How has ignorance and irrationality become a sustainable political position? It seems as though every time I turn on the television or read the news I learn of a new public figure who has gained political clout by boasting of his ignorance of science – and almost always those public figures are members of the Republican Party.
What do Republicans have against thinking things through?
In recent posts I have written about Marco Rubio (the current front runner in Florida’s U.S. Senate race) being a closeted creationist, Rick Santorum’s fight against the teaching of evolution, Utah State Representative Mike Noel‘s idiotic work opposing climate change policy, and a host of other proud science deniers – all Republicans!
Can you imagine living in a place where people lacking knowledge opted to learn about the world in lieu of running for political office? If you are able to imagine such a utopia, it’s probably safe to wager that it doesn’t look anything like the State’s of Tennessee or Illinois – the leading candidates for governor in both states are creationists. More specifically, they’re Republican creationists (I know – shocking!).
In Tennessee, gubernatorial poll-leader Ron Ramsey – the State’s current Lieutenant Governor – wants to include Intelligent Design as part of the science curriculum along with evolution. ”To choose one or the other would ignore the beliefs of large numbers of Tennesseans,” Ramsey said. “Our young people are smart enough to come to their own conclusions if both sides are presented fairly.” That’s right; his position on education is that the personal beliefs held by the majority override and supersede science.
The leading Republican candidate for governor in Illinois, State Senator Bill Brady, is towing a similar party-line; but, in addition to teaching creationism, he also supports inclusion of prayer in public schools…
There’s nothing special about the republicans in Florida, Utah, Illinois, Pennsylvania, or Tennessee; a philosophy of anti-science is ubiquitous to the Republican Party. Now, it may be that not all Republicans deny science; but, the emerging pattern seems to overwhelmingly demonstrate that all science deniers are Republicans.
If not yet convinced of this phenomenon just consider the leading Republican presidential candidates for 2012; Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and, of course, Sarah Palin – all creationists and all climate change deniers.
I fully realize that when selecting a politician to lead us there are many things to consider – more than just their views on science and science policy – but for goodness sake, how has science denial become a desired attribute for an entire political party?
Sources (Linked News Artcles):
John Humphreys
Since his graduation from Kent State University where he studied biology and geology, John Humphreys has worked in a variety of scientific fields ranging from paleontology to conservation. Currently he resides in Florida where he is a fulltime ecologist and part time student. ...
Read more about John Humphreys ->
More on these topics:
Creationism, Denialism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, News, Presidential Race 2012, Republican, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Science Denial
Prick Santorum says:
I've had the sick pleasure of visiting The Museum of Creation Science in Santee, CA. The strength of I.D. is that it isn't bound by laws of science or logic; it merely relies on aligning itself with emotionally-based religious/political beliefs and influencing the appropriate constituents at the ballot box, thus legally mandating the teaching of flawed science in public schools. Unfortunately, I.D. is a whole lot more "fun" than legitimate scientific rigeur, what with the floods and arks and such, so it resonates more with the average voter than genomes or alleles do.
Tim says:
I used to be liberal and hell would freeze over before I could support politicians like those in the GOP. Then I took the time to learn about the science behind AGW and discovered a mess of shoddy work by political activists pretending to be scientists. I have found nothing to dispute the basic GHG effect but it is clear that the potential negative effects of warming have been grossly exagerrated and the costs of limiting CO2 have been deliberately underestimated. The net result is anti-CO2 policies are nothing but a lot of pain for no gain and I am appalled that so many liberals have bought into this scam.
Nothing has changed about my opinions on abortion, gun control or a public option for healthcare but as long as liberals insist on expensive and pointless "action" on CO2 I will not be supporting them. The economy trumps all other issues for me.
gofer says:
OOPS...You either left this out or didn't do your research.
More than 130 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 130 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.
The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”
Prick Santorum says:
Oh, I'm in agreement with Tim about the Global Warming stuff. I feel it is important to take care of the environment, but that can't be done without first having economic prosperity. After all, poor, third-world countries are often a great place for manufacturing/chemical industries to set up shop without having to deal with the cost of proper waste disposal procedures.
Intelligent Design is still total rubbish.
oshtkd says:
Oops! Surveys conducted by University of Illinois and George Mason University found that 97% of the world's climate scientists say global warming is real AND manmade.
Oops! Here's a few statements Gofer seemed to have overlooked from some of the world's scientists voicing their concern over denying the science behind global warming:
Letter from the heads of 18 science organizations in the U.S. who's collective membership is in the tens of thousands:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climate_letter.pdf
Open letter from 1450 scientists represented by Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/scientists-and-economists.html
Open letter from 1700 U.K. scientists:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/uk-science-statement.html
Oops!
John Humphreys says:
Prick,
It’s a shame that the media and entertainment industries don’t do a better job at making science (and scientists) more appealing to wider audiences; I think it could be done though…
Instead of painting science as an endeavor undertaken only by uppity, socially awkward nerds, the entertainment industry could show science for what it really is – a process of discovery undertaken by passionate and driven everyday people.
There’s definitely rigor involved, but there also a lot of amazing stories.
Good observation.
John Humphreys says:
Tim,
I agree with you in that it’s appalling when -
-scientists inflate and exaggerate climate change in hopes of obtaining grants and research funding.
-politicians (from any party) misrepresent climate science in order to rally supporters.
-the media relies too heavily on scare tactics, exaggerations and misrepresentations in attempts to hype an issue.
-private industry edits scientific findings/evidence in order to turn a profit.
But, I disagree in your total assessment of climate change. None of the above points have anything to do with the majority of evidence currently available. Throughout the world there is real climate science being done. That is ‘real science’ being done by real (non-activists) scientists whom are unbiased and possess both integrity and professionalism. Though there is disagreement in regards to many of the details, the majority of real scientists agree that there is an anthropogenic effect.
As you stated, “I have found nothing to dispute the basic GHG effect but…”
There’s science, and then there’s policy, politics and hype; being skeptical is always a good idea!
Thanks!
John Humphreys says:
Gofer,
OOPS, you seem to be under the impression that science is decided by lists.
There are much longer lists of scientists floating around – much longer than the one you are currently highlighting. For example there are lists of PhD’s claiming that evolution isn’t real and the earth is less than 10,000 years old…
Fortunately science isn’t decided by poll takers, it’s decided by evidence.
Thanks for the bogus tactic!
John Humphreys says:
Tim,
If only science-denying republicans would take your stance and insist on prioritizing important issues instead of rejecting that they even exist!
Science and how that science is used to create policy are not one in the same.
Thanks again!
John Humphreys says:
Thanks oshtkd,
I just got back from the Wanee Music Festival – I greatly appreciate you whackn the gofer in my absence.
Dan Kegel says:
A more specific reply to gofer:
The open letter you referred to is described here:
http://jules-klimaat.blogspot.com/2009/08/open-letter-to-chancellor-angela-merkel.html
Only about ten of the signatories were trained in weather,
and only one appears to be trained in climate research.
Also, in a quick check, I found no people in common between those
who signed that open letter, and the IPCC scientists who contributed
to the IPCC report establishing the physical basis of global warning,
http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch
I fear you've been listening to ill-informed people.
John Humphreys says:
Thanks for the info Dan!
Elind says:
Gofer:
I counted 3 who claimed to be meteorologists and claimed to have a degree in the same.
Since I have a degree in engineering, does that qualify me to put my name to a list in opposition, and if I can find 161 other engineering degrees to do the same, will you consider this open letter to be null and void?
Only fair isn't it, since that is your basis for determining scientific validity?