Why should political affiliation affect one's acceptance of science?

[Twilight Hue]

There's been a lot of push over the last decade from republican representatives to foment the already existing mistrust of anything connected to 'the elite,' which educators and scientists definitely fall into. It was ramping up the last decade of climate change, and spiked during covid. It's partisan driven, but it's also anti-establishment as well as an evangelical thing.

Well. It's simply people don't or wont see the danger until they actually experience the danger first hand..

Lying is so acceptable now that nothing will be deemed as credible unless it's established by direct experience.

It's basic survival 101.

Want climate change to be addressed? Well there needs to be enough who actually knows they are actually in a bad situation first before they will act.

Otherwise it's just platitudes to them.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Those in rural areas are at an advantage because of the Electoral College, and they like it that way.

Yes. They don't want to have to switch to electric cars when they're 100 miles from a large city, etc. They also like being further from pollution and city taxes. What draws people to the city are excitement, shorter distances, better employment, better utilities and things to do at night.

Its too easy to pit people against each other by bringing up things they normally don't think about and by turning those things into worries. So you don't say "The city people are going to make us drive electric cars," which humanizes and reduces the threat. Instead you say "The science ******** want us to drive electric cars! They are working for the Rural Hatred Society! They have been bankrolled by rich ******* Z!" Sleight of hand, and you have pitted monkeys A against monkeys B.

 

[wellwisher]

I just saw a poll showing that Americans' views of climate change show that 78% of Democrats think it is very important, while only 23% of Republicans do.

But this is not a political question, surely, is it? Isn't it just a matter of looking at the data and doing some analysis?

And if it is a political question, isn't it just possible that the Republican refusal to accept the data and analysis could accelerate the rate at which we march to our own destruction?

I thought a poll would be useless -- I'd just like intelligent discussion.

It has to do, in part, with casino math and science. This type of science uses math that is also used by political science and gambling casinos, allowing the line between science, politics and lottery ticket hype, to be blurred. Rational science is able to keep more separate from politics. E=MC2 is not divided by political party.

For example, the global climate affects we are seeing, today, is actually connected to El Niño, which was first discovered in the 1600's by fisherman, who noticed changes in fishing patterns due to ocean warning. This large surface water affect, has been around before the official records were kept for modern science; 1880. Consensus Science will discuss El Niño, but not make any connection to their picture of man made climate change.

This elephant in the room tells me that there are natural things also going on, impacting climate science. One can also look at the geological records, that date back to almost a billion years, that show climate patterns similar to what we see today. How did the earth warm up from the last ice age, before we humans used substantial fossil fuels? Before 1880, several thousand miles of glaciers had already melted, naturally, but we can ignore that.

Geological evidence gathering uses the same science techniques as the theory of evolution to get its support data. Both find old evidence in the soil and ice, that can be dated by science. If we can ignore the geological evidence of climate change why don't ignore this same type of data used to support evolution? Why the dual standard? Creation in a sense, like climate sciences, starts the clock when substantial human interaction gets going.

This is also what the Democrat party is trying to do with transgenderism. Transgender is not consistent with genetic based natural selection, since by its very nature, it cannot breed and pass forward its affect via DNA. How can there be no DNA evidence, unless the current theory of evolution is wrong? It implies major change without breeding.

The Democrat Party pattern appears to be to ignore the natural data, and call the man made; the social construct, natural. This was made easier with censorship, so the other side of the data; natural, can be ignored by default. Transgender had been called a pathology by science for decades, all of a sudden it is taught in schools as settled science.

Also, the Democrats pushed pseudo science, during COVID, with much of their censorship used for data avoiding to stack the deck. I do not trust the party that censored an honest science discussion for their own political purposes; to be able to morph into even bigger brother affects. The Republican Party was speaking out, but was not censoring. They remained more objective, like one would expect of objective science discussion.

And if it is a political question, isn't it just possible that the Republican refusal to accept the data and analysis could accelerate the rate at which we march to our own destruction?

This last statement is design to settle the discussion with fear and not open discussion. This is an artifact of fuzzy dice math and risk analysis with no accountability. It not calm thinking and reason. It says, maybe we need to censor even harder, with an even bigger bogeyman push, to data stack, totally. If all our prediction fail, we can say sorry, but I cared so much, nothing should happen to me. Nobody cares if the weather man is wrong, since they tried with acceptable casino science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has to do, in part, with casino math and science. This type of science uses math that is also used by political science and gambling casinos, allowing the line between science, politics and lottery ticket hype, to be blurred. Rational science is able to keep more separate from politics. E=MC2 is not divided by political party.

For example, the global climate affects we are seeing, today, is actually connected to El Niño, which was first discovered in the 1600's by fisherman, who noticed changes in fishing patterns due to ocean warning. This large surface water affect, has been around before the official records were kept for modern science; 1880. Consensus Science will discuss El Niño, but not make any connection to their picture of man made climate change.

This elephant in the room tells me that there are natural things also going on, impacting climate science. One can also look at the geological records, that date back to almost a billion years, that show climate patterns similar to what we see today. How did the earth warm up from the last ice age, before we humans used substantial fossil fuels? Before 1880, several thousand miles of glaciers had already melted, naturally, but we can ignore that.

Geological evidence gathering uses the same science techniques as the theory of evolution to get its support data. Both find old evidence in the soil and ice, that can be dated by science. If we can ignore the geological evidence of climate change why don't ignore this same type of data used to support evolution? Why the dual standard? Creation in a sense, like climate sciences, starts the clock when substantial human interaction gets going.

This is also what the Democrat party is trying to do with transgenderism. Transgender is not consistent with genetic based natural selection, since by its very nature, it cannot breed and pass forward its affect via DNA. How can there be no DNA evidence, unless the current theory of evolution is wrong? It implies major change without breeding.

The Democrat Party pattern appears to be to ignore the natural data, and call the man made; the social construct, natural. This was made easier with censorship, so the other side of the data; natural, can be ignored by default. Transgender had been called a pathology by science for decades, all of a sudden it is taught in schools as settled science.

Also, the Democrats pushed pseudo science, during COVID, with much of their censorship used for data avoiding to stack the deck. I do not trust the party that censored an honest science discussion for their own political purposes; to be able to morph into even bigger brother affects. The Republican Party was speaking out, but was not censoring. They remained more objective, like one would expect of objective science discussion.

And if it is a political question, isn't it just possible that the Republican refusal to accept the data and analysis could accelerate the rate at which we march to our own destruction?

This last statement is design to settle the discussion with fear and not open discussion. This is an artifact of fuzzy dice math and risk analysis with no accountability. It not calm thinking and reason. It says, maybe we need to censor even harder, with an even bigger bogeyman push, to data stack, totally. If all our prediction fail, we can say sorry, but I cared so much, nothing should happen to me. Nobody cares if the weather man is wrong, since they tried with acceptable casino science.

No, it is just you that is totally confused about the science. Including not only climate change, but Covid as well. You are a typical science denier.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Also, the Democrats pushed pseudo science, during COVID, with much of their censorship used for data avoiding to stack the deck. I do not trust the party that censored an honest science discussion for their own political purposes; to be able to morph into even bigger brother affects. The Republican Party was speaking out, but was not censoring. They remained more objective, like one would expect of objective science discussion.

Yes, it's very clear you have a lot of stuff you believe -- but you know sometimes, just getting some facts can be fun, too. (Well, unless having your cherished beliefs challenged is too fearsome for you.)

You know, in many ways Canada and the U.S. are quite alike. We're a little more on the liberal side (okay, a lot more) than the U.S., but we share a lot of traits. But did you know, COVID deaths per 100,000 people in Canada have so far been 135.23, while in the U.S. its 341.11. That's 252% worse in the U.S. Now, what's even sillier is that they've done the stats by state -- and cumulative deaths in the red states is a full 30% higher than in the blue states. People are literally dying of stupidity!

Now why do you think that should be? In my view, a big part of it is that up here, and to a lesser extent in the blue states, folks didn't get all caught up in weird conspiracy theories and vaccine panic. Since the vaccines came out late 2020, I've had 6 shots altogether, and everybody I know has had at least 4 -- and not a single one of them, not one, contracted COVID. The science works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But did you know, COVID deaths per 100,000 people in Canada have so far been 135.23, while in the U.S. its 341.11.

That is due to the diet high in back bacon and poutine.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That is due to the die high in back bacon and poutine.

Perfectly healthy -- in the correct doses!

 

[Quintessence]

There have been books upon books written about the relationship between the sciences and public policy. I'm not going to pretend to be expertly well-read in that literature but it's something I'm decently well-appraised of.

The short of it is that it isn't hard to understand when you accept humans are fundamentally emotional animals - and that includes scientists. Feelings and values - what others believe ought to be the case because they like it or dislike it - drives human behavior more than any other factor - certainly more than data. So it is more or less inevitable you are going to get public policy disagreements over just about every topic imaginable. And when you've got an overly-simplistic political system (e.g., a 2-party system) it is going to fail to capture the nuance in policy opinions, making it seem that there's a binary of feelings about the topic when there isn't.

There's obviously more to it than that, but a lot of it all connects back to that the specific epithet of our species is a laughable misnomer.

 

[InChrist]

I just saw a poll showing that Americans' views of climate change show that 78% of Democrats think it is very important, while only 23% of Republicans do.

But this is not a political question, surely, is it? Isn't it just a matter of looking at the data and doing some analysis?

And if it is a political question, isn't it just possible that the Republican refusal to accept the data and analysis could accelerate the rate at which we march to our own destruction?

I thought a poll would be useless -- I'd just like intelligent discussion.

It’s most likely that many Republicans and/or Independents ( not all ) think more independently, ask questions, and do further research rather than simply believe what they are told. Democrats ( not all ), now have more of a party line mentality. Real science seeks answers and the truth about nature and the world we live in with an open approach allowing for questions, discussions, and debates. Once these become shutdown and everyone is demanded to go along with certain dogmas or told to simply “follow the science “, no questions or further discussion allowed, then this “science “ has become more of a cult where everyone must think alike; it’s no longer real science. The Left has done a tremendous job of politicizing science and using so-called “science” to push their policies and ideologies.

Everything ClimateThe data and the theories

EC is a website covering both sides of the climate debate – factually EverythingClimate is devoted to cataloging, evaluating and publishing information concerning scientific theories of globa…

everythingclimate.com

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It’s most likely that many Republicans and/or Independents ( not all ) think more independently, ask questions, and do further research rather than simply believe what they are told. Democrats ( not all ), now have more of a party line mentality. Real science seeks answers and the truth about nature and the world we live in with an open approach allowing for questions, discussions, and debates. Once these become shutdown and everyone is demanded to go along with certain dogmas or told to simply “follow the science “, no questions or further discussion allowed, then this “science “ has become more of a cult where everyone must think alike; it’s no longer real science. The Left has done a tremendous job of politicizing science and using so-called “science” to push their policies and ideologies.

Everything ClimateThe data and the theories

EC is a website covering both sides of the climate debate – factually EverythingClimate is devoted to cataloging, evaluating and publishing information concerning scientific theories of globa…

everythingclimate.com

It seems to me you h ave it just about exactly backwards. Or maybe your "independent questioners" ask questions like, "well, can we get away with this a little longer, so that it doesn't cost me the slightest freedom," but then fail to ask questions like, "will my grandchildren enjoy not having any air to breathe?" The left are asking such questions as, "what can we do to ensure there's a habitable planet for our grandchildren and their grandchildren -- like the one that our grandsires left for us?"

 

[InChrist]

It seems to me you h ave it just about exactly backwards. Or maybe your "independent questioners" ask questions like, "well, can we get away with this a little longer, so that it doesn't cost me the slightest freedom," but then fail to ask questions like, "will my grandchildren enjoy not having any air to breathe?" The left are asking such questions as, "what can we do to ensure there's a habitable planet for our grandchildren and their grandchildren -- like the one that our grandsires left for us?"

I don’t think I have it backwards. Maybe average people like your ask questions or have concern for the air we breathe and ensuring a habitable planet for future generations. But I think you’re kidding yourself if you think the elites and politicians (mostly Democrats, but plenty of Republicans, too) who talk and push everything green actually care about anything except furthering their own power and fortune. Do you think John Kerry flying all over the globe in private jets really cares about the environment or future children? Or Bill Gates and the corporations pushing fake lab meat, insects, highly processed foods, and pharmaceutical products and chemicals all over the world rather than healthy grass fed, pasture raised meats or organic vegetables care about the planet and the health of people? They are just pushing policies and laws which eliminate their competition and destroy the smaller businesses or farmers who are the ones who do have real concerns for the future and practice regenerative, environmentally conscious farming, businesses or lifestyles on a daily basis .

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don’t think I have it backwards. Maybe average people like your ask questions or have concern for the air we breathe and ensuring a habitable planet for future generations. But I think you’re kidding yourself if you think the elites and politicians (mostly Democrats, but plenty of Republicans, too) who talk and push everything green actually care about anything except furthering their own power and fortune. Do you think John Kerry flying all over the globe in private jets really cares about the environment or future children? Or Bill Gates and the corporations pushing fake lab meat, insects, highly processed foods, and pharmaceutical products and chemicals all over the world rather than healthy grass fed, pasture raised meats or organic vegetables care about the planet and the health of people? They are just pushing policies and laws which eliminate their competition and destroy the smaller businesses or farmers who are the ones who do have real concerns for the future and practice regenerative, environmentally conscious farming, businesses or lifestyles on a daily basis .

"Healthy grass fed, pasture raised meats" require endless amounts of water and exude oceans of methane -- another greenhouse gas.

 

[InChrist]

"Healthy grass fed, pasture raised meats" require endless amounts of water and exude oceans of methane -- another greenhouse gas.

That’s the repeated narrative to push synthetic foods, a new market for profit, and the attempt to eliminate farmers and ranchers, but it’s not true.



“Lab-grown meat, which is cultured from animal cells, is often thought to be more environmentally friendly than beef because it’s predicted to need less land, water and greenhouse gases than raising cattle. But in a preprint, not yet peer-reviewed, researchers at the University of California, Davis, have found that lab-grown or “cultivated” meat’s environmental impact is likely to be “orders of magnitude” higher than retail beef based on current and near-term production methods.”

Lab-Grown Meat’s Carbon Footprint Potentially Worse Than Retail Beef

Learn why UC Davis scientists say lab-grown or cultivated meat is likely worse for the climate than beef.

www.ucdavis.edu

“Meat analogs and cell-based meats are also much more carbon intensive than we are led to believe. A recent study has shown that the fossil fuel energy required for the production of lab meat is not sustainable and could by far surpass the output of livestock like pigs and poultry.

Vast amounts of energy are required for the production of synthetic foods. These include several energy intensive steps such as the operation of the bioreactors, temperature controls, aeration, and mixing processes. Thus, on the basis of these indicators, the sector is in no position to claim that synthetic meat production is inherently more sustainable than traditional production systems. Studies like these further point to how upscaling synthetic meat production is not the way towards a carbon free society, especially when we consider the scaling needed to match current consumption levels of the products this industry is trying to replace.”

The Corporate Push for Synthetic Foods: False solutions that endanger our health and damage the planet

Read the Foreword: Artificial Food is Detrimental to Ecological Transition, by Dr Vandana Shiva Read the article: An Impossible Menu: Fake Food is taking over our tables Download Report pdf Written…

navdanyainternational.org

“While agriculture contributes one quarter of GHGE, livestock can play a sizable role in climate mitigation. Of 80 ways to alleviate climate change, regenerative agriculture—managed grazing, silvopasture, tree intercropping, conservation agriculture, and farmland restoration—jointly rank number one as ways to sequester GHG.”

Is Grassfed Meat and Dairy Better for Human and Environmental Health?

The health of livestock, humans, and environments is tied to plant diversity—and associated phytochemical richness—across landscapes. Health is enhanced when livestock forage on phytochemically rich landscapes, is reduced when livestock ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov