Rightwing attitudes toward science

[Admin]

This is depressing..

Oklahoma senator James Inhofe, who now chairs the Senate environment and public works committee despite famously calling global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”, took a star turn on Thursday at the Heartland Institute, whose conferences function as a hub for climate deniers...

In any event, Inhofe said Republicans were showing no indication that his party is ready to fall into line. “If you look at Republican candidates, they are all denying this stuff with the exception of Lindsey Graham,” he said... 

Actually, there was more than one: Lamar Smith, the Texas congressman who heads the science, space and technology committee, raised cheers from the room when he said he proposed a 40% cut in Nasa’s budget for earth sciences last week.

Republicans' leading climate denier tells the pope to butt out of climate debate | Environment | The Guardian

All but one Republican candidates don't believe in man-made climate change and they chose climate deniers to head to head the important committees..

[stpioc]

Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?

Evolution and climate science denial are predominant on the political right; there is no equivalent on the left

 Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) talks with reporters with (L-R) Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) at the U.S. Capitol. Inhofe believes global warming is a hoax, and his fellow Republican senators deny that we need to mitigate the problem. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Dana Nuccitelli
Thursday 28 April 2016 11.00 BSTLast modified on Thursday 28 April 201611.01 BST

There’s a widespread misconception about science denial – that on issues like the safety vaccines and genetically modified foods (GMOs), denial is found predominantly on the political left, mirroring the denial of evolution and climate science on the political right. This assumption has even been presented on The Daily Show, but it’s supported by precious little evidence. In fact, as Chris Mooney documented in great detail in 2014:

[The data] do not support the idea that vaccine denial is a special left-wing cause. As for GMOs, while resistance may be strongest on the far left, worries on this issue are quite prominent across the spectrum as well.

In neither case are these beliefs a mirror image, on the left, of climate change or evolution denial [on the political right].

New polling further debunks the science denial symmetry myth
Advertisement

A new YouGov poll provided yet more data, asking, “Do you think it is generally safe or unsafe to eat genetically modified foods?”. There was little difference in answers across political affiliations – Democrats and Republicans were evenly split on the question of safe/unsafe, and Independents were more likely to consider GMOs unsafe. Gender and family income best predicted the answers, with men and higher-income individuals more likely to consider GMOs safe.

Those surveyed were also asked if the science supporting the safety of childhood vaccination is indisputable. In this case, Democrats were the most likely to answer yes (68%) rather than no (21%), followed by Independents (53% to 33%), with Republicansexpressing the least confidence in the science supporting vaccine safety (47% yes, 42% no). Contrary to The Daily Show clip, these data show that vaccine science denial is more prevalent among conservatives than liberals.

A 2013 paper by Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues investigated the links between ideology and science denial. The study similarly found no evidence of symmetrical science denial between liberals and conservatives on different issues. The authors concluded that conspiratorial thinking and free market support - both prevalent on the political right - were most strongly related to science denial:

Free-market worldviews are an important predictor of the rejection of scientific findings that have potential regulatory implications, such as climate science, but not necessarily of other scientific issues. Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, is associated with the rejection of all scientific propositions tested.

The study found that libertarian objections to government intrusion arising from mandatory vaccination programs explained the prevalence of anti-vaccine views among conservatives. They also found that those on the liberal side of the spectrum are more likely to distrust the pharmaceutical industry, and thus also oppose vaccinations, but as borne out by the YouGov poll data, this appears to be a smaller effect. On GMOs, the Lewandowsky study found no link between trust in science and ideology, again, consistent with the latest polling data.

Conservative trust in science has steadily declined
The YouGov poll also asked respondents “Generally speaking, how much trust do you have that what scientists say is accurate and reliable?”. There was little difference between various ethnicities, ages, geographical regions, or genders. However, Democrats were far more likely to trust scientists than Republicans, with Independents falling in the middle, but closer to Republicans.

These results are consistent with a 2012 paper by Gordon Gauchat, which found:

public trust in science has not declined since the 1970s except amongconservatives and those who frequently attend church.



 Public trust in science broken down by ideology. Illustration: Gauchat (2012), American Sociological Review.

This rising distrust of science is particularly high among higher-educated conservatives, in what’s been coined the “smart idiot” effect. Essentially, on complicated scientific subjects like climate change, more highly-educated ideologically-biased individuals possess more tools to fool themselves into denying the science and rejecting the conclusions of experts.

Chris Mooney has attributed these trends to the growth of the ‘religious right’ and other changes in the Republican Party:

Clearly, The Republican War on Science’s politicization thesis is being strongly validated—a thesis that attributes the problem to the growth of a modern conservative movement, its need to appease its core interest groups and constituencies (corporate America, conservative Christians), its need to have its own alternative expertise and journalism (think tanks, Fox, Limbaugh), and so on … as the “New Right” emerged in the U.S. in the wake of the cultural battles of the 1960s and 1970s, it mobilized strong forces of authoritarianism–e.g., psychological rigidity and closed-mindedness.

Indeed, authoritarians favor Donald Trump, whose supporters have considerable overlap with climate science denial. Robert Brulle’s research into the ‘dark money’ funding climate denial also helps explain the problem. The Republican Party has become increasingly dependent upon corporate funding and support, which is heavily skewed in the direction of climate denial. The near-total abandonment of party leadership on the climate issue has sent a signal to Republican voters – climate change isn’t a concern, and anyone saying otherwise is part of the hoax.

A glimmer of hope for Republicans
The growth of this anti-science strain of the Republican Party thus seems to stem from multiple sources: increased party reliance on the religious right and corporate interests, and the growth of a right-wing media echo chamber that feeds anti-scienceconspiratorial thinking.

However, there is good news. For one, climate denial is largely limited to a small and dwindling group of old, white, male conservatives; hence, it’s not a tenable long-term position for the Republican Party. Like opposition to gay marriage, science denial is a position that will increasingly alienate young voters in particular, who will bear the brunt of the consequences of climate inaction.

The party’s chosen path has also resulted in the Donald Trump candidacy, which has GOP leadership in a panic. For these reasons, a rebound away from extreme partisanship and towards reality may be imminent. Already a group of House Republicans signed the Gibson climate change Resolution and formed the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, acknowledging the reality of human-caused climate change and the need to do something about it.

Perhaps this blossoming Republican climate leadership will trickle down to reverse the ideologically-based science denial among too many party members.

[Admin]

Ideology over science, once again..

It's well known that drug users exchange needles, which spread diseases like Aids and Hepatitis. It's also well known that programs of free needle exchanges reduce these issues considerably. However, only when there was already a full-blown health crisis did Governor Pence, now vice presidential candidate, grudgingly accept a limited free needle program..

But less than two hours away, the worst HIV outbreak in Indiana’s history was raging through Scott County. The outbreak surfaced in Austin, a rural town with a population just above 4,000. By March 2015, there were more than 80 confirmed cases of HIV in the county, nearly all of which were linked to shared needle use of prescription drugs. The soaring HIV rates drew widespread media attention, and reporters descended upon the quiet community to cover the fallout. Officials in Fayette took notice. The two counties shared a number of demographic similarities, including high rates of hepatitis C, which is spread through the blood and linked to injection drugs. So Maupin began to do her own research, and was quickly convinced of the public health benefits of needle exchange programs. Despite evidence of their effectiveness, such programs were banned in Indiana.

Although Pence did temporarily lift the ban on needle exchange programs in Scott County, he made it clear that he would not support a statewide effort. “I am opposed to needle exchange as anti-drug policy,” he remarked. “But this is a public health emergency and, as governor of the state of Indiana, I’m going to put the lives of the people of Indiana first.” He also signed legislation that left in place a ban on funding for the needle exchange programs, placing the financial burden for purchasing syringes on the often rural, cash-strapped counties.

Mike Pence Put Ideology Before Science — And The People Of Indiana Suffered — ThinkProgress

[stpioc]

As a former writer for Factcheck.org's SciCheck project—part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center—Levitan has spent countless hours pouring over statements made by politicians about science. Sometimes our leaders get the facts right.

But frequently, says Levitan, they distort, misrepresent, or flat-out fabricate the data in order to pander to their audience or push an agenda. That's the subject of Levitan's forthcoming book, Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science. To hear Levitan and co-host Kishore Hari dissect the many different techniques that our country's leaders use to distort science, click below:

Here Are All the Ways That Politicians Lie About Science | Mother Jones

[BobL]

"At this point, general concern, good feeling, evidence of worry is not enough, so we are asking for specific plans. I think where the Republicans are, if you really listen to them, is that they've stopped denying the science. They've stopped saying they're no scientists, and they're just saying now that it's too expensive to fix. The real irony is that the party of so-called business is now saying that business can't solve this problem, that there is no market solution available. It's somewhere between ironic and ridiculous. The answer has to be that they're answering to some other god."
-- Tom Steyer, billionaire hedge fund manager, philanthropist, and environmentalist (who supports Democrats).

[stpioc]

"At this point, general concern, good feeling, evidence of worry is not enough, so we are asking for specific plans. I think where the Republicans are, if you really listen to them, is that they've stopped denying the science. They've stopped saying they're no scientists, and they're just saying now that it's too expensive to fix.  The real irony is that the party of so-called business is now saying that business can't solve this problem, that there is no market solution available.  It's somewhere between ironic and ridiculous.  The answer has to be that they're answering to some other god."
  -- Tom Steyer, billionaire hedge fund manager, philanthropist, and environmentalist (who supports Democrats).

Thanks Bob. There is always another excuse of doing nothing. The reasons are simple:

1. Campaign contributions from the oil&gas industry
   
2. The fear climate change action needs involving the public sector
   

There is even a post here in this forum which containing the results of a research that shows conservatives only get critical of science when they fear public sector action is warranted.

It's that market fundamentalism again..

And it's fairly ridiculous:

• Pricing CO2 is a market based solution
  
• The income from CO2 pricing could be used subsiding the development of alternative energy, which could lead to whole new growth industries (this is already happening, of course, but all the conservatives are saying is "Solyndra")
  

[stpioc]

My answer to that is you have to be most suspicious of all when one side of the argument keeps changing their reasons for a conclusion, a predetermined conclusion, i.e. “Don’t do anything.” The conclusion never changes, the reasons always do change — that’s a dead giveaway for poor reasoning, and probably the wrong side of the argument. Mann: That’s what we call epistemic closure. More evidence and more consensus just proves that the conspiracy runs deeper and wider. There’s no way out of it, it’s an internally closed loop of bad logic and ideologically motivated belief.

Climate scientist Michael Mann’s new book says climate denial is ‘driving us crazy’

[stpioc]

President-elect Donald Trump recently picked Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina to head the White House's Office of Management and Budget. Like many of Trump’s other Cabinet nominees, Mulvaney seems to have a disturbingly low opinion of science. In a stunning September 9 Facebook post (that’s since been deleted but is still cached), Mulvaney asked, “... what might be the best question: do we really need government funded research at all.” 

The post was written in the midst of a heated debate in Congress about how much more money to allocate to the fight against the Zika virus. It wasn’t clear whether Mulvaney, a budget hawk, was referring to all of the government’s scientific research or just to government-funded research on Zika. (We’ve asked his office for comment and haven’t heard back.))

Trump's budget director pick: “Do we really need government-funded research at all” - Vox

He should read some of the stuff posted here about the public sector's role in major innovations

[stpioc]

This speaks for itself, from ThinkProgress:

Jason Chaffetz has no response for a little girl who asked if he believes in science

The raucous crowd wasn’t pleased with the Utah Republican dodging her question.


Ten-year-old Hannah Bradshaw asks Rep. Chaffetz (R-UT) a question at a Salt Lake City townhall. CREDIT: Screenshot/Salt Lake Tribune livestream.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) has had a rough couple of weeks. Earlier this month, public outcry forced him to withdraw his bill to sell off 3.3 million acres of public lands.

Then in a raucous town hall held at a Salt Lake City high school Thursday, 10-year old Hannah Bradshaw had two simple questions for the climate-science-denying congressman:

• “What are you doing to help protect our water and air for our generations and my kids’ generations?”
  
• “Do you believe in science? Because I do.”
  

Chaffetz’s weak and evasive responses were not well received by his constituents.

Rather than simply replying, “Of course I believe in science,” Chaffetz starts down a long and painful road of congress-speak and platitudes, such as, “I don’t pretend to have all the answers to all the questions…”

But the jeering and shouts of “answer the question!” pushed the Utah congressman to acknowledge her first question — with more mushy platitudes: “What is thrown into our air, what is thrown into our water, obviously has an effect on our environment.”

Uh, yes. Chaffetz then endorses an “all-of-the-above energy strategy,” adding, “I do think coal is an important part of that.” More jeers.

After the clip above ends, Chaffetz kept going. He rehashed the hopelessly out-of-date myth that electric vehicles are dirty: “There’s a lot of people who want to move to electricity. Well how in the world do you think electricity is generated?” Yet more jeers (at about 1:10:00 in full video here).

But he persisted with his talking points, attacking Democrats for supporting “solar farms” that are supposedly “destroying wildlife.” The data, however, say coal is by far the biggest killer of fauna such as birds.

A few minutes later, Chaffetz ended the town hall and was booed off the stage. Later, he told the media the room was full of paid agitators, so he may avoid such towns halls “for these radicals to further intimidate.”

Yes, Chaffetz needs to avoid such intimidating radicals as a 10-year-old girl who accepts science and wonders if her Congressman does.
Note to Jason Chaffetz: When a young girl asks you if you believe in science, say “yes” quickly.

[stpioc]

This speaks for itself..

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is probably best known for bringing a snowball to the Senate floor in a sad, failed attempt to demonstrate that climate change is a myth. (It’s not). Now that President Trump has proposed cutting the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency — which oversees clean air and water programs — by over 30 percent, Inhofe is excited that the agency will stop “brainwashing” the nation’s children with its science. “We’re going to take [out] all this stuff that comes out of the EPA that’s brainwashing our kids, that is propaganda, things that aren’t true,” Inhofe said during a CNN interview on Thursday.

Republican senator thinks EPA cuts will keep the agency from ‘brainwashing our kids’