From my view that’s a distinction made depending on one’s politics. To me Bachman and Hank Johnson are both garden variety idiots.
Absolutely. People are evil: we are doomed because corporations, themselves an ultra-evil embodiment of human evil, are killing the planet deader than dead. We are in the process of killing off all life forms on the planet. We would be much better off living as our ancestors did when they lived peaceful sustainable lives in perfect harmony with the environment. If the corporations would just use solar power we wouldn’t have to use fossil fuels, but they are too greedy. Logging is destroying the worlds forests. If you deny any of this it is only because rational logical thought=Western hegemony, your evidence is oppression. Male and female do not exist, they are a product of male hegemony. Instead of a means to an end, government has become either God or devil, depending on one’s ideology.
Right, but the crucial difference to me is, can their minds be changed? My impression is that the anti-intellectual Pubs are that way out of religious conviction and therefore no amount of corrective information will change their minds. That’s what I mean by “dogmatic.”
There’s nothing wrong with being stupid. We all are to some extent in various areas of expertise, whether we like to admit that to ourselves or not. But that’s not the same as being anti-intellectual.
Maybe the Dems are as anti-intellectual as the I perceive the Pubs to be, but that’s not my impression. However, even if that’s true, we still come back to the question of how it is that if Pubs on average are so much smarter as to scientific issues that they still seem to elect a the proportionate number of the wack jobs. I think they actually elect more but let’s assume it’s the same. Shouldn’t it be a relatively rarer occurrence? And since that’s plainly not the case, how can that be explained if the assumption as to their average intelligence is true?
Here in Canada, our kids are inundated with anti-scientific left-wing nonsense. Last year my kid was forced to watch “The Story of Stuff” in class - an anti-consumerist, anti-globalization rant by an ex-Greenpeace official which abuses science to make its point. The video made silly claims about ‘toxins’ in our systems, claimed that if toxins go into a factory, toxins must come out, said that the only reason we upgrade our computers is because evil businesses plan obsolescence into them, yada yada.
My kid’s science class last year also had to cut the ‘space’ section short because they went long on the environment. So what subject did they cover in their abbreviated ‘space’ section? The vexing question of whether rocket exhaust harms the environment.
In grade 9 my kid was in a class where the teacher went around the room asking the kids what they wanted to do for careers. My kid said he wanted to be an engineer or a space scientist. The teacher responded by sniffing and saying, “With your gifts, why wouldn’t you want to do something socially redeeming with your life? Something that helps people?” My kid was upset over that for some time.
Yesterday in his psychology class, he learned that capitalists tend to be psychopaths.
In general, my kid’s science curriculum focuses too much on environmental risks and not enough on basic science. He learns a lot about why science is bad, and not enough about why it’s good. Careers in social work and public service are looked upon favorably, and careers in science and engineering, not so much (unless you want to be an environmental scientist).
There is no risk that his knowledge of science will be tainted by anti-evolution or creationist material, because it’s non-existent. But his curriculum is full of anti-scientific or ignorant ‘facts’ spouted by left-wing sources and regurgitated by left-leaning teachers without any critical analysis whatsoever.
Remember all the left-wing protestors who tried to stop the Cassini mission to Saturn because they were afraid it was going to rain nuclear pollution on everyone?
Remember the hysteria over pesticides? Alar in apples? Oh, remember when we were running out of landfill space? Or the horrific destruction caused by Three Mile Island? How about the anti-fracking protestors?
Democrats are also more likely to be against using animals in scientific research, and more likely to embrace radical environmental theories like the Gaia hypothesis and more likely to take extreme risk scenarios and claim they are more likely than they are, such as what Al Gore likes to do with Global Warming.
Sam Stone: I don’t doubt any of that, but at the risk of seeming pedantic, it wasn’t really the point. I’m trying to understand what seems to be a paradox. You have a political party that ostensibly has a disproportionate number of people well versed in scientific disciplines and yet they seem to elect the same number if not more anti-intellectual candidates.
Do you actually know anyone who holds all of those opinions, in that form?
Much of this is true…in part. We are killing a lot of the world’s species. Logging is doing some serious harm to the environment. (Look at erosion patterns in the Himalayas or Madagascar.)
Wild exaggeration is a rotten form of rebuttal; it seems awfully straw-mannish.
Again, the problem you have is that we are talking about the Tea Partiers of today, the reality is that most of what you ranted about has also support by conservatives and independents.
What I have seen is that many democrats support nuclear energy in the framework of using less fossil fuels. Incidentally the pusher of the Gaia hypothesis has not been taken seriously by the climate scientists for a long time, as an example what I see constantly is some democrats do push for some changes on GMO labeling and control, but in the end most democrats still join Republicans on not supporting the radicals.
I have to point out that I’m on the record of not agreeing with the radicals here, And so are most Democrats, by contrast the radicals of the Tea Party are in control of the agenda of inaction regarding global warming. that will affect most Americans and to show how radical they are now:
Try telling a lefty* anti-vaxer that vaccines are OK or a Greenpeace advocate that nuclear power is safer.
-
- There are “righty” anti-vaxers who will be just as stubborn, which is the point.
And that is why one has to work to prevent any of those from getting into positions of power.
Of course on this issue my point also stands, there is very little evidence to assume that anti-vaccination sees more leftists than rightists, it is more likely that only a minority from both sides supports anti-vaccine positions.
I largely agree which, I think, shows that neither side has a strangle-hold on woo.
So, that cite doesn’t actually prove anything, except that liberals are less homogenous than conservatives when it comes to religious beliefs.
Tell me something else I didn’t know.
A curious thing to say when the subject is the Tea Party and evidence already has been shown about what the believers of woo are doing to the body politic.
The recent house elections gave us many followers of climate zombie denial points that we know is the domain of the typical tea partier and conservative republicans.
And it is not only climate change denial woo BTW:
I don’t think he is. Or if he is, I’m not.
I think it stands to reason that liberals are more into the supernatural.
The religious right are usually Christian, and thus don’t believe in most of those things Sam mentions. The religious left have a lot more diversity, and thus are more likely to believe in non-Christian woo.
I also would cite diversity as the reason that liberals are less scientific. For every scientist (who are mostly liberal) there is a hippie spirtiualist.
Yes. This came across my FB feed recently:
[QUOTE=truth-out.org]
What Would We Have To Do To Save the Humans?
If we want a sustainable economy, one that “meets the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs,” then we would have to do at least some or all of the following:
Put the brakes on out-of-control growth in the global North - retrench or shut down unnecessary, resource-hogging, wasteful, polluting industries like fossil fuels, autos, aircraft and airlines, shipping, chemicals, bottled water, processed foods, unnecessary pharmaceuticals and so on. Abolish luxury-goods production, the fashions, jewelry, handbags, mansions, Bentleys, yachts, private jets etc. Abolish the manufacture of disposable, throw-away and “repetitive consumption” products. All these consume resources we’re running out of, resources that other people on the planet desperately need and that our children and theirs will need.
Discontinue harmful industrial processes like industrial agriculture, industrial fishing, logging, mining and so on.
Close many services - the banking industry, Wall Street, the credit card, retail, PR and advertising “industries” built to underwrite and promote all this overconsumption. I’m sure most of the people working in these so-called industries would rather be doing something else, something useful, creative and interesting and personally rewarding with their lives. They deserve that chance.
Abolish the military-surveillance-police state industrial complex, and all its manufactures because this is just a total waste whose only purpose is global domination, terrorism and destruction abroad and repression at home. We can’t build decent societies anywhere when so much of social surplus is squandered on such waste.
Reorganize, restructure, reprioritize production and build the products we do need to be as durable and shareable as possible.
Steer investments into things society does need, like renewable energy, organic farming, public transportation, public water systems, ecological remediation, public health, quality schools and other currently unmet needs.
Deglobalize trade to produce what can be produced locally; trade what can’t be produced locally, to reduce transportation pollution and revive local producers.
Equalize development the world over by shifting resources out of useless and harmful production in the North and into developing the South, building basic infrastructure, sanitation systems, public schools, health care, and so on.
Devise a rational approach to eliminate or control waste and toxins as much as possible.
Provide equivalent jobs for workers displaced by the retrenchment or closure of unnecessary or harmful industries, not just the unemployment line, not just because workers cannot support the industry we and they need to save ourselves.
[/QUOTE]
The vast majority of forest that we are losing is being lost to agriculture. The majority of forestry is performed sustainability, especially in the USA, Europe, and Canada. Forestry is one of the biggest providers of renewable energy.
This a real, widespread and influential faith based ideology that I am describing.
Sorry, but bull. What you quoted, as bad as it is (and it is rather extreme) is not even close to the parody you made up in the post I questioned. The two simply are not the same; your claim fails, big-time.
Nothing I posted is more ridiculous than the notion that we should and could put a stop to mining, logging, and industrial agriculture. These sorts of policy proposals are the result of the dogmatic ideological positions that I described.
It was however an example of “nutpicking” not very useful for the matter at hand as most of the extreme positions are not only dismissed by people like me, but also most Democrats.
The Tea Partiers on the other hand are calling the shots.
You are right, the Tea Party politicizes climate science, there is no question about that. But that is only one issue, there are other’s, like GMO foods and nuclear energy, where left wing dogmatism has led directly to preventable environmental devastation and human suffering on a massive scale. And the left politicizes climate science too, by hitching whatever causes their passion has found to the green movement, and branding their preferred solutions to any and every social or economic problem they see or imagine as also being solutions to climate change.
Taken collectively and generally, neither the left or right has room to talk when it comes to preaching, believe and acting on scientific woo.
I noticed Sam’s survey, which showed Dems to be more superstitious, left out one of the most believed in supernatural creatures of them all, Zombie Jesus. If respondents had been polled in their belief in the literal truth of this fable, i’m confident the results would have been more balanced.
Come on. ‘Sustainability’ is like a mantra on the left. The opposition to globalization and multinational corporations is widespread. Extreme environmental views are common. My kid is indoctrinated in leftist tripe in school constantly, and some of it is nauseatingly stupid. Goofy ideas like a guaranteed living wage for all are widespread on the left. A good part of the left-wing activist funding and organizing comes from hard-left groups like Worker’s world, or the Working Families Party.
Speaking of them… They just helped elect a socialist to be mayor of New York. I’d say that’s pretty influential. The WFP supports discredited ideas like stronger rent controls, “Living Wage” laws, government-subsidized “green jobs” (which worked so well when Obama tried it), and a whole host of big spending initiatives in a city that’s already in financial trouble.
Outside of the U.S., the left dominates in many areas. It has run Venezuela into the ground. France is reeling under the new Socialist Prime Minister’s policies. The international green movement is very powerful, and the U.N. has approved several charters with extreme and destructive ideas in them. The Earth Charter is a statement of pretty radical left-wing views, and it’s supported by the U.N. and was taught in schools as part of the International Baccalaureate program until public scrutiny caused the IB program to withdraw it.
You can see the effect of this in Canadian schools. “Sustainability” is almost a religion now. Anti-capitalist rhetoric is the norm. Ideas that would have been considered extreme left-wing a few years ago are now taught as common sense. Science classes focus on environmental issues. Social studies classes eschew history and general political studies in favor of units on ‘Social Justice’.
To those of us who think many of these ideas are stupid and dangerous, the idea that the left has no power and the Tea Party is a major threat is just… ridiculous.
Are you suggesting that 67% think that climate change is real or 67% think that humans are responsible? They are two different things, which I’ve found to be common when discussing “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever buzzword you want to use.
Hardly anyone would argue that climate change does not occur. After all, there is ample evidence of previous ice ages and glaciers where it is currently quite warm. And evidence that there were tropical plants where it is now too cold to grow such plants. There is evidence that temperatures and climates have swung in both directions over recorded history, before the development of factories and cars. So why does any recent trending have to be caused by man, rather than the natural changes that earth has experienced?
And I object to your use of the term “accept the science”. What particular science is that? There is a tremendous amount of data, as well as competing theories. It seems quite presumptuous for either side to say it’s “settled”, as some are wont to do.