Doug:
I've run across a segment of the US population that have a big distrust of science and scientists. Do you think that Republicans have helped sow this distrust for political gain?
David:
Not at all. I think politicians of all stripes have tried to use their interpretation of "science" to benefit them whenever it suits them, politically and personally. Usually they have a particular agenda item they're pushing, and their spiel is followed with the claim that anyone who disagrees with them doesn't believe in science, and is therefore a simpleton. This in turn creates a distrust of science and scientists.
Doug:
So, you are saying that there is a distrust of science? And both Democrats and Republicans have contributed to it? But what about what scientists say about climate change? It seems that most scientists agree, and most Republicans disagree with the scientists?
David:
People will distrust any information, if given a reason to distrust it. The surest way to taint science is to associate it with politics. When Al Gore became the face of global warming with his film, An Inconvenient Truth, it made the entire issue appear to be political rather than scientific. The fact that his film was littered with inaccuracies and gross exaggerations made this worse. No one trusts a politician, so no one trusts what a politician preaches.
And the term "Climate Change" has many meanings. It has enough different meanings we should have an entire blog about just that.
Doug:
I don't blame Al Gore for trying to address something that he considered to be important. But I do blame people that don't believe something just because Al Gore did. That doesn't help. Al Gore, personally, has nothing to gain if people actually believe in climate change. Do you think that more people would care about climate change now if Al hadn't mentioned it?
David:
Absolutely. I think fewer people would have reason to doubt it. And I'll bet if you surveyed climatologists, they would rather he had stayed out of the whole fray.
Doug:
I wonder too. It is sad that Republican's beliefs are not based on the science, but in a reaction to the science. It makes having a scientific discussion impossible.
David:
Democrats aren't immune to the same biases. Most of them believe with all their hearts that George Bush lied about WMDs to propel us into an unwarranted war. A great many Democrats and Republicans believe there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
Gore made the issue political when few people knew anything about it. According to Gore, half of Florida should have been underwater ten years ago. When people can still go to the same beaches for spring break that they went to last year, it does a lot to discredit that theory. If climatologists could get a Clinton "reset" button, they'd certainly want to do things differently, and keep politics out of the mix.
Doug:
Isn't it weird that we still blame Al Gore? Shouldn't we be telling people to quit bringing Al into the argument, and look at the science. Then, as you say, fewer people would have reason to doubt it.
David:
Like I said, for many, Al Gore is the poster child for global warming. He won an Academy Award (from the leftists in Hollywood) and a Nobel Peace Prize (from the same folks who gave one to Obama before he had done anything), as well as amassing millions as he invested in "green" companies while he proclaimed the coming disaster.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/03/global-warmings-biggest-winners/
That made this a political issue before science had a chance to even make a case.
Doug:
Ok, I guess I see how the seeds of distrust get sown and grow. That must have been his plan from the beginning. He must be on to a new scam, now that the cat is out of the bag.
David:
Scientist should learn from the mistakes made here. I'm sure they all thought the publicity was a great idea. But while politics often uses science to make a point, science should be wary of getting in bed with politicians. Only a nasty rash can come from that.
Doug:
Even if you are right that this was a money-making scam by evil Al Gore, I don't think you can blame the scientists. Politicians can pick up any theory that they like, but that shouldn't say anything about the science.
David: Just the fact that we now call the issue "climate change" instead of "global warming" illustrates why some may have reasons to distrust the science. When you change the name of an issue because the issue didn't live up to the hype, you've got a problem in the eyes of the public.
Doug:
The climate scientists I know have always called it "climate change" because they always knew that some places would get warmer and other places would actually get colder. If you believe that this is more about marketing than a real problem, then you are not listening to the scientists.
David:
I am listening to the scientists. Scientists also contributed to this narrative by continually making dire predictions, none of which has come to fruition.
Doug:
At what point do you say: "Oh, crap. They were right"?
David:
When they finally get one single, tiny thing right. Take the predictions from the first Earth Day back in 1970. Scientist predicted we'd have all starved to death back in 2000. It didn't happen. None of the predictions came true:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-didnt-first-earth-days-predictions-come-true-its-complicated-180958820/?no-ist
This article notes that the issue is complicated, and scientists did not take in to account that human behavior changes over time, sometimes because of changes that are occurring. The climate scientists haven't learned a thing, as they continue to make what now appear to be outlandish predictions which continue to fail. Ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf? So have a lot of folks. If you already believe that an issue may have political motivations behind it, multiple errors just reinforce the idea it isn't really "science", but politicians pushing their own agenda using quasi-science.
Doug:
That is not the lesson that you should get from the story, the story warns. The lesson I see is that the media attempts to make a drama out of everything. The article (like the media then) tells this battle from two individuals' predictions. But there are a whole lot of scientists that make specific predictions and recommendations. Some predictions are more dire than others. You may be right that making really dire predictions might make it more likely for you to get on the nightly news, or the cover of Time magazine. Perhaps the news has done more harm to science than politics?
David:
Now it's the failure of their dire predictions that gets them on the news.
Doug:
First, you can always find someone making "dire predictions" on any topic. In this case, some of the dire predictions were wrong: the ice caps are melting faster than predicted.
David:
Add to all of this that the Democratic president claims (in the face of all of these mistaken predictions) that the science is not even worthy of discussion, and that the science is "settled", leads to a polarization of the debate. It has been the Democrats, pushing wrong information in the name of science, that have made this a two-party argument, rather than a discussion of the science itself.
Doug:
Let's assume that you are correct: the scientists were wrong. You can't blame Al for that, right? Unless they were working together.... In any event, the scientists weren't wrong. There are many topics that are settled, as much as science can be. But I am talking about how regular people end up not believing in big ideas in science. What about evolution? It seems that many Republicans (especially in the south) disagree with scientists.
David:
I'm saying that the scientists have dug themselves a big hole, and politicians like Al Gore and President Obama have given them the shovels. They've made predictions for decades that have been wrong. Politicians have given people a reason to believe the motivations for pushing wrong information is more about politics than science.
Doug:
That is the Republican storyline. But the science continues since 1970, and it continues to look dire. I'm not sure what denying this does, except to sow doubt on all of science.
David:
As to other science issues like evolution, I think what you mean to say is that anyone who believes in a strict interpretation of the Bible has a problem with evolutionists claims. That is not a Republican (or a Democrat) issue. You're making it a political issue when it isn't one.
Doug:
Ok, let's just talk generally about those who have a strict interpretation of the Bible. Those people seem to have been increasing in the last few decades. Is it just those people that are doubting science? And why are their numbers growing? I don't care how they vote, but I do care that real science is being treated like a reality TV show. This can lead to deep conspiracy theories, even beyond evolution and climate change. For example, there are people that believe that:
1. The earth is really flat
This goes beyond the few hundred people that are card-carrying members of the Flat Earth Society. There are many people that have made videos and blogs that have very personal explanations defending a Flat Earth, such as this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlTMrIvZsR4
2. Plate tectonics is not real
Another area of personal distrust appears to be based on finding patterns in photographs. This can be used to disprove plate tectonics (using something called Electric Geology):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz8eoIJAOKY
Also, lots of patterns seen in Moon photos (if you believe that we actually went to the Moon):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wssOgRaUGwE
3. The earth is 5,000 years old
Consider The Creation Museum in Kentucky that teaches about humans and dinosaurs living together.
Doesn't it seem that the Republicans have used conspiracy theories in the past (birtherism, climate change deniers, anti-evolution) against science, and that it has now gotten away from them? Trump has suggested that Ted Cruz's father had something to do with JFK's assassination.
David:
I'm surprised you didn't throw in the Bermuda Triangle, Bigfoot, and Area 51 as Republican or Christian ideals. Again, you're mistakenly claiming these issues are Republican issues. I don't recall any of them appearing in the Republican platform. There is certainly a divide between people of faith, and scientists on some issues. (See our prior blog, Faith in Science.) That divide encompasses the exact claims made and the explanations for findings, and not a denial of the science. After all, God created science, and gave us the abilities to sort out the data.
Doug:
I didn't pick these topics above at random... I saw that actual people actually believe them. Some of them I don't know their political leanings, but others we do. Of those that we do know, they all lean right. Many of the Flat Earthers believe the Earth is flat because of a strict interpretation of the Bible (watch the video). And of course if the Earth is flat, then the photos from the Moon need to be explained (many people believe that gravity and space travel are conspiracies). The anti-plate tectonic theorists, too, are looking for explanations that don't take billions of years, because of a strict interpretation of the Bible. There are many that believe that the Earth is 5k years old, and humans lived with dinosaurs. I don't know of Biblical connections to the Bermuda Triangle, aliens, or Bigfoot. But I bet that there are.
My point is that there are many people who have turned away from science (for whatever reason) and there are those people cultivating that distrust.
David:
Well, if it's in a YouTube video, it must be true. I'd venture there are more transgender people out there than folks who believe the Earth is flat, which means only the guy who made the video and his cousin. I know a great many Christians who have no doubts we revolve around the Sun in our galaxy in the grand universe, that was created by God.
Doug:
You are correct that there are a lot of trans people (strange to use their numbers). But don't dismiss the numbers of conspiracy theorists. Over 50% of Republicans still think President Obama is Muslim.
David:
It turns out I'm wrong. By quite a bit. While transgenders only make up 0.3% of the population at best, I did a quick google search for "flat-Earth videos", and found over 1 million hits. I looked through quite a few of them (very amusing, I must say) and didn't find a single one tied to religion or the Bible. While I was surprised at how many videos there were (of course, they could all be just one very industrious fellow) I didn't find Christians or Republicans to be behind this sinister plot to melt people's brains.
Doug:
It's funny that you assume a conspiracy theory, which is exactly my point. Rather than seeing evidence, you instead look for a conspiracy to discount evidence. First, thank you for finally actually looking at the data and seeing that there are many, many people exploring the theory of "flat Earth." I don't find it amusing, but very sad. (And by the way, 0.3% of 7.125 billion people is over 21 million people.)
Finding a connection from the flat Earth to religion is not difficult. If you do an internet search for "flat earth firmament" you'll see about 37,000 videos and over 100,000 web sites, and millions and millions of views. These are explanations of the flat Earth for the literal interpretation of the Bible. From there, you'll find another set of videos and articles to explain how this conspiracy has been hidden by scientists and other "elites."
My contention is not that these people are Christians or Republicans. My contention is that the Republican party has tapped into, and been feeding, this doubt of science.
David:
I'd suggest that the Democrats forcing coal miners out of jobs because they wrongly claimed Florida and San Francisco would be underwater by now is a major factor for Americans of all stripes to doubt climatologists ability to predict just about anything. Climatic change is complicated, and has many more variables than the scientists themselves knew about, or factored in. People have eyes.
Doug:
I think that "people have eyes" can be the rallying cry for anti-science. It is obvious the Sun goes around us! It is obvious that it still snows! My kid was diagnosed with Autism after he got vaccinated! People have eyes!
David:
When claims are wrong, year after year, and real people are paying more for gas and electricity, and entire industries are wrecked because of those claims, people lose faith in the scientists making those claims.
Doug:
Isn't it science that has made gas as inexpensive as it ever has been? Seeds of distrust.
David:
You're wandering away from the topic a bit.
Doug:
You brought up gas and electricity prices. I'm just refuting your claims. Don't make them if you want to stay on topic.
David:
If climatologists make 50 predictions, and not one of them materializes, people will stop listening, and the seeds of distrust in that science are sown. For Pete's sake, the boy who cried wolf only did it 3 times!
Doug:
You do realize that the boy was eaten by the wolf, right? Your analogy is apt. Climate change is real, just like the wolf. Perhaps you think the climatologists are lying or wrong, but that doesn't mean you won't get eaten in the end. To continually not listen to the scientists "because Al Gore" is exactly the politicalization of science.
David: I might also suggest that the public school system, liberal higher education, and the degradation of American culture is responsible for some of your YouTube phenomena. One in five Americans (20%) believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. Surprisingly, we scored better than the Germans or Great Brittons on that question. Republicans are not responsible for the failings in those countries, so what's your explanation for their answers?
Doug:
I agree that this is an issue in education. But what is the solution? There are schools in Texas that want to teach all of the above ideas. Teach the controversy! I don't blame Republicans for all of this stupidity. I think that there is a worldwide crisis in critical thinking skills. If teachers made more money, or received more attention, perhaps we could get kids thinking better earlier.
David:
Wrong-o. Texas schools are not teaching the Earth is flat. Your nose is growing faster than the Earth's temperature, Pinocchio. You'll have a hard time suggesting to anyone who is buried under the debt of higher education to pay more for the experience.
Doug:
Don't just take my word for it, check it out. The Flat Earthers may be just a joke to you, not worthy of any attention, but why are some people drawn to it? Here is a picture that many believe explains what we see in terms of the Bible, and the conclusion is that the Earth must be flat:
David:
I don't see anything in your fancy chart that says "Texas School Corp." or any other school's district. I think you're just looking for scraps to suit your bias. I don't know any Christians who subscribe to this view, and I know many. How's it go? You're searching for any data to prove what you believe you already know. Isn't that exactly what we're talking about in this blog?
Doug:
That is a great way to discount any evidence: you found it because you were looking for it. Seed planted. You'll find many schools advocating to "teach the controversy" rather than specifically stating that the Earth is flat, or new.
David:
Again, education ( or a lack of it) is the key.
Doug:
I'm talking about K-12 education at the state level, and not higher education. What is the solution to poor K-12 education?
David:
Glad you asked. Charter schools and parental choice is the correct answer. Providing vouchers so that poor parents and minorities can choose to move their kids from poorly performing schools is an important component.
Doug:
That sounds like it would make the problem worse. "They tried to teach my kid about evilution, so I moved them to a better school."
David: It might also be worth noting that older, white males scored the highest in the poll about the Sun being the center of our solar system, and many other questions as well. Since prevailing wisdom from the media states that older, white males are all Republicans, that would mean we're much smarter than Democrats (and the rest of the world as well..)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx
Doug:
I can assure you that not all older white males are Republican.
David:
Just the smart ones.
Doug:
I don't understand what this has to do with the discussion, and why you feel the need to assert that white males scored high on a poll question.
David:
I'll talk slowly. You see, you're the one who brought it up. You've insinuated that Republicans don't believe in science. Your entire thesis is that Republicans (and Christians) are dumb. You've argued that Republicans distrust science because it just doesn't process through their neanderthal brains. I'm showing you that Republicans scored higher than others on general science questions. Now do you see how it fits?
Doug:
No. You said that it was "white males" that did well, not "Republicans". I did not insinuate that all Republicans don't believe in science (#NotAllRepublicans). I do not believe that birthers are dumb. Do you see how that doesn't fit, and is completely unrelated to our discussion?
David: Getting back on our original thread, Donald Trump was trying to tie Cruz to Lee Harvey Oswald in an effort to cast any dark shadow on his opponent. He certainly is not above throwing some mud.
Doug:
But this isn't any old dark shadow: this is crazy conspiracy theory that has no basis in reality. And Trump seems to believe in a few conspiracy theories.
David:
He's actually just practicing an old LBJ political trick. When Lyndon Johnson was in a much closer-than-anticipated race with his opponent, he wanted to spread the story that his opponent liked to have sex with barnyard animals. One of LBJ's aides said, "Christ, Lyndon, we can't say he's a pig f----r. It isn't true."
"Of course it ain't true," replied Johnson. "But I want to make the SOB deny it."
I'd say you're actually using the same strategy during this blog. Make an outrageous, and all-encompassing declaration, just to make me deny it. It fits your narrative that Christians, Republicans, and Donald Trump are all morons, while Democrats are the true standard-bearers of real science. I'm trying to show you that science, when handled poorly and with a heavy topping of politics, can be doubted by thinking, educated people.
Doug:
Where are these thinking people? The ones that believe in a strict interpretation of the Bible? Which leads (logically) to a flat Earth? Or the ones that don't believe in climate change because Al Gore did? The ones that believe that Obama is a Muslim? Ken Ham and his Creation Museum visitors? Or the ones that have some doubt about Ted Cruz's father?
You have already admitted that Republicans don't believe in climate change because Al Gore did. This is the seed of distrust. Now, it is growing everywhere. Once you stop trusting evidence, any evidence, then all bets are off. And Donald Trump is a moron. Use your eyes.
David:
People have doubts about global warming because the information and predictions Gore and climatologists provided was wrong. The greatest threat to science is bad science, not Republicans or Christians.
Doug:
That is completely backwards. First, Al Gore is not a scientist. Second, you are not a climatologist. Third, science makes predictions, and refines them over time. Climatology continues to make better, and more dire predictions. Some Republicans and Christians have politicized science.
David:
As has Obama, Gore, and a lot of Democrats. Climatologist certainly need to do some serious refining.
You assume that Trump is a moron, and probably Bush, Reagan, and every other Republican because they're Republicans. And you probably assume that all Democratic presidents were intellectually superior, because you are also a Democrat. That's bias, pure and simple.
Doug:
You assume too much. Trump is a moron because he is an ignorant person who thinks he can be a politician without any experience. If Reagan were running today, he'd be seen as a genius. And probably a Democrat. Please don't argue with what you assume I believe! I think we can argue enough on actual points of disagreement.
But I don't want you to deny that people believe crazy things that have nothing to do with science! I want you to agree that people should not base their opinion on what politicians think, one way or the other. I want you to agree that if you believe that the Earth is flat and new, then you aren't listening to science. I want you to agree that ignoring evidence can be dangerous.
David:
Ah, evidence.
Evidence indicates Hillary Clinton had top secret documents on an unsecured server, in direct conflict with the law. There is evidence that climatologists don't understand most of the variables involved with climate change, and yet they insist they know everything. There is evidence that transgenders are troubled people who are at high risk of suicide, not because they are not accepted, but because they are seriously and psychologically troubled. But you choose to ignore all of that evidence. Why? Because you have distrust in the origin of the data. I guess I do agree that makes you dangerous.
Doug:
For many people, believing that trans people kill themselves because they are bullied and rejected by society is a whole lot easier than believing that the Earth is 5,000 old. Why do you want to throw your hands up in the air and not see the difference between those two kinds of arguments? Why does it have to be a conspiracy?
David:
So now you're agreeing that not all data is equal. I suppose that's a step in the right direction.
I'll give you another easily understood example. If a drug company sponsors, and sets up a study on one of their drugs, and the study shows it performs miraculously, I'm sure you and I both would want an independent researcher to verify the results. If the data comes from a source you distrust, then the data isn't really evidence, is it?
Doug:
Wow... you are more cynical about big pharma than I am! Which scares me. No, I would consider that as evidence. But opinions are not made on single experiments, or single sets of data. Science does not work like big pharma, even though big pharma is supposed to be based on science.
David:
You're showing your anti-Christian bias again. I've read the Bible a few times, and I've never interpreted anything to indicate a flat Earth. I don't know any Christians who do.
Doug:
I don't think you can accuse me of showing my bias when you extrapolate from yourself and your friends to all Christians. I'm sure you and your friends can interpret the Bible in a "normal" way. So when the Bible says "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so" you can interpret that any way you wish. But some take that literally, and build a theory literally on top of it. The fact that there is no evidence for a "firmament" (let alone a flat Earth) does not sway their beliefs.
David:
I think I can speak for Christians better than you. Especially since you've admitted before you have never bothered to read the Bible, the most widely read book ever written.
Who said Republicans don't believe in climate change? Republicans, and many other thinking people, have good reason to doubt the global warming proponents, because almost 50 years of predictions have failed. You're projecting your beliefs onto Christians and Republicans, because you want to believe they are somehow inferior to you. You need them to be stupid and moronic, because if they are thoughtful, educated people, then maybe some of the things you believe (or don't believe) might be wrong.
Doug:
Well, that is sad that you actually believe that I would think that. Why would you want to discuss these things each week if you thought your brother thought that you and your friends were inferior to him? For the record, Trump is a moron, but I don't think that many of the flat/new Earth people or Electric Geology people are stupid. Rather, I think that they have been let down by the system. I see a lot of curiosity and thirst for knowledge. Consider this young man's description of the patterns that he is "discovering" in Geology:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TupvyWLatcI
This young man is not stupid. He is passionate, but uneducated about Geology. There are patterns everywhere, and humans are hardwired to see them. That is what science shows. And we all do it. But most of us can recognize it for what it is: just because it looks like those left turn signals are somehow synchronized, doesn't mean that they are. If you believe there is a secret mechanism that science doesn't want you to know about, then you begin to distrust all science. Sometimes "people have eyes" can lead you astray.
I believe that there are those that would attempt to prey upon such distrust of science for political gain. You don't have to believe me; I wondered what you believe, which is why I asked you the question. But you don't need to undermine others to explain why one might believe that some of this is politically motivated, by at least some.
David:
Why do we distrust politicians? Because they continually lie to us. If you're a scientist, the last person you want to jump on your bandwagon is a politician. Smart, thinking people will have a least some doubt about your work because of the association. Politics and science just don't mix.
Doug:
I agree! So I suggest that when a politician on either side of the aisle attempts to "use science" you should just ignore the politician. But, please, don't ignore the science.
I've run across a segment of the US population that have a big distrust of science and scientists. Do you think that Republicans have helped sow this distrust for political gain?
David:
Not at all. I think politicians of all stripes have tried to use their interpretation of "science" to benefit them whenever it suits them, politically and personally. Usually they have a particular agenda item they're pushing, and their spiel is followed with the claim that anyone who disagrees with them doesn't believe in science, and is therefore a simpleton. This in turn creates a distrust of science and scientists.
Doug:
So, you are saying that there is a distrust of science? And both Democrats and Republicans have contributed to it? But what about what scientists say about climate change? It seems that most scientists agree, and most Republicans disagree with the scientists?
David:
People will distrust any information, if given a reason to distrust it. The surest way to taint science is to associate it with politics. When Al Gore became the face of global warming with his film, An Inconvenient Truth, it made the entire issue appear to be political rather than scientific. The fact that his film was littered with inaccuracies and gross exaggerations made this worse. No one trusts a politician, so no one trusts what a politician preaches.
And the term "Climate Change" has many meanings. It has enough different meanings we should have an entire blog about just that.
Doug:
I don't blame Al Gore for trying to address something that he considered to be important. But I do blame people that don't believe something just because Al Gore did. That doesn't help. Al Gore, personally, has nothing to gain if people actually believe in climate change. Do you think that more people would care about climate change now if Al hadn't mentioned it?
David:
Absolutely. I think fewer people would have reason to doubt it. And I'll bet if you surveyed climatologists, they would rather he had stayed out of the whole fray.
Doug:
I wonder too. It is sad that Republican's beliefs are not based on the science, but in a reaction to the science. It makes having a scientific discussion impossible.
David:
Democrats aren't immune to the same biases. Most of them believe with all their hearts that George Bush lied about WMDs to propel us into an unwarranted war. A great many Democrats and Republicans believe there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
Gore made the issue political when few people knew anything about it. According to Gore, half of Florida should have been underwater ten years ago. When people can still go to the same beaches for spring break that they went to last year, it does a lot to discredit that theory. If climatologists could get a Clinton "reset" button, they'd certainly want to do things differently, and keep politics out of the mix.
Doug:
Isn't it weird that we still blame Al Gore? Shouldn't we be telling people to quit bringing Al into the argument, and look at the science. Then, as you say, fewer people would have reason to doubt it.
David:
Like I said, for many, Al Gore is the poster child for global warming. He won an Academy Award (from the leftists in Hollywood) and a Nobel Peace Prize (from the same folks who gave one to Obama before he had done anything), as well as amassing millions as he invested in "green" companies while he proclaimed the coming disaster.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/03/global-warmings-biggest-winners/
That made this a political issue before science had a chance to even make a case.
Doug:
Ok, I guess I see how the seeds of distrust get sown and grow. That must have been his plan from the beginning. He must be on to a new scam, now that the cat is out of the bag.
David:
Scientist should learn from the mistakes made here. I'm sure they all thought the publicity was a great idea. But while politics often uses science to make a point, science should be wary of getting in bed with politicians. Only a nasty rash can come from that.
Doug:
Even if you are right that this was a money-making scam by evil Al Gore, I don't think you can blame the scientists. Politicians can pick up any theory that they like, but that shouldn't say anything about the science.
David: Just the fact that we now call the issue "climate change" instead of "global warming" illustrates why some may have reasons to distrust the science. When you change the name of an issue because the issue didn't live up to the hype, you've got a problem in the eyes of the public.
Doug:
The climate scientists I know have always called it "climate change" because they always knew that some places would get warmer and other places would actually get colder. If you believe that this is more about marketing than a real problem, then you are not listening to the scientists.
David:
I am listening to the scientists. Scientists also contributed to this narrative by continually making dire predictions, none of which has come to fruition.
Doug:
At what point do you say: "Oh, crap. They were right"?
David:
When they finally get one single, tiny thing right. Take the predictions from the first Earth Day back in 1970. Scientist predicted we'd have all starved to death back in 2000. It didn't happen. None of the predictions came true:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-didnt-first-earth-days-predictions-come-true-its-complicated-180958820/?no-ist
This article notes that the issue is complicated, and scientists did not take in to account that human behavior changes over time, sometimes because of changes that are occurring. The climate scientists haven't learned a thing, as they continue to make what now appear to be outlandish predictions which continue to fail. Ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf? So have a lot of folks. If you already believe that an issue may have political motivations behind it, multiple errors just reinforce the idea it isn't really "science", but politicians pushing their own agenda using quasi-science.
Doug:
That is not the lesson that you should get from the story, the story warns. The lesson I see is that the media attempts to make a drama out of everything. The article (like the media then) tells this battle from two individuals' predictions. But there are a whole lot of scientists that make specific predictions and recommendations. Some predictions are more dire than others. You may be right that making really dire predictions might make it more likely for you to get on the nightly news, or the cover of Time magazine. Perhaps the news has done more harm to science than politics?
David:
Now it's the failure of their dire predictions that gets them on the news.
Doug:
First, you can always find someone making "dire predictions" on any topic. In this case, some of the dire predictions were wrong: the ice caps are melting faster than predicted.
David:
Add to all of this that the Democratic president claims (in the face of all of these mistaken predictions) that the science is not even worthy of discussion, and that the science is "settled", leads to a polarization of the debate. It has been the Democrats, pushing wrong information in the name of science, that have made this a two-party argument, rather than a discussion of the science itself.
Let's assume that you are correct: the scientists were wrong. You can't blame Al for that, right? Unless they were working together.... In any event, the scientists weren't wrong. There are many topics that are settled, as much as science can be. But I am talking about how regular people end up not believing in big ideas in science. What about evolution? It seems that many Republicans (especially in the south) disagree with scientists.
David:
I'm saying that the scientists have dug themselves a big hole, and politicians like Al Gore and President Obama have given them the shovels. They've made predictions for decades that have been wrong. Politicians have given people a reason to believe the motivations for pushing wrong information is more about politics than science.
Doug:
That is the Republican storyline. But the science continues since 1970, and it continues to look dire. I'm not sure what denying this does, except to sow doubt on all of science.
David:
As to other science issues like evolution, I think what you mean to say is that anyone who believes in a strict interpretation of the Bible has a problem with evolutionists claims. That is not a Republican (or a Democrat) issue. You're making it a political issue when it isn't one.
Doug:
Ok, let's just talk generally about those who have a strict interpretation of the Bible. Those people seem to have been increasing in the last few decades. Is it just those people that are doubting science? And why are their numbers growing? I don't care how they vote, but I do care that real science is being treated like a reality TV show. This can lead to deep conspiracy theories, even beyond evolution and climate change. For example, there are people that believe that:
1. The earth is really flat
This goes beyond the few hundred people that are card-carrying members of the Flat Earth Society. There are many people that have made videos and blogs that have very personal explanations defending a Flat Earth, such as this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlTMrIvZsR4
2. Plate tectonics is not real
Another area of personal distrust appears to be based on finding patterns in photographs. This can be used to disprove plate tectonics (using something called Electric Geology):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz8eoIJAOKY
Also, lots of patterns seen in Moon photos (if you believe that we actually went to the Moon):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wssOgRaUGwE
3. The earth is 5,000 years old
Consider The Creation Museum in Kentucky that teaches about humans and dinosaurs living together.
Doesn't it seem that the Republicans have used conspiracy theories in the past (birtherism, climate change deniers, anti-evolution) against science, and that it has now gotten away from them? Trump has suggested that Ted Cruz's father had something to do with JFK's assassination.
David:
I'm surprised you didn't throw in the Bermuda Triangle, Bigfoot, and Area 51 as Republican or Christian ideals. Again, you're mistakenly claiming these issues are Republican issues. I don't recall any of them appearing in the Republican platform. There is certainly a divide between people of faith, and scientists on some issues. (See our prior blog, Faith in Science.) That divide encompasses the exact claims made and the explanations for findings, and not a denial of the science. After all, God created science, and gave us the abilities to sort out the data.
Doug:
I didn't pick these topics above at random... I saw that actual people actually believe them. Some of them I don't know their political leanings, but others we do. Of those that we do know, they all lean right. Many of the Flat Earthers believe the Earth is flat because of a strict interpretation of the Bible (watch the video). And of course if the Earth is flat, then the photos from the Moon need to be explained (many people believe that gravity and space travel are conspiracies). The anti-plate tectonic theorists, too, are looking for explanations that don't take billions of years, because of a strict interpretation of the Bible. There are many that believe that the Earth is 5k years old, and humans lived with dinosaurs. I don't know of Biblical connections to the Bermuda Triangle, aliens, or Bigfoot. But I bet that there are.
My point is that there are many people who have turned away from science (for whatever reason) and there are those people cultivating that distrust.
David:
Well, if it's in a YouTube video, it must be true. I'd venture there are more transgender people out there than folks who believe the Earth is flat, which means only the guy who made the video and his cousin. I know a great many Christians who have no doubts we revolve around the Sun in our galaxy in the grand universe, that was created by God.
Doug:
You are correct that there are a lot of trans people (strange to use their numbers). But don't dismiss the numbers of conspiracy theorists. Over 50% of Republicans still think President Obama is Muslim.
David:
It turns out I'm wrong. By quite a bit. While transgenders only make up 0.3% of the population at best, I did a quick google search for "flat-Earth videos", and found over 1 million hits. I looked through quite a few of them (very amusing, I must say) and didn't find a single one tied to religion or the Bible. While I was surprised at how many videos there were (of course, they could all be just one very industrious fellow) I didn't find Christians or Republicans to be behind this sinister plot to melt people's brains.
Doug:
It's funny that you assume a conspiracy theory, which is exactly my point. Rather than seeing evidence, you instead look for a conspiracy to discount evidence. First, thank you for finally actually looking at the data and seeing that there are many, many people exploring the theory of "flat Earth." I don't find it amusing, but very sad. (And by the way, 0.3% of 7.125 billion people is over 21 million people.)
Finding a connection from the flat Earth to religion is not difficult. If you do an internet search for "flat earth firmament" you'll see about 37,000 videos and over 100,000 web sites, and millions and millions of views. These are explanations of the flat Earth for the literal interpretation of the Bible. From there, you'll find another set of videos and articles to explain how this conspiracy has been hidden by scientists and other "elites."
My contention is not that these people are Christians or Republicans. My contention is that the Republican party has tapped into, and been feeding, this doubt of science.
David:
I'd suggest that the Democrats forcing coal miners out of jobs because they wrongly claimed Florida and San Francisco would be underwater by now is a major factor for Americans of all stripes to doubt climatologists ability to predict just about anything. Climatic change is complicated, and has many more variables than the scientists themselves knew about, or factored in. People have eyes.
Doug:
I think that "people have eyes" can be the rallying cry for anti-science. It is obvious the Sun goes around us! It is obvious that it still snows! My kid was diagnosed with Autism after he got vaccinated! People have eyes!
David:
When claims are wrong, year after year, and real people are paying more for gas and electricity, and entire industries are wrecked because of those claims, people lose faith in the scientists making those claims.
Doug:
Isn't it science that has made gas as inexpensive as it ever has been? Seeds of distrust.
David:
You're wandering away from the topic a bit.
Doug:
You brought up gas and electricity prices. I'm just refuting your claims. Don't make them if you want to stay on topic.
David:
If climatologists make 50 predictions, and not one of them materializes, people will stop listening, and the seeds of distrust in that science are sown. For Pete's sake, the boy who cried wolf only did it 3 times!
Doug:
You do realize that the boy was eaten by the wolf, right? Your analogy is apt. Climate change is real, just like the wolf. Perhaps you think the climatologists are lying or wrong, but that doesn't mean you won't get eaten in the end. To continually not listen to the scientists "because Al Gore" is exactly the politicalization of science.
David: I might also suggest that the public school system, liberal higher education, and the degradation of American culture is responsible for some of your YouTube phenomena. One in five Americans (20%) believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. Surprisingly, we scored better than the Germans or Great Brittons on that question. Republicans are not responsible for the failings in those countries, so what's your explanation for their answers?
Doug:
I agree that this is an issue in education. But what is the solution? There are schools in Texas that want to teach all of the above ideas. Teach the controversy! I don't blame Republicans for all of this stupidity. I think that there is a worldwide crisis in critical thinking skills. If teachers made more money, or received more attention, perhaps we could get kids thinking better earlier.
David:
Wrong-o. Texas schools are not teaching the Earth is flat. Your nose is growing faster than the Earth's temperature, Pinocchio. You'll have a hard time suggesting to anyone who is buried under the debt of higher education to pay more for the experience.
Doug:
Don't just take my word for it, check it out. The Flat Earthers may be just a joke to you, not worthy of any attention, but why are some people drawn to it? Here is a picture that many believe explains what we see in terms of the Bible, and the conclusion is that the Earth must be flat:
David:
I don't see anything in your fancy chart that says "Texas School Corp." or any other school's district. I think you're just looking for scraps to suit your bias. I don't know any Christians who subscribe to this view, and I know many. How's it go? You're searching for any data to prove what you believe you already know. Isn't that exactly what we're talking about in this blog?
Doug:
That is a great way to discount any evidence: you found it because you were looking for it. Seed planted. You'll find many schools advocating to "teach the controversy" rather than specifically stating that the Earth is flat, or new.
David:
Again, education ( or a lack of it) is the key.
Doug:
I'm talking about K-12 education at the state level, and not higher education. What is the solution to poor K-12 education?
David:
Glad you asked. Charter schools and parental choice is the correct answer. Providing vouchers so that poor parents and minorities can choose to move their kids from poorly performing schools is an important component.
Doug:
That sounds like it would make the problem worse. "They tried to teach my kid about evilution, so I moved them to a better school."
David: It might also be worth noting that older, white males scored the highest in the poll about the Sun being the center of our solar system, and many other questions as well. Since prevailing wisdom from the media states that older, white males are all Republicans, that would mean we're much smarter than Democrats (and the rest of the world as well..)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx
Doug:
I can assure you that not all older white males are Republican.
David:
Just the smart ones.
Doug:
I don't understand what this has to do with the discussion, and why you feel the need to assert that white males scored high on a poll question.
David:
I'll talk slowly. You see, you're the one who brought it up. You've insinuated that Republicans don't believe in science. Your entire thesis is that Republicans (and Christians) are dumb. You've argued that Republicans distrust science because it just doesn't process through their neanderthal brains. I'm showing you that Republicans scored higher than others on general science questions. Now do you see how it fits?
Doug:
No. You said that it was "white males" that did well, not "Republicans". I did not insinuate that all Republicans don't believe in science (#NotAllRepublicans). I do not believe that birthers are dumb. Do you see how that doesn't fit, and is completely unrelated to our discussion?
David: Getting back on our original thread, Donald Trump was trying to tie Cruz to Lee Harvey Oswald in an effort to cast any dark shadow on his opponent. He certainly is not above throwing some mud.
Doug:
But this isn't any old dark shadow: this is crazy conspiracy theory that has no basis in reality. And Trump seems to believe in a few conspiracy theories.
David:
He's actually just practicing an old LBJ political trick. When Lyndon Johnson was in a much closer-than-anticipated race with his opponent, he wanted to spread the story that his opponent liked to have sex with barnyard animals. One of LBJ's aides said, "Christ, Lyndon, we can't say he's a pig f----r. It isn't true."
I'd say you're actually using the same strategy during this blog. Make an outrageous, and all-encompassing declaration, just to make me deny it. It fits your narrative that Christians, Republicans, and Donald Trump are all morons, while Democrats are the true standard-bearers of real science. I'm trying to show you that science, when handled poorly and with a heavy topping of politics, can be doubted by thinking, educated people.
Doug:
Where are these thinking people? The ones that believe in a strict interpretation of the Bible? Which leads (logically) to a flat Earth? Or the ones that don't believe in climate change because Al Gore did? The ones that believe that Obama is a Muslim? Ken Ham and his Creation Museum visitors? Or the ones that have some doubt about Ted Cruz's father?
You have already admitted that Republicans don't believe in climate change because Al Gore did. This is the seed of distrust. Now, it is growing everywhere. Once you stop trusting evidence, any evidence, then all bets are off. And Donald Trump is a moron. Use your eyes.
David:
People have doubts about global warming because the information and predictions Gore and climatologists provided was wrong. The greatest threat to science is bad science, not Republicans or Christians.
Doug:
That is completely backwards. First, Al Gore is not a scientist. Second, you are not a climatologist. Third, science makes predictions, and refines them over time. Climatology continues to make better, and more dire predictions. Some Republicans and Christians have politicized science.
David:
As has Obama, Gore, and a lot of Democrats. Climatologist certainly need to do some serious refining.
You assume that Trump is a moron, and probably Bush, Reagan, and every other Republican because they're Republicans. And you probably assume that all Democratic presidents were intellectually superior, because you are also a Democrat. That's bias, pure and simple.
Doug:
You assume too much. Trump is a moron because he is an ignorant person who thinks he can be a politician without any experience. If Reagan were running today, he'd be seen as a genius. And probably a Democrat. Please don't argue with what you assume I believe! I think we can argue enough on actual points of disagreement.
But I don't want you to deny that people believe crazy things that have nothing to do with science! I want you to agree that people should not base their opinion on what politicians think, one way or the other. I want you to agree that if you believe that the Earth is flat and new, then you aren't listening to science. I want you to agree that ignoring evidence can be dangerous.
David:
Ah, evidence.
Evidence indicates Hillary Clinton had top secret documents on an unsecured server, in direct conflict with the law. There is evidence that climatologists don't understand most of the variables involved with climate change, and yet they insist they know everything. There is evidence that transgenders are troubled people who are at high risk of suicide, not because they are not accepted, but because they are seriously and psychologically troubled. But you choose to ignore all of that evidence. Why? Because you have distrust in the origin of the data. I guess I do agree that makes you dangerous.
Doug:
For many people, believing that trans people kill themselves because they are bullied and rejected by society is a whole lot easier than believing that the Earth is 5,000 old. Why do you want to throw your hands up in the air and not see the difference between those two kinds of arguments? Why does it have to be a conspiracy?
David:
So now you're agreeing that not all data is equal. I suppose that's a step in the right direction.
I'll give you another easily understood example. If a drug company sponsors, and sets up a study on one of their drugs, and the study shows it performs miraculously, I'm sure you and I both would want an independent researcher to verify the results. If the data comes from a source you distrust, then the data isn't really evidence, is it?
Doug:
Wow... you are more cynical about big pharma than I am! Which scares me. No, I would consider that as evidence. But opinions are not made on single experiments, or single sets of data. Science does not work like big pharma, even though big pharma is supposed to be based on science.
David:
You're showing your anti-Christian bias again. I've read the Bible a few times, and I've never interpreted anything to indicate a flat Earth. I don't know any Christians who do.
Doug:
I don't think you can accuse me of showing my bias when you extrapolate from yourself and your friends to all Christians. I'm sure you and your friends can interpret the Bible in a "normal" way. So when the Bible says "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so" you can interpret that any way you wish. But some take that literally, and build a theory literally on top of it. The fact that there is no evidence for a "firmament" (let alone a flat Earth) does not sway their beliefs.
David:
I think I can speak for Christians better than you. Especially since you've admitted before you have never bothered to read the Bible, the most widely read book ever written.
Who said Republicans don't believe in climate change? Republicans, and many other thinking people, have good reason to doubt the global warming proponents, because almost 50 years of predictions have failed. You're projecting your beliefs onto Christians and Republicans, because you want to believe they are somehow inferior to you. You need them to be stupid and moronic, because if they are thoughtful, educated people, then maybe some of the things you believe (or don't believe) might be wrong.
Doug:
Well, that is sad that you actually believe that I would think that. Why would you want to discuss these things each week if you thought your brother thought that you and your friends were inferior to him? For the record, Trump is a moron, but I don't think that many of the flat/new Earth people or Electric Geology people are stupid. Rather, I think that they have been let down by the system. I see a lot of curiosity and thirst for knowledge. Consider this young man's description of the patterns that he is "discovering" in Geology:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TupvyWLatcI
This young man is not stupid. He is passionate, but uneducated about Geology. There are patterns everywhere, and humans are hardwired to see them. That is what science shows. And we all do it. But most of us can recognize it for what it is: just because it looks like those left turn signals are somehow synchronized, doesn't mean that they are. If you believe there is a secret mechanism that science doesn't want you to know about, then you begin to distrust all science. Sometimes "people have eyes" can lead you astray.
I believe that there are those that would attempt to prey upon such distrust of science for political gain. You don't have to believe me; I wondered what you believe, which is why I asked you the question. But you don't need to undermine others to explain why one might believe that some of this is politically motivated, by at least some.
David:
Why do we distrust politicians? Because they continually lie to us. If you're a scientist, the last person you want to jump on your bandwagon is a politician. Smart, thinking people will have a least some doubt about your work because of the association. Politics and science just don't mix.
Doug:
I agree! So I suggest that when a politician on either side of the aisle attempts to "use science" you should just ignore the politician. But, please, don't ignore the science.
"First, you can always find someone making "dire predictions" on any topic. In this case, some of the dire predictions were wrong: the ice caps are melting faster than predicted."
ReplyDeleteThis kind of statement is used in support of the science of global climate change. The striking thing is the the fact disagrees with the scientific predictions - at least some of them, anyway.
In science, that is evidence that the theory is flawed. To the science worshipping public, it is taken as evidence that the theory is correct. These "true believers" usually have poor understanding of science even at the high school level, so rely on the results of a poll of scientists to decide truth.
At the end of the day, if we should believe that *undesirable* climate change is anthropogenic, the obvious solution is an inconvenient truth - the population is simply unsustainable.
Finally, behind all of the scientific projections is a vast array of assumptions. What are they? Are they correct? Prediction is hard, especially about the future. We do know that NYC is not under several feet of horse manure despite the desperate looking future in the 1890's.