Last week, we went through a familiar ritual: Hand-wringing and alarm over Republican politicians denying scientific reality. This time around, the main focus was Rick Santorum, the anti-evolutionist and climate change denier who is one of the worst of the worst in this area (and who promptly obliged by making a new and fresh anti-science statement).
But hey, it's always something.
We've been repeating this pattern at least since the early George W. Bush years. A Republican makes a dubious scientific claim, a Republican officeholder or appointee suppresses a scientific report, a scientist in a Republican administration gets muzzled...the names change, but the story does not. I chronicled it all in a book that is now seven years old--The Republican War on Science--and I wasn't the first.
Nor will I be the last. The very fact that Jon Huntsman (who just nabbed third place in New Hampshire) has been able to successfully frame himself as the "pro-science" Republican candidate itself speaks to the misalignment of his competitors with reality.
Some of the conservative denial of science may well be cynical in nature. But there's no doubt from polls that large numbers of conservatives really believe this stuff--that global warming isn't real, nor is evolution. And indeed, the denial of reality extends well beyond science and into other fields like economics and history.
When you have a phenomenon this recurrent, it seems to me that at some point, it is reasonable to stop and ponder deeper causes. And are there any?
Recently, I posted a list of seven recent scientific studies showing that liberals and conservatives differ in ways that go far beyond their philosophies or views on politics. We're talking about things like physiological responses when shown different kinds of words or images, and performance in neuroscience tests. Take just one recent example: Conservatives show stronger responses to negative and threatening stimuli (words like "vomit" and "disgust"). Could this also prompt more knee jerk reactions to scientific information that is perceived as threatening (or words like "evolution")?
The point is not necessarily that the answer is yes, but rather that it is reasonable to ask questions like these. The root causes of our political differences are now under intensive exploration by multiple different research groups, which are churning out quite a lot of published, peer reviewed science. And while this work is surely not complete (science never is), it is also unlikely to be just plain wrong. Indeed, after having spent the past year reading this research and interviewing the scientists producing it, I can confidently say that those seven studies are just the tip of the iceberg.
Here's the bottom line: An increasing body of science suggests that we disagree about politics not for intellectual or philosophical reasons, but because we have fundamentally different ways of responding to the basic information presented to us by the world. These are often ways of which we are not even aware--automatic, subconscious--but that color all of our perceptions, and that effectively drive us apart politically.
What's more, what is true for how we come to our opinions about politics is also, assuredly, true for how we approach "facts" that are perceived to have some bearing on the validity of our political opinions--whether those facts are scientific, economic, historical or even theological in nature.
Thus far--and not surprisingly--conservatives don't seem so fond of the emerging science of our politics. They seem to consider it demeaning--yet another slight aimed at them by "liberal" academia.
And it's partly true: the research in question is--like all scholarly work--largely conducted by scientists and academic liberals who want to achieve a better understanding of the nature of our political dysfunction, and also of why we are divided over things like scientific reality. But ironically, when considered in all of its complexity and nuance, much of the research actually makes Republicans look very good (decisive, resolute, loyal) relative to liberals or Democrats--and certainly a lot more politically effective.
Frankly, it seems to me that this approach ought to prompt more tolerance and understanding across our political divides, rather than less. After all, if we are reaching many of our political and even our factual opinions for reasons that we're not even conscious of--if we're effectively being pushed to accept some views rather than others, because they resonate at a deep psychological level and just "feel right"--then the only appropriate response, it seems to me, is a deeply liberal one: Tolerance. Understanding. Acceptance. Empathy.
In other words, the next time a Republican denies global warming, liberals ought to be better able to check the impulse to say "what an idiot!" and instead say something like, "I can understand why they have that kind of a response."
But then again, the next time a liberal or Democrat does something typically and predictably liberal, Republicans ought to do the same. And now the paradox: What if liberals are more open to (and simply curious about) the science of liberals than conservatives are regarding the science of conservatives?
If so, then we'll still probably have a factually polarized political arena--but at least we'll know a little bit more about why.
Follow Chris Mooney on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisMooney_
Victor Udoewa: Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete?
How do we ignore the best that science can offer us, literally streaming on our laptops, for a desire to avoid embarrassment? I knew the downpour was coming, I could see it, I knew when it would hit, but a sunny day and a desire not to be made fun of placed that knowledge out of my reach. That's what's going on with global warming. Its not just conservatives pointing at the sunny sky, trumpetting their 'common sense' values, its liberals not wanting to look foolish by referring to the storm we can all plainly see heading our way, but so far only on our computer screens.
Either way, as a liberal, I believe not in one paying for another, but in all paying the same tax rate. For you see, in 2010, there was reported 12.3 trillion dollars in income (not including off shore accounts) and out of that, almost 90% was made by the wealthy. And if they would only pay more than 10% (Romney paid 13.9% before the 24 Cayman accounts were discovered), and my calculations of real tax returns showed an effectual rate of 10% by those making above 250 grand. And if these people would just pay 30%-that's at the end with check in hand, we'd collect 2.2 trillion more each year.
And yes, that is part exploring the dysfunction, but I am also one who will perpetuate all paying the same rate in taxes as an unalienable right. For you see, at one time in history, it was survival of the fittest, now it's survival of those with resources. And since I'm not asking anyone to pay for anyone else, I think it fair and just. (Oh, and as a liberal, if one or two slip in that get $170 in food stamps, I'm not going to make a fuss because I know more will be helped than those who cheated. And it does not come close to the trillions stolen through the banking system, stock market, and the non payment of taxes.
in the author's view, it represented both cons and pros from both sides of this equation. The only thing that does disturbs me is that the inability to see things empathetically is a huge deficit for mankind, where as being inefficient in getting together politically, may not be the best way, at least we have empathy.
It is this lack or appearance of empathy that allows me such a high prediction ability in order to pick out the conservatives of the group. And as a civilization, we cannot live in a society where each must fend for himself. I believe that method will eventually fail. only to find out tha empathy can over come much.
Today, most of us would see Boone as antisocial, and unwilling to participate in building a society. Yet, this seems to be the vision of the radical Republicans. They would have each person running around, an unfettered and ungoverned person, a nation unto themself.
Traditional conservatives would have abhorred this radical individualism, stressing instead the obligations of a person in society and the duty of a person to the polity or state.
All I see and talk with are the radical republicans.
And there's a big reason for those calls from the right for "deregulation". See, regulations basically do 3 things: 1. Make what you say you make (makes sense right? ), 2. Take care of the people who are making your product and treat all as fellow humans with respect unless they actually did something that deserves being let go. 3. At the end of the day, don't leave any poisons around the planet and we're all good. Now this is something I did before I even KNEW what a regulation was. But to some, if making something crappy or throwing your poisons in the ocean cost you less, well it means you'll make more profit. I don't want a business around making things in that fashion or with that little respect for the rest of us on this planet.
It you want to do something it's your responsibility to be responsible and not trample on the rights of the rest of us. If one can't abide by that, then I don't think you're ready for a business of your own. You better find a job instead and follow someone who is responsible with a level head. Owning a business is a responsibility. Ready? No? Then move on to something else..
FreddieVee
Emanuel is also a highly regarded professor of atmospheric science at MIT. … Emanuel has concluded that the scientific data show a powerful link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/nation/la-na-scientist-climate-20110105
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/us/28climate.html
“Texas Tech atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe is an evangelical Christian who travels widely talking to conservative audiences and wrote a book with her husband, a pastor and former climate change denier, explaining climate change to skeptics.”
Republicans for Environmental Protection:
http://www.rep.org/Hayhoe_Climate.pdf
“A (solar) physicist by training, John Cook is an evangelical Christian who runs the website skepticalscience.com, which seeks to debunk climate change deniers' arguments.”
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/11/29/not-all-climate-skeptics-are-created-equal/
“Barry Bickmore is a Mormon, a professor of geochemistry at Brigham Young University and the blogger behind Anti-Climate Change Extremism in Utah, where he recently rebuked Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) for his climate views and posted editorials mentioning his Republican affiliation.”
http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/11/12/a-republican-ex-climate-skeptic-explains-how-people-avoid-the-truth-about-climate-change/
Emanuel is also a highly regarded professor of atmospheric science at MIT..."
-------------------------------
MIT Climate Scientist Receives Frenzy of Hate Mail
Prominent MIT researcher Kerry Emanuel has been receiving an unprecedented “frenzy of hate” after a video featuring an interview with him was published...
Emails contained “veiled threats against my wife,” and other “tangible threats,” Emanuel said... “They were vile, these emails. They were the kind of emails nobody would like to receive.”
“What was a little bit new about it was dragging family members into it and feeling that my family might be under threat”...
The video... documented a climate change conference run by a group of Republican voters upset by their party’s anti-science rhetoric...
In one clip, Emanuel says, “It makes me feel to some extent disgusted with politics and to some extent ashamed to be an American.”...
Climate Depot [blog] posted Emanuel’s email address.
Emanuel notes that in the full video, he went on to explain that the Republican candidates “have either been misled, in which case it’s not great to be part of the political system where candidates for the president of the United States could be so misled on such an important issue, or they were dishonest, which [is] equally bad in my view: How could we live in a country where candidates are being dishonest about an issue of such importance?”
http://tinyurl.com/74larxf
Fanned.
If that were the main factor contributing to our political character, how could anyone ever change their mind?
"But there's no doubt from polls that large numbers of conservatives really believe this stuff--that global warming isn't real, nor is evolution."
...pot. kettle. black.
That per numerous polls large numbers of conservatives deny the reality of global warming and evolution is objectively verifiable fact.
"evolution for thee, but not for me!"
http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/evolution-for-thee-but-not-for-me/
-or-
Who Likes Evolution? Dissociation of Human Evolution Versus Evolutionary Psychology
http://137.140.1.71/jsec/articles/volume5/issue2/Ward_Vol5Iss2.pdf
i won't argue about the global warming part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006…
With climate change.. the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change… is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government.
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml