An Anti-Science Mania Takes Over GOP

An Anti-Science Mania Takes Over GOP

There are 75 comments on the www.miller-mccune.com story from Mar 31, 2011, titled An Anti-Science Mania Takes Over GOP. In it, www.miller-mccune.com reports that:

Being vocally anti-science has become a defining mark of a current style of politics, an intentional ignorance that recalls the Scopes Monkey Trial, argues law professor Robert Benson.

You’ve got to go back to the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 for a precedent to the anti-science mania that is currently sweeping the GOP. Then, the issue was teaching Darwin’s work on evolution in the schools. Today, the issue is global warming. Then, as now, large numbers of politicians tapped into the stratum of popular culture that simply rejects science as the basis for public or personal decisions. The chief prosecutor of high school teacher John Scopes, William Jennings Bryan, gloated that literal interpretation of the Bible trumped scientific knowledge. This resonated with large masses of ordinary folks, the ones H. L. Mencken and the liberal press were calling “yokels” and “morons.”

Turns out the yokels and morons won, at least for a generation. Scopes was found guilty of violating the Tennessee law that prohibited teaching evolution, and his conviction (though later overturned on a technicality) galvanized the anti-evolution movement for years. Politicians came pouring in. Scores of resolutions were introduced in state legislatures and school boards all over the country, setting back the teaching of evolution for decades until logic and reason and the scientific method gradually reasserted themselves in the culture.

Today, Republicans are falling over themselves in a rush to ridicule the science that shows our use of fossil fuels is producing greenhouse gases that are warming the planet to disastrous levels. These findings were confirmed even by the Bush administration before it left office, as well as by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and every other significant scientific academy around the world, not to mention the unpaid global work of hundreds of volunteer scientists for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But anti-scientists are undaunted by facts. More than half of the incoming Republican caucus denies the validity of climate change science. Some 74 percent of Republicans in the U.S. Senate now take that stance, as do 53 percent of GOP in the House.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.miller-mccune.com.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
FYI

United States

#1 Mar 31, 2011
Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois says we need not worry about the planet being destroyed because, citing chapter 8, verse 22 of the Book of Genesis, God promised Noah it wouldn’t happen again after the great flood.
military man

United States

#2 Mar 31, 2011
Conservatives don't like science because a) they believe that god created the earth for our use and so it can't fail (faith trumps reason),(b) the market will solve all problems because people act in their self "interest," and (c) we are too insignificant to affect the earth's systems. It comes down to their belief that wealth reflects one's righteousness (religious) and no man has the authority to undo god's will and that property rights are the fundamental right.

In their eyes, science refutes god and/or property rights that underpin predatory capitalism. Scientists become the elites acting to destroy god and individual rights. The adherents of these beliefs cannot accept science because it exposes their operational paradigm as being based on nothing.
guest

United States

#3 Apr 1, 2011
The truth is that attributing climate change to carbon emissions is NOT science. There is no scientific evidence to show a causal relationship between the two.

What we do know from science is that the climate is ever changing, and that man has very little if anything to do with it.

Those of us who are a bit longer in the tooth remember well the same type of climate change hysteria foisted on the public back in the 1970s. The only difference is that back then the wackos tried to scare us into believing we were diving headlong into another ice age. Now it's global warming.

Even after documents were uncovered revealing the whole global warming caused by man as a hoax, some of you dupes still believe.

P.T. Barnum was right, there really is a sucker born every second.
guest

United States

#4 Apr 1, 2011
military man wrote:
Conservatives don't like science because a) they believe that god created the earth...
Science, logic, reason and common sense all drive one to conclude that a supernatural being created the universe. Those who believe otherwise are the ones who reject science and logic.
baffling

United States

#5 Apr 1, 2011
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Science, logic, reason and common sense all drive one to conclude that a supernatural being created the universe. Those who believe otherwise are the ones who reject science and logic.
I have proven you wrong on that one too (at least with regard to your supposed proof that among MANY things including logical errors also misued Newton and mistated the Big Bang Theory and denied Einstein), but facts don't get in the way of you saying that you want to say -- now do they?
baffling

United States

#6 Apr 1, 2011
guest wrote:
The truth is that attributing climate change to carbon emissions is NOT science.
You giving a lecture about what science is is laughable.
guest wrote:
P.T. Barnum was right, there really is a sucker born every second.
Your sucess in the marketplace of ideas depends on it.
I-ZHEET M-DRURZ

Since: Nov 09

Paragould, AR

#7 Apr 1, 2011
guest wrote:
The truth is that attributing climate change to carbon emissions is NOT science. There is no scientific evidence to show a causal relationship between the two.
What we do know from science is that the climate is ever changing, and that man has very little if anything to do with it.
Those of us who are a bit longer in the tooth remember well the same type of climate change hysteria foisted on the public back in the 1970s. The only difference is that back then the wackos tried to scare us into believing we were diving headlong into another ice age. Now it's global warming.
Even after documents were uncovered revealing the whole global warming caused by man as a hoax, some of you dupes still believe.
P.T. Barnum was right, there really is a sucker born every second.
I'm a little long in the tooth as you say. I don't recall any "Hysteria" over climate change in the 70's...provide a link or evidence of that please.
guest

United States

#8 Apr 2, 2011
I-ZHEET M-DRURZ wrote:
I'm a little long in the tooth as you say. I don't recall any "Hysteria" over climate change in the 70's...provide a link or evidence of that please.
I guess you were as brain dead back in the 1970s as you are today. What, did you live under a rock? The “coming ice age” hysteria was widely reported.

In this 1974 article in Time magazine (one you libtards ought to love) it says that average global temperatures show a cooling over the previous 3 decades with no sign of it stopping, and that the aberrations are a harbinger of another ice age. That article claims that the average global temperature had dropped by 2.7 degrees F and that the ice pack had thickened in places like Iceland. In short, the exact opposite of what we are hearing today.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9...

We read the same thing in Newsweek which ran the same type of b.s. hysteria in 1975.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld....

Like I said, the scare tactic back then was a coming ice age. Today it’s global warming. Both are nothing but b.s. designed to create hysteria so government can grab more power and give taxpayer money to their friends so their friends can “fix” the fictitious problem.

Who is benefiting from the global warming hoax? Alternative energy companies that produce solar panels, wind generators, ethanol, electric cars, etc. They all are receiving billions of taxpayer money because those technologies are not economically viable. So government is giving them boatloads of your money and mine, and in the process they are destroying legitimate businesses who must compete with them in the marketplace.

Only fools and idiots swallowed the coming ice age b.s. back in the 1970s, and only fools and idiots swallow the global warming b.s. of today. Don’t be a dope!
I-ZHEET M-DRURZ

Since: Nov 09

Paragould, AR

#9 Apr 2, 2011
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you were as brain dead back in the 1970s as you are today. What, did you live under a rock? The “coming ice age” hysteria was widely reported.
In this 1974 article in Time magazine (one you libtards ought to love) it says that average global temperatures show a cooling over the previous 3 decades with no sign of it stopping, and that the aberrations are a harbinger of another ice age. That article claims that the average global temperature had dropped by 2.7 degrees F and that the ice pack had thickened in places like Iceland. In short, the exact opposite of what we are hearing today.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9...
We read the same thing in Newsweek which ran the same type of b.s. hysteria in 1975.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld....
Like I said, the scare tactic back then was a coming ice age. Today it’s global warming. Both are nothing but b.s. designed to create hysteria so government can grab more power and give taxpayer money to their friends so their friends can “fix” the fictitious problem.
Who is benefiting from the global warming hoax? Alternative energy companies that produce solar panels, wind generators, ethanol, electric cars, etc. They all are receiving billions of taxpayer money because those technologies are not economically viable. So government is giving them boatloads of your money and mine, and in the process they are destroying legitimate businesses who must compete with them in the marketplace.
Only fools and idiots swallowed the coming ice age b.s. back in the 1970s, and only fools and idiots swallow the global warming b.s. of today. Don’t be a dope!
Strange how only "fools and idiots swallow that global warming b.s."....yet you conservative christians are the first to jump on the soap box and babble on about the "end of the world!!" Just look at all the natural disasters...it MUST be Gods sign that he's returning. You are correct that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. I'm quite sure natural disasters have been around awhile also. Once again...two similar scenarios interpreted completely different by people who refuse to keep an open mind.
guest

Jonesboro, AR

#10 Apr 2, 2011
I-ZHEET M-DRURZ wrote:
Strange how only "fools and idiots swallow that global warming b.s."
I don't find it strange at all. It's usually leftist wackos who swallow the global warming b.s., but they also swallow most of the leftist agenda believing it's somehow good. Sad maybe, but certainly not strange. Stupid people will believe many stupid things.
You are correct that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling.
Of course it does, and man isn't the cause of them.
baffling

Paragould, AR

#11 Apr 2, 2011
Lets all listen from guest from Little Rock tell us not only that currently percieved science is wrong, but that science itself isn't even what scientists think it is.

It's no wonder he thinks that science proves God's existence.

He should take a science class.
baffling

Paragould, AR

#12 Apr 2, 2011
I-ZHEET M-DRURZ wrote:
<quoted text> Strange how only "fools and idiots swallow that global warming b.s."....yet you conservative christians are the first to jump on the soap box and babble on about the "end of the world!!" Just look at all the natural disasters...it MUST be Gods sign that he's returning. You are correct that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. I'm quite sure natural disasters have been around awhile also. Once again...two similar scenarios interpreted completely different by people who refuse to keep an open mind.
From the article above:

"Today, Republicans are falling over themselves in a rush to ridicule the science that shows our use of fossil fuels is producing greenhouse gases that are warming the planet to disastrous levels. These findings were confirmed even by the Bush administration before it left office, as well as by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and every other significant scientific academy around the world, not to mention the unpaid global work of hundreds of volunteer scientists for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

According to guest from Little Rock scientists are "fools and idiots."

That's hilarious, and I'd love to see him attempt to factually/logically back that assertion up.

I appreciate him confirming the thesis of this article though.

He is anti-science.

I wonder what his position on evolution is?
I-ZHEET M-DRURZ

Since: Nov 09

Paragould, AR

#13 Apr 2, 2011
baffling wrote:
<quoted text>
From the article above:
"Today, Republicans are falling over themselves in a rush to ridicule the science that shows our use of fossil fuels is producing greenhouse gases that are warming the planet to disastrous levels. These findings were confirmed even by the Bush administration before it left office, as well as by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and every other significant scientific academy around the world, not to mention the unpaid global work of hundreds of volunteer scientists for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
According to guest from Little Rock scientists are "fools and idiots."
That's hilarious, and I'd love to see him attempt to factually/logically back that assertion up.
I appreciate him confirming the thesis of this article though.
He is anti-science.
I wonder what his position on evolution is?
Something like this...
http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx204/sysi...
guest

United States

#14 Apr 3, 2011
baffling wrote:
It's no wonder he thinks that science proves God's existence.
Typical b.s. from you. You run like a damn coward from the real argument and hurl petty insults hoping no one will notice that you don't have any response to the facts.

In order for one to conclude that there is no supernatural being, he must reject well established scientific laws (Newton's Law and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics just to name two) as well as foundational maxims of logic (ex nihilo, nihil fit).

I don't really care whether you are an atheist or not, but I will not stand by while you and others claim the scientific high ground when you are the ones who reject it, not those of us who embrace science and logic and recognize they inescapably prove the existence of a supernatural being.
guest

United States

#15 Apr 3, 2011
baffling wrote:
From the article above:
"Today, Republicans are falling over themselves in a rush to ridicule the science that shows our use of fossil fuels is producing greenhouse gases that are warming the planet to disastrous levels.
Consider the source. The fact remains that man-caused global warming is a hoax, just as those uncovered documents prove.

It's also a fact that no causal relationship has been proven to show that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere cause a rise in average global temperature. It may very well be that the rise in temperature causes a rise in CO2 levels as the evidence suggests. Historic data shows that prior to the industrial revolution, we saw higher global temperatures and CO2 levels. There was no burning of fossil fuels at that time, yet CO2 levels were "elevated".

And as I've also proven, the same wacko "scientists" were screaming hysterically about a coming ice age only 35 years ago. The proposed solution then is the same one as they are now offering for the global warming hoax - increased government control through legislation.

Anyone who isn't a gullible numbskull can see that global warming, like the ice age hysteria a few decades ago, is nothing but b.s. designed to give government more power and allow it to pour taxpayer money into the coffers of the friends of big government.
baffling

Paragould, AR

#16 Apr 3, 2011
I-ZHEET M-DRURZ wrote:
<quoted text>
Something like this...
http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx204/sysi...
guest from Little Rock said just yesterday that it is a scientific fact that Japan is the worst case nuclear disaster scenario possible (which is absurdly false) and that there hadn't been so much as a single injury as a result (which is absurdly false), and that therefore we don't need the nuclear safety regulations here in America -- the regulations of which infringe on the property rights that God gave humanity of coursre.

I would still like to hear his "scientific" opinion of evolution, lol.

baffling

Paragould, AR

#17 Apr 3, 2011
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Consider the source.
The source is science, which you not only failed to consider, but you literally edited out of that quoted paragraph of the article above in my post before responding to it (which you have a habbit of doing).

Again, I appreciate you confirming the thesis of this article.

“Ultimate Minority=Individ ual”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#18 Apr 3, 2011
I'm probably going to piss off both sides in this argument.

As an agnostic, I don't agree with "guest" from Little Rock about the existence of a supernatural power. But as a degreed chemist, I agree that he/she is dead on target regarding anthropogenic climate change.

Water vapor traps heat in the atmosphere on a scale to make CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect insignificant. And you don't have to know much science to prove it to yourself, assuming you have an open mind, of course. All you have to do is compare the overnight changes in temperature between winter nights of low humidity and those of high humidity. On a clear, low humidity night in winter, the temperature drops precipitously, and it's much colder the next morning. On a humid winter night, the water vapor traps the heat, so that the next morning, the temperature is about the same as the evening before. CO2 has no effect on either night.

In fact, worrying about how much CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect compared to water vapor is analogous to worrying about how much a flea contributes to the weight of an elephant.

Oh, and you global warming alarmists who think that natural gas is the answer, you should know that natural gas is primarily methane, or CH4, and when each molecule is burned, it produces one molecule of CO2 and two molecules of water vapor.

But, of course, over 99.9% of water vapor in the atmosphere is due to evaporation by sunlight of water in all of the planet's oceans, lakes and streams. And this phenomenon cannot be stopped by human beings, no matter how many asinine environmental laws you get enacted.

The sole purpose of all of the environmental hoaxes we've endured (i.e., DDT, ozone depletion, etc.) is to frighten an ignorant or inattentive public into the gradual acceptance of the surrender of our national sovereignty to an authoritarian global government. And the scientists who have surrendered their scientific integrity to produce politically correct junk science "research" to prop up these hoaxes have done so to mollify their funding sources, mostly federal agencies run by unelected bureaucrats.
baffling

Paragould, AR

#19 Apr 3, 2011
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical b.s. from you...run like a damn coward from the real argument and hurl petty insults hoping no one will notice that you don't have any response to the facts...In order for one to conclude that there is no supernatural being, he must reject well established scientific laws...I will not stand by while you and others claim the scientific high ground when you are the ones who reject it, not those of us who embrace science and logic and recognize they inescapably prove the existence of a supernatural being.
I have already proven you wrong on that one (at least with regard to your supposed scientific proof for God's existence that among MANY things including logical errors also misued Newton and mistated the Big Bang Theory and denied Einstein), but facts don't get in the way of you saying that you want to say -- now do they?

Now tell us again (like you did in another thread yesterday) how it is a scientific fact that Japan is the worse case nuclear disaster scenerio possible and that there has not been so much as a single injury resulting from it, and that therefore science proves that we don't need the nuclear safety regulations that we have here in America (the regulations of which infringes on our God-given property rights).

Also, I would love to hear your opinion about what science says about the theory of evolution.
guest

United States

#20 Apr 4, 2011
baffling wrote:
guest from Little Rock said just yesterday that it is a scientific fact that Japan is the worst case nuclear disaster scenario possible (which is absurdly false) and that there hadn't been so much as a single injury as a result (which is absurdly false), and that therefore we don't need the nuclear safety regulations here in America -- the regulations of which infringe on the property rights that God gave humanity of coursre.
I would still like to hear his "scientific" opinion of evolution, lol.
I never said that. Yet again you prove your inability to read at a 6th grade level. And yet again you play the only card you have which is to launch a personal attack instead of dealing with the merits of the issue. Idiot.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Utah Republican argues against equal pay for wo... 30 min Donna 2
News Critics say El Paso arrest may deter immigrants... 48 min American 17
News Perry principal, teacher face charges after aid... 1 hr As I see it 3
News Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You: the Riv... 3 hr marg 1
News Duke Approves - Safe Space' For Illegal Immigrants 9 hr Hillary Vomit 12
News Trump's immigration raids aren't the problem: B... 11 hr spytheweb 2
News Morehouse teen charged with sodomy, child moles... (Jul '16) 12 hr Michael Parr 13
More from around the web