The reasoning is concurrent with the rejection out of hand of scientific findings concerning global warming. This is accomplished by a demeaning of the moral idealism of the scientist in general. To blatantly say, out of hand, that the scientific process is corrupt because scientists game the government for personal gain, without hard evidence to back this up seems to be a tool of the radical RW agenda. Not only climate science but such things as science of evolution and even medical studies of the effects of chemicals including such studies as the effects of tobacco on the human body.<quoted text>
I guess I'd say Western thought and civilization depends upon deeper foundations than merely Western science and the scientific method. It depends many things - more fundamentally, humanism and the value and rights of the free individual, free thought, rational argument and empiricism, dialectic, democracy, etc.- of which the development of Western science and the scientific method is just one rather specialized manifestation.
I think we need to remember, however, that this 'Western thought and civilization' is the exception rather than the rule in the world - it certainly does not represent the thought and values of the majority of the world's population. Much more prevalent in the world are forms of Eastern thought that emphasize adherence to authority, tradition, and dogma over individual free thought and humanism. And the world has become more global and less a world divided between "Eastern" and "Western" thought and civilization.
Why are "so many ... chipping away at the foundations of our society by rejection (sic) the processes of scientific investigation?" I think part of the answer must start with the recognition that in today's globalizing diverse multi-cultural society, the notion of affording primacy to 'the processes of scientific investigation' is foreign to large segments of the population whose thought and values are not fundamentally Western.
As for your non sequitur into wondering about the thought of the "conservative movement," I don't follow you. You've leapt from philosophy and Western thought to partisan politics - an entirely different arena. As different as dialectic is from debate and rhetoric. You may as well have leapt to wondering about the connections between various theologies and Western civilization. The short answer is that there is no relationship I can see. There are scientists whose political views run toward the conservative side as well as there are scientists who count themselves on the progressive/liberal side, or anywhere in between, distributed in fairly equal numbers.
Nor would I say there's any objective reason to see either the "conservative movement" or the "liberal/progressive movement" as being paragons of adherence to the rational method - both demand adherence to Party authority, dogma, tradition, etc. in equal measure over any "scientific deductions," as far as I can tell. "Scientific deductions" are recognized and deployed in political debate and rhetoric by both sides only insofar as they are useful to promote their respective political agendas, while inconvenient "scientific deductions" are suppressed and ridiculed - by BOTH sides in partisan political debates.
That's why they call it politics.
As to why the hard Right digresses to such an attitude more than others is a topic pertinent to discussions about global warming. If these folks do not base their understandings in the science, what in the world do they base them upon. Possibly propaganda by the vested interests? I am not sure what else can be the basis of their reasoning. Perhaps you can provide that information. It would help my understanding immensely.