# Republicans: A War On Science and how you are letting them win **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 5, 2012, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856 "2012-10-05T22:39:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/161 "2012-10-10T21:10:01Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > It’s not subjective as a simple reading of this thread will show anyone who doesn’t already have a preconceived notion that both sides are equally bad and no evidence will dissuade them. > > It’s not subjective that Republicans do, in fact, do more to harm science than Democrats. There are numerous, numerous citations in this very thread of anti-science views from the right, numerous polls that show conservatives are generally more science-illiterate than those who do not label themselves conservative; numerous citations on how voting for science funding is partisan. > > Yes, there are a few instances of wackadoo Democrats. Most of them that have been mentioned above have actually been debunked. The few that haven’t been have not shown to have a huge affect on policy compared to their Republican counterparts. > > There is nothing subjective about this at all. To state that there is is cognitive dissonance. This thread is sadly typical of the SDMB. Someone posts a load of half-baked partisan bluster and is shocked when it attracts opposing viewpoints. Harkin and Broun are singing from the same sheet: “I’m no scientist, but the scientific consensus is so at odds with a personal conviction of mine, that the scientists must be wrong. Conventional scientists are too lazy or corrupt to question their dogma.” That is not false equivalence, it’s equivalence. Or it would be, except that taxpayers are coughing up a hundred million dollars a year to fund Harkin’s band of charlatans, while any harm done by Broun is as yet potential. You care nothing about science, only about partisan politics, or else you would condemn Harkin as strongly as you do Broun. This phrase is probably right up there with Hi Opal and 1920s style death rays, but threads like this are why I don’t visit the site much anymore. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/162 "2012-10-10T21:28:20Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > This thread is sadly typical of the SDMB. Someone posts a load of half-baked partisan bluster and is shocked when it attracts opposing viewpoints. It would be nice if those opposing viewpoints were not mostly discredited and/oror overstated. You will note that concessions were made to the scant few creditable examples of equivalency brought up by yourself and others. Look, maybe you should just quit while you’re behind. Because I assure you, like the Republicans on science as compared to the Democrats, you are way behind. Your successfully rebutted allegations that you do not concede and unanswered pleas for citations from several posters directed to you are all above for all to see, just as clearly as the fact that nobody has rebutted the many, many documented cases that both sides are not equal and it’s highly debatable that one side is even all that bad. As I said before, there is nothing subjective about this. By any measurement, it is plainly obvious to anyone who is not guilty of cognitive dissonance coming out of their assholes like explosive diarrhea that Republicans are far worse in this department. Every criteria you can use save for anecdotal shows this in fact, all you have in comparison to the immersion of anti-science that permeates Republicans including their Presidential candidate and their actual platform is a couple of bare anecdotes. Polls show this. Voting records show this. The number of derp-inflicted quotes from Republicans stacked up end to end could go to Mars and back; the same cannot be said of Democrats. It’s. All. In. The. Thread. Above. Half-baked partisan bluster? [Here’s another scientific idea for you](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/163 "2012-10-10T21:39:13Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > You care nothing about science, only about partisan politics, or else you would condemn Harkin as strongly as you do Broun. On a previous tread I did criticize Harkin and others, I even posted a link to their sorry efforts: > **[Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Darrell Issa declare war on...](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/when-politics-intrudes-in-science-based-medicine/)** > > In discussions of that bastion of what Harriet Hall likes to call "tooth fairy science," where sometimes rigorous science, sometimes not, is applied to the study of hypotheses that are utterly implaus In other words, what you are saying here is also a strawman, many do criticize the woo proponents, no matter where they come, but once again, as the article shows, he is doing a lot of it with the help of the Republicans. Going forward, most recently he did attempt to put his favorite woo into Obamacare, but he was denied by most Democrats. If you want to show any equivalence, I only ask you to produce the Republican majorities in congress that are opposing their peers in their attempts to prevent the EPA do something about protecting the environment. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544\_162-20043909-503544.html](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20043909-503544.html) > [@](#): > > All 31 Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee declined on Tuesday to vote in favor of a series of amendments acknowledging the scientific consensus around climate change. > > The three amendments were attached to a bill aiming to curb the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gasses. They posited that “Congress accepts the scientific finding … that ‘warming of the climate system is unequivocal’”; that the scientific evidence regarding climate change “is compelling”; and that “human-caused climate change is a threat to public health and welfare.” > > The committee passed the measure, but voted down the amendments, with 30 of the 31 Republicans voting against them and one - Marsha Blackburn, of Tennessee - declining to vote either way. Democrats unanimously voted in favor of the amendments. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/164 "2012-10-10T22:35:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > On a previous tread I did criticize Harkin and others, I even posted a link to their sorry efforts: > > [Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Darrell Issa declare war on science-based medicine | Science-Based Medicine](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/when-politics-intrudes-in-science-based-medicine/) > > In other words, what you are saying here is also a strawman, many do criticize the woo proponents, no matter where they come, but once again, as the article shows, he is doing a lot of it with the help of the Republicans. Going forward, most recently he did attempt to put his favorite woo into Obamacare, but he was denied by most Democrats. > > If you want to show any equivalence, I only ask you to produce the Republican majorities in congress that are opposing their peers in their attempts to prevent the EPA do something about protecting the environment. > > [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544\_162-20043909-503544.html](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20043909-503544.html) And we have another Gigo threadshit with the ‘global warming is gonna kills us all’ bullshit that he loves so much. At the same time it turns out that it is based upon the most corrupt and absolutely shitty science I have ever come across. All in the name of liberal ecological goals, of course. Since we all know the liberals are all loving and caring and only work for the betterment of all humankind. You see I started checking on this stuff. And what I found is not pretty at all. For example, the USHCN data set. Now I am sure some of you are wondering what exactly the USHCN data set is and what it has to with this. Well, the USHCN is the United States Historical Climatology Network. It is the NOAA U.S. record. The USHCN data shows warming, quite a bit actually. What is interesting is that the warming is the adjustments and only the adjustments. What is this, you ask? [This](http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif)is the difference between the raw data from the USHCN and the ‘adjusted’ data. Notice that the warming since 1973 is all in the adjustments. The actual, raw records do not show any warming. Now, with data it is possible that there may need to be adjustments made. However, when the anomaly that caused Gigo and the rest of the warming conspirators\* panties to get all bunched up is made up entirely of the adjustments, you’ve got a serious problem. The perceived problem only exists when they adjust the data. That is, of course, a worrying fact. And there is a bunch more highly questionable ‘science’ besides that, which Gigo sucked down hook line and sinker, but I’ll leave that for a different thread. And yet if anyone dares to point this out, they are anti-science for daring to question the all knowing and always honest climate scientists who are here to save us poor dumb folk from ourselves. Slee If I am a denialist (and we all know that is always the first word out of Gigos mouth if anyone questions his religion) for thinking that the actual data means something, then those who rely on artificial data to make their political point are conspirators. ---
**Author:** ![Docta\_G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Docta\_G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Docta_G)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/165 "2012-10-10T22:41:10Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > What does a fruit fly with Down syndrome look like ? Paul Ryan ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/166 "2012-10-10T23:08:31Z")
> [@Docta\_G](#): > > Paul Ryan Perhaps it does But you insult the fly An insect will buzz but it will never lie ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/167 "2012-10-11T00:51:13Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > And we have another Gigo threadshit with the ‘global warming is gonna kills us all’ bullshit that he loves so much. At the same time it turns out that it is based upon the most corrupt and absolutely shitty science I have ever come across. All in the name of liberal ecological goals, of course. Since we all know the liberals are all loving and caring and only work for the betterment of all humankind. A complete lie I also showed examples unrelated to global warming and the corruption accusations were discredited many times over, the fact that you do no know that is undeniable proof that you are a wilful ignorant. And this is related to the war the republican politicians are doing to science. > [@sleestak](#): > > You see I started checking on this stuff. As has been my experience it is clear that you started looking at idiot places for that “information”. BTW, that is a good graph, but the reality is that your information usually comes from denier sites that forget to report that scientists already do corrections to avoid getting the wrong information to their records. > **[Microsite influences on the temperature record are minimal](https://skepticalscience.com/microsite-influences-on-global-temperature-intermediate.htm)** > > \Poor weather stations actually show a \cooler\ trend compared to well sited stations. This is due to instrumentation changes. When this is taken into account, there's negligible difference between poor and well sited stations.\ > [@](#): > > Poor weather stations actually show a cooler trend compared to well sited stations. This is due to instrumentation changes. When this is taken into account, there’s negligible difference between poor and well sited stations. > [@](#): > > When the change from CRS to MMTS are taken into account, as well as other biases such as station relocation and Time of Observation, the trend from good sites show close agreement with poor sites. > > Figure 2: Comparison of U.S. average annual (a) maximum and (b) minimum temperatures calculated using USHCN version 2 adjusted temperatures. Good and poor site ratings are based on [surfacestations.org](http://surfacestations.org). > > Does this latest analysis mean all the work at [surfacestations.org](http://surfacestations.org) has been a waste of time? On the contrary, the laborious task of rating each individual weather station enabled Menne 2010 to identify a cool bias in poor sites and isolate the cause. The role of [surfacestations.org](http://surfacestations.org) is recognised in the paper’s acknowledgements in which they “wish to thank Anthony Watts and the many volunteers at [surfacestations.org](http://surfacestations.org) for their considerable efforts in documenting the current site characteristics of USHCN stations.” A net cooling bias was perhaps not the result the [surfacestations.org](http://surfacestations.org) volunteers were hoping for but improving the quality of the surface temperature record is surely a result we should all appreciate. > [@sleestak](#): > > If I am a denialist (and we all know that is always the first word out of Gigos mouth if anyone questions his religion) for thinking that the actual data means something, then those who rely on artificial data to make their political point are conspirators. That religion bit is like a Godwin in discussion like this, virtually all woo woo proponents like you do accuse the scientists of using their information just as religion does. BTW I have seen before this sorry tactic of showing a link with no context, as anyone that would bother to check the actual context, we find that once again it is a good graph, but it is missing the corrections done, as it was pointed before, \*\*there would be even worse warming reported if corrections had not been made. \*\* Looking at the cite you made by the CDIAC and looking actually at what do they say on the matter demonstrates once again how sorry your sources are. [http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html](http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html) > [@](#): > > Climate changes, warming and cooling, have been occurring throughout geologic history. In general, climatologists accept 30-year trends as indicative that something has changed in the mechanisms that influence climate. There have been two such warming periods in the last 100 years, one from 1910 to 1940 and one from 1970 through 2000, separated by a period of cooling. Most climatologists now believe that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere have become a strong enough influence to have been primarily responsible for the most recent warming. Using logic, it is clear that they already know about the graph, since it is missing the reason for the corrections, I have already my suspicions on where you got that information. And then one can also go to the horse’s mouth and see what is around that graph: [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL) > [@](#): > > The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming in the annual time series over a 50-year period from the 1940’s until the last decade of the century. And then they also report this: [http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/hansen/hansen.html](http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/hansen/hansen.html) > [@](#): > > From the 1970s through recent years, rapid warming is observed in both series; on the order of 0.6°C. > Global surface temperatures in 2011 were the ninth warmest since 1880 (read the January, 2012 NASA press release); 0.51°C above the 1951-1980 average. This continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000. So, in conclusion, you are just relying on woo woo sites that have an agenda, and it is not rare to see them use good graphs and conclude the opposite of what the organizations actually say, and this is because the denier sites already have a conclussion and then look for “facts” to fit their sorry ideas. Since many have looked at the corrections that were made, and even sceptical scientists like Muller could not find any reason to mistrust the data already collected it is clear who is the one using artificial data (it is not the graph but the fact that you do not show the context is that then the attempt at deception is clear to all) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/168 "2012-10-11T01:40:54Z")
BTW, Muller used more station data to conclude that scientists before him did a great job in correcting the data, although he and the BEST Berkeley group reported that the warming that they got was slightly more than what NOAA and others reported before and that almost all the warming observed recently was caused by human activity. [http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/UC-climate-change-skeptic-changes-views-3748148.php](http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/UC-climate-change-skeptic-changes-views-3748148.php) As for the likely sources for **sleestak** , they already tripped and fell face first on the floor. > **[Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique](https://skepticalscience.com/watts_new_paper_critique.html)** > >  'An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends'Paper authors: A. Watts, E. Jones, S. McIntyre and E. R. Christy > [@](#): > > Quite simply, the data are homogenised for a reason. Watts et al. are making the case that the raw data are a ‘ground truth’ against which the homogenisations should be judged. Not only is this unsupported in the literature, the results in this paper do nothing to demonstrate that. It is simply wrong to assume that all the trends in raw data are correct, or that differences between raw and adjusted data are solely due to urban heat influences. However, these wrong assumptions are the basis of the Watts conclusion regarding the ‘spurious doubling’ of the warming trend. > > The Amplification Factor > The conclusion regarding the lower surface temperature warming trend is also at odds with the satellite temperature data. Over the continental USA (CONUS), satellites show a 0.24°C per decade warming trend over the timeframe in question. According to Klotzbach et al. (2010), which the Watts paper references, there should be an amplification factor of ~1.1 between surface and lower troposphere temperatures over land (greater atmospheric warming having to do with water vapor amplification). Thus if the satellite measurements were correct, we would expect to see a surface temperature trend of close to 0.22°C per decade for the CONUS; instead, the Watts paper claims the trend is much lower at 0.155°C per decade. > > This suggests that either the satellites are biased high, which is rather implausible (i.e. see Mears et al. 2011 which suggests they are biased low), or the Watts results are biased low. The Watts paper tries to explain the discrepancy by claiming that the amplification factor over land ranges from 1.1 to 1.4 in various climate models, but does not provide a source to support this claim, which does not appear to be correct (this may be a reasonable range for global amplification factors, but not for land-only). > > A discussion between Gavin Schmidt and Steve McIntyre on this subject led to the conclusion that the land-only amplification factor falls in the range of 0.78 to 1.23 (average over all global land areas), with a model mean close to 1 (using a script developed by McIntyre on 24 different models). Note that McIntyre is a co-author of Watts et al., but has only helped with the statistical analysis and did not comment on the whole paper before Watts made it public. We suggest that he share his land-only amplification factor discussion with his co-authors. Indeed, a quick search at the graph and references to the mythical “corrupted data” pointed at cites from contrarian sites like \*Watts up with that \*and favourite contrarian Steven Goddard. So what about Goddard? > **[Steven Goddard](https://www.desmog.com/steven-goddard/)** > > Steven Goddard (Tony Heller) Credentials Background Steven Goddard is a climate science denier, regular contributor to WattsUpWithThat (WUWT), and operator of ”The Deplorable Climate Science Blog.” The name “Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by... > [@](#): > > Steven Goddard is a global warming skeptic and guest author at the climate change skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). The name “Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym, and there is a suggestion that Anthony Watts of WUWT knows Goddard’s real name. [2] > > Goddard is known for a 2008 article in The Register where he posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was incorrect. Goddard later issued a retraction on his statement. [3], [4] > [@](#): > > Publications > > Steve Goddard does not have a background in climate science. He has primarily published his articles in blogs and newspapers using a pseudonym, and it is unlikely he has ever published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject. Yep, these are the blind pseudo scientists that are guiding the blind Republicans nowadays, even the real scientists the republicans rely on have conflicts of interest and/or even more woo woo to spew like Roy Spencer, from him we get the double woo woo of creationism and misrepresentation of climate science in one single package: I’ll let \*\*The Bad Astronomer \*\*do the busting: [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/) ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/169 "2012-10-11T04:51:57Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The dawn of the nuclear age was 1945, and judging from magazines from the time that might have been close to the peak. Atomic bombs and atomic power were pure science fiction - until the ended the war. That was the first time that science - and science that seemed to be purely of theoretical interest before - became vital to the survival of the country. Space only became important because we lost and felt threatened. Eisenhower refused von Braun’s requests to send up a satellite before Sputnik - that he was ready was why we were able to respond so quickly. FWIW, I was thinking of nuclear power. I see from wiki that the USSR had a plant in 1954 and England had one in 1956. At any rate, I don’t know of any serious challenges to the industrial-scientific establishment until Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962). I’m characterizing the fluoridation stuff as nonserious. It gets tricky here as Carson was a solid, responsible journalist and when President Kennedy convened a panel to investigate her claims, she was vindicated. Whether she got things _precisely_ correct is less clear, unsurprisingly. That’s the nature of responsible scholarship. Working hypothesis: there are 2 threads here. Skepticism towards science has its origins in the bluster of industry hacks. Opposition to science exists because modern conservatives simply don’t value professionalism: basically everything is a matter of ideology or (frankly less often) faith. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > From the 1970s through recent years, rapid warming is observed in **both series** ; on the order of 0.6°C. > > Global surface temperatures in 2011 were the ninth warmest since 1880 (read the January, 2012 NASA press release); 0.51°C above the 1951-1980 average. This continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000. Emphasis added. Interesting material. If I had passed on an argument that was as lacking as **sleesak** ’s, I would seriously question my information sources. An example might be the late Christopher Hitchens. I didn’t have too much problem with his politics (Iraq War excepted) but I found him to be an unreliable witness. So I stopped reading him. Similarly, I don’t accept Michael Moore’s factual claims without independent corroboration. To be clear though, their arguments were nowhere near dishonest as the one’s presented by **sleesak** , I assume unknowingly. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/170 "2012-10-11T06:35:50Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > FWIW, I was thinking of nuclear power. I see from wiki that the USSR had a plant in 1954 and England had one in 1956. But the concept of power from the atom was almost immediate - see Heinlein’s “Blowups Happen” and del Rey’s “Nerves.” > [@](#): > > At any rate, I don’t know of any serious challenges to the industrial-scientific establishment until Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962). I’m characterizing the fluoridation stuff as nonserious. It gets tricky here as Carson was a solid, responsible journalist and when President Kennedy convened a panel to investigate her claims, she was vindicated. Whether she got things _precisely_ correct is less clear, unsurprisingly. That’s the nature of responsible scholarship. I agree about Silent Spring being a turning point. That might have been industrial versus academic science, but I’m not sure people made a distinction before that. > [@](#): > > Working hypothesis: there are 2 threads here. Skepticism towards science has its origins in the bluster of industry hacks. Opposition to science exists because modern conservatives simply don’t value professionalism: basically everything is a matter of ideology or (frankly less often) faith. In support of this, look at the inane criticism of many scientists of the academic variety that they do it for the money. Some industrial science has been discredited (obviously not all or even most) and the conservatives like to pretend that academic scientists are of the same stripe. ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/171 "2012-10-11T14:32:18Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > At any rate, I don’t know of any serious challenges to the industrial-scientific establishment until Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962). I’m characterizing the fluoridation stuff as nonserious. It gets tricky here as Carson was a solid, responsible journalist and when President Kennedy convened a panel to investigate her claims, she was vindicated. Whether she got things _precisely_ correct is less clear, unsurprisingly. That’s the nature of responsible scholarship. she was a scientist who got published in the popular media. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/172 "2012-10-11T15:22:55Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > That’s what makes science work: New evidence can change what we know. I prefer this to Dogma. > > See, it’s okay to have change. It just has to be change we can believe in. 😛 But I think curlcoat does have something of a point (words I never thought I would type), which I think is partially due to ppor science reporting in the media. The media has a tendency to over-hype partial unconfirmed studies to conclude things way beyond the actual findings because they make good teaser lines. It works something like this (Note: all of the studies below are just made up) Some lab somewhere does that shows some protein and show when it is injected into rats causes a 10% increase in the likelihood of myeloma, and publishes it in some journal. It turns out that this protein is found in chocolate. Result: “FOX NEWS REPORTS THAT YOUR KIDS CANDY BAR COULD BE POISON!!! Tune in at 11:00 to find out why” The a few months later a different lab doe some study on some enzyme and finds that it reduces incidence of melanoma in rats by 15%. This also turns out to be found in chocolate. Result “FOX NEWS REPORTS THAT A CANDY BAR COULD BE SAVE YOUR CHILD’S LIFE!!! Tune in at 11:00 to find out why” End result, the viewer says that scientists can’t figure out whether chocolate causes cancer or chocolate prevents cancer so why should we believe them about global warming. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/173 "2012-10-11T15:27:21Z")
> [@johnpost](#): > > she was a scientist who got published in the popular media. Indeed, and her mentioning gives us the opportunity to see another front that the majority of Republicans have in their war against science. [http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-09-16/news/bs-ed-rachel-carson-20120916\_1\_chemical-industry-pesticide-regulations-ddt](http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-09-16/news/bs-ed-rachel-carson-20120916_1_chemical-industry-pesticide-regulations-ddt) > [@](#): > > Mitt Romney wants to open up more federal lands and waters to drilling for oil and natural gas. His party is pushing, in the name of freedom and economic opportunity, to roll back a variety of environmental protections. Republicans, including U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, are seeking to ease pesticide regulations; some are even questioning the Environmental Protection Agency’s ban on DDT, reopening a controversy that stretches back half a century. > > Fifty years ago this month, Rachel Carson published “Silent Spring.” This critique of America’s dependence on chemical pesticides is widely hailed as one of the most influential books of the 20th century. One of the most irresponsible lies ever made is the one believed by many conservatives, the one that clams that because of Carson DDT was banned and so environmentalists like her (and scientists like her) are responsible for the deaths of millions due to malaria, You have to realize that that lie is very corrosive as it leads conservatives and specially Republicans to conclude that environmentalists are mass murderers and therefore anything is justifiable to defeat them. That leads to justify a hatred that is just short of violence. in reality DDT was banned in some placed and restricted early because of the evidence that also confirmed what many scientists that follow evolution would had told you it was likely to happen: the insects developed resistance to the poison. > **[FAIR](https://fair.org/?page=3186)** > > FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation. > [@](#): > > Developing resistance > > At one level, these articles send a comforting message to the developed world: Saving African children is easy. We don’t need to build large aid programs or fund major health initiatives, let alone develop Third World infrastructure or think about larger issues of fairness. No, to save African lives from malaria, we just need to put our wallets away and work to stop the evil environmentalists. > > Unfortunately, it’s not so easy. > > For one thing, there is no global DDT ban. DDT is indeed banned in the U.S., but malaria isn’t exactly a pressing issue here. If it ever were, the ban contains an exception for matters of public health. Meanwhile, it’s perfectly legal—and indeed, used—in many other countries: 10 out of the 17 African nations that currently conduct indoor spraying use DDT (New York Times, 9/16/06). > > DDT use has decreased enormously, but not because of a ban. The real reason is simple, although not one conservatives are particularly fond of: evolution. Mosquito populations rapidly develop resistance to DDT, creating enzymes to detoxify it, modifying their nervous systems to avoid its effects, and avoiding areas where DDT is sprayed — and recent research finds that that resistance continues to spread even after DDT spraying has stopped, lowering the effectiveness not only of DDT but also other pesticides (Current Biology, 8/9/05). > > “No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored,” Carson wrote in Silent Spring. “The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse. . . . Resistance to insecticides by mosquitoes . . . has surged upwards at an astounding rate.” > > Unfortunately, her words were ignored. Africa didn’t cut back on pesticides because, through a system called the “Industry Cooperative Program,” the pesticide companies themselves got to participate in the United Nations agency that provided advice on pest control. Not surprisingly, it continued to recommend significant pesticide usage. > When Silent Spring came out in 1962, it seemed as if this strategy was working. To take the most extreme case, Sri Lanka counted only 17 cases of malaria in 1963. But by 1969, things had once again gotten out of hand: 537,700 cases were counted. Naturally, the rise had many causes: Political and financial pressure led to cutbacks on spraying, stockpiles of supplies had been used up, low rainfall and high temperatures encouraged mosquitoes, a backlog of diagnostic tests to detect malaria was processed and testing standards became more stringent. But even with renewed effort, the problem did not go away. > > Records uncovered by entomologist Andrew Spielman hint at why (Mosquito, p. 177). For years, Sri Lanka had run test programs to verify DDT’s effectiveness at killing mosquitoes. But halfway through the program, their standards were dramatically lowered. “Though the reason was not recorded,” Spielman writes, “it was obvious that some mosquitoes were developing resistance and the change was made to justify continued spraying.” > > But further spraying led only to further resistance, and the problem became much harder to control. DDT use was scaled back and other pesticides were introduced—more cautiously this time—but the epidemic was never again brought under control, with the deadly legacy that continues to this day. > > **Instead of apologizing, the chemical companies went on the attack. They funded front groups and think tanks to claim the epidemic started because countries “stopped” using their products. In their version of the story, environmentalists forced Africans to stop using DDT, causing the increase in malaria. “It’s like a hit-and-run driver who, instead of admitting responsibility for the accident, frames the person who tried to prevent the accident,” complains Tim Lambert, whose weblog, Deltoid, tracks the DDT myth and other scientific misinformation in the media.** And those [del]stink[/del] think thanks are used by many Republicans today to make their sorry legislation and/or preventing the government from controlling or inspecting the long term effects of what we put in the environment. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/174 "2012-10-11T15:46:42Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > But I think curlcoat does have something of a point (words I never thought I would type), which I think is partially due to ppor science reporting in the media. The media has a tendency to over-hype partial unconfirmed studies to conclude things way beyond the actual findings because they make good teaser lines. > > It works something like this (Note: all of the studies below are just made up) > > Some lab somewhere does that shows some protein and show when it is injected into rats causes a 10% increase in the likelihood of myeloma, and publishes it in some journal. It turns out that this protein is found in chocolate. Result: “FOX NEWS REPORTS THAT YOUR KIDS CANDY BAR COULD BE POISON!!! Tune in at 11:00 to find out why” > > The a few months later a different lab doe some study on some enzyme and finds that it reduces incidence of melanoma in rats by 15%. This also turns out to be found in chocolate. Result “FOX NEWS REPORTS THAT A CANDY BAR COULD BE SAVE YOUR CHILD’S LIFE!!! Tune in at 11:00 to find out why” > > End result, the viewer says that scientists can’t figure out whether chocolate causes cancer or chocolate prevents cancer so why should we believe them about global warming. Science reporter Peter Hadfield (AKA Potholer54) has made excellent videos regarding this, basically, and thanks to the internet it is now possible to weed out the popular press spin by asking “what is your source?” (Why the media screw up science Part 1: Sources) [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/LdnZ1l5TxJk/hqdefault.jpg "Why the media screw up science -- 1. Sources") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdnZ1l5TxJk) As if there is any need to report it, once again do not trust the Daily [del]Fail[/del] Mail or [del]Faux[/del] FOX News. Unfortunately, many still depend on old time media and so we get master snake oil salesmen like Romney with a good chance of getting elected to office. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/175 "2012-10-11T16:18:49Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > Speaking as a scientist-in-training, science in this country is fucked. There’s no money anywhere. Funding was cut during the Bush year. Obama promised to increase it. It didn’t happen. Neither party is standing up for basic scientific research. We’re screwed. Every professional scientist I’ve spoken to is terrified for their own future, let alone their students’. > > Meanwhile, Sarah Palin is complaining that we’re studying fruit flies instead of curing Down syndrome, which amuses me, as I am studying fruit flies in an attempt to understand the processes that cause Down syndrome. This ‘science’ thing…it can be outsourced to India/China, right? ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/176 "2012-10-11T16:44:28Z")
Yes it can. And that’s exactly what’s happening. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/177 "2012-10-11T21:56:54Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > But I think curlcoat does have something of a point (words I never thought I would type), People who think logically realize that one can disagree with a person on one or two subjects, but agree otherwise. Only the childish think that lack of agreement in one area must mean a person is an idiot, or wrong at all times. > [@](#): > > which I think is partially due to ppor science reporting in the media. The media has a tendency to over-hype partial unconfirmed studies to conclude things way beyond the actual findings because they make good teaser lines. It could be, but many older folk like me base their distrust on drugs/chemicals that have been fully released for use and later discovered to be highly harmful. Scientists told us that, say, DDT was perfectly fine to use to kill bugs, and thalidomide was perfectly safe to give to pregnant women. Creates a lack of trust in new drugs and treatments. Bigger things, like global warming, we just mostly ignore because we can’t do anything about it; we’ve heard global doom and gloom predictions before; there is no way we could verify it ourselves; and we’ll probably die before anything awful happens if it’s true. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/178 "2012-10-11T22:07:12Z")
> [@BlinkingDuck](#): > > This ‘science’ thing…it can be outsourced to India/China, right? I think this was meant as a joke, but as a scientist in industry, watching all my friends get laid off and often traveling abroad to check on the status of my experiments, yes, yes it can. Leaving aside the issue that I was one of only a few American graduate students (of about two hundred) in my particular PhD institution, even the experiments being done on American soil are not done by Americans. I have another few years to see something through, and then I’m out as well. (As a more thread relevant aside: Nearly everyone I know is a scientist, and I can’t name one who is a Republican.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/179 "2012-10-12T10:03:22Z")
It was nice of Jon Stewart to read my OP and also bring up the anti-science rhetoric of some Republicans on the Science Committee: [You Magnificent Bastards - Down-Ballot Notables](http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-11-2012/you-magnificent-bastards---down-ballot-notables) (The relevant stuff starts at 2:40.) \*"Are you sure this isn’t the House Committee \*\*Against \*_Science & Technology?"_ I will also note yet again that the prominent Republicans whom this is directed to on this board are nowhere to be found to defend their votes for ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/180 "2012-10-12T14:35:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And I knew about him already, but he is not at the champion level of Orrin Hatch. Point being, that just as in the Nuclear case, he would not be able to do much if it wasn’t for the “fine” efforts of the Republicans. So, once again, I do not deny that there are a few woo woo democrats, but they are not in the same proportion and doing as much damage as the woo woo Republicans. I agree. There’s not much question in my mind that while neither party is immune to scientific ignorance, in the present climate we see more policy decision-making influenced by anti-science Republicans than by anti-science Democrats. What I would note is that even here, Democratic initiatives that are poorly supported by science are defended strongly and abandoned reluctantly, if at all. Case in point: the [green grocer liberalism](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=654796&page=6) thread, which basically became an apologetic for the fallacy of ignorance: “You don’t know that this WON’T help, so it will.” So it’s true that in the halls of legislature, science is attacked more effectively by Republicans. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856.md?page=10)