going.

However I was just put off by the subject.  I think we have to stop doing that.  Just my 2c

 

[Ilov80s]

I think the premise of the thread is obviously wrong. If one wanted to attempt a realistic premise it would be more like "Party X has more science deniers than Party Y" or "There is a developing trend in Party X towards..." or something like that. Plus as I think it is clear, not all science is viewed the same. There are people who believe very strongly in certain science and not at all in other science. Sometimes it is political, sometimes it is from anecdotal evidence in their life or lives of friends, sometimes it is because they use crap sources, etc.

 

[JuniorNB]

I don't agree that if you admit to there being climate change means your obligated to do something about it.  

Also, I despise the cold day analysis.  Every time a person points out how cold it is today, the response is "weather is not climate"  Which, is 100% true.  HOWEVER, when there is a strong hurricane, during hurricane season for crying out loud, its due to climate change and no one is allowed to say "weather isnt climate"

Pet peeve issue

I don't really want to get into an educational discussion, but cold days are never going to become extinct. No matter how much global warming. Hurricanes are very much affected by water temperatures. The increase in water temperatures contributes to the creation of hurricanes in the oceans. Damn, there I go educating.

As to your first point, that may be true to the average citizen. But a politician can't admit that he realizes the effects of emissions and then do nothing about it. In Trump's case, he's actually relieved businesses of restrictions, as well as pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement. That's why he feels compelled to tweet that climate change is a hoax every time a cold front passes through.  Even someone as bold and heartless as him can't come right out and say that he knows the damages he's causing the earth but he's 72 and doesn't care.