Re: [Phys-l] The political/scientific connection

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

I think he is saying that others are blaming everything on progressive
policies.  He is pointing out that liberal causes have been entangled with
global warming science, so the conservatives view global warming as a
liberal cause.

He is not, as I read it, saying that he thinks it is a liberal cause.  He is
merely pointing out the fact that the science has been considered to be
politically based by some groups, but accepted by others.  I would say that
the author actually accepts the scientific predictions of global warming,
and is worried that this political entanglement may put science into low
repute.  He is also neither advocating or rejecting liberal or conservative
political views.  But he is questioning the rejection of scientific studies
for political reasons.

While one is free to disagree with the conclusions, the statistics are all
from reputable sources.  I would say that the statistics point to a big
problem in having one party buying into anti-science rhetoric.  The
religious connection is certainly part of it.  This is a problem which
should concern all of us, and I see it as a basic educational problem in
that students have not really learned what science is about, and how it
really works.  Surely people in both political parties could be educated
properly in the school system.  I don't think this sort of extreme political
polarization exists in countries where the students score higher on the
international tests.  The reasons why we got into this mess are complicated
history, and it seems to be a fairly recent development as I do not recall
similar polarization in the 50s.

Maybe we are poisoning ourselves with something that is also producing
irrationality!  There is evidence that animal species associated with humans
in the US are also growing fatter.  So could it be something in the soil or
the air.  This is of course a facetious suggestion, but you never know.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> > From the Slate article:
> "For 20 years, evidence about global warming has been directly and
> explicitly linked to a set of policy responses demanding international
> governance regimes, large-scale social engineering, and the redistribution
> of wealth. These are the sort of things that most Democrats welcome, and
> most Republicans hate. No wonder the Republicans are suspicious of the
> science."
>
> 	Somehow even a usually centrist outlet as Slate falls into the
> right-wing clap-trap of blaming everything on progressive policies that
> are on the edges of science or have nothing to do with science;
> therefore, because these are progressive causes, science itself is to be
> disbelieved because many or most scientists consider themselves to be
> progressive.    The right-wingers like to speak and write in quick, easy
> to digest one-line retorts which fit into the narrow belief systems of the
> public eager for USA Today type reporting.   It's very easy to lump things
> into these neat one-liners:   global warming is being debated, therefore
> it is not to be