I realize that this forum is full of political monologues about the evils of [insert ideology here] or [insert political affiliation here], but I have not seen much attention given to an issue I feel is of crucial importance.
The issue is the rampant denial and/or ignorance of science that is exhibited by Republicans in United States Congress. The two hot topics that manifest this most evidently are climate change measures and the teaching of evolution in schools.
[b][u]Climate Change[/u][/b]
I am not going to lay out the plentiful evidence for climate change in this thread. A good starting place for anyone genuinely interested in investigating the scientific evidence for climate change is [url=http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence]here.[/url] Put concisely, the earth's climate is changing in a way that is not explicable by natural fluctuations, humans are contributing to this change by the emission of greenhouse gases—principally carbon dioxide—into the atmosphere, and an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree with both of these assertions.
While it would completely unrealistic to expect a complete abandonment of fossil fuels to power our homes and cars in the foreseeable future, it is completely reasonable to implement measures that would utilize alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, and fission, as well as regulate the emission of greenhouse gases.
Yet, 90% of the Republican leadership denies the [i]existence[/i] manmade climate change. It is fairly obvious that the first step to solving a problem is recognizing that there is one. The Republicans in Congress have not even acknowledged manmade climate change. How can measures be passed?
The existence of climate change is not up to debate on capitol hill; the only place for such a debate is within the climate scientist community, which has resoundingly advocated for measures that slow down the effects of manmade climate change. What should be up for debate is the precise measures that should be taken. But this is not the debate that is occurring in Congress, and if it does not start soon, we, as an entire civilization will face the consequences in the not-so-distant future. Warmer temperatures produce stronger hurricanes and more severe droughts; they also provide a better environment for the spread of many pathogens. The consequences of ignoring climate change are impossible to overplay at this stage.
[b][u]Evolution[/u][/b]
Again, I won't lay out the enormous amount of evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection. If you are genuinely interested in viewing the evidence yourself, or simply understanding the theory better, [url=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46]this[/url] is a good place to start.
The majority of Republicans hold the creationist view (i.e., the earth is much younger than geological evidence suggests and evolution is false science). When it comes to this issue, Democrats are not so great either. In fact, the chasm between Republicans and Democrats is much less pronounced than it is with issues such as climate change, [url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx]at least according to this Gallup study.[/url]
Creationist policymakers insist on teaching such non-scientific nonsense to children in public schools by dedicating chapters and sections to the subject. Creationism is creeping its way into the science classroom. The consequences are clear: a disadvantaged group of future job seekers. In order to remain competitive for jobs, especially in science, children need to be taught science in the science classroom, not unsubstantiated religious dogma.
[b][u]Why this is a Problem[/u][/b]
The consequences of scientific illiteracy are severe, plain and simple. Perhaps a historical example will help drill this in.
In the period from 800 - 1100 AD, Islam was enjoying a magnificent Golden Age. During this same period, Europe was disemboweling itself, still entrenched in the Dark Ages and centuries away from the birth of minds such as Voltaire, Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton. Yet, Baghdad was a virtual intellectual utopia, providing a fertile environment for the greatest minds of the day. Some of the greatest advances in medicine, astronomy, and mathematics were made here. In fact, the mathematics we call algebra was invented in the Islamic Golden Age, as algebra itself is an arabic word.
This golden age came to an end when a Muslim cleric declared that manipulating numbers was the work of the devil. Practically single-handedly, this cleric destroyed scientific curiosity and discovery in the Muslim world, a consequence that the Muslim world has still not recovered from. If this Golden Age had persisted, the majority of Nobel prizes today would be held by Muslims without a doubt.
As Americans, we should fear no less of an intellectual death. We must advocate for scientific literacy and policies that are informed by scientific evidence. Nothing less than the stake of our place on this blue planet and our intellectual capacity is at stake.
-
由Forge Fan92編輯: 8/6/2013 10:35:17 PMPlasma, it's because Republicans are tools for the fossil fuels corporations. They probably realize what they're saying is complete bullshit, but because all they care about is getting reelected they'd rather side with those who have an incentive to prevent taking action against climate change.
-
Oh look, I'm a republican engineer that probably knows more science than the vast majority of this website and advocates scientific progress in the realm of mortality (most people here are probably unaware that applied science degrees have an ethics course). Funny how that works.
-
as for global warming, i'll just let penn & teller explain it evolution however, hasn't done a very convincing job and it would help if its proponents weren't so hostile
-
Can anyone tell me how these people end up on science committees and boards? For example, the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin#Controversial_comments_on_.22legitimate_rape.22_and_pregnancy]"legitimate -blam!-" moron[/url] and his [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Broun#Evolution_controversy]"evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell" cohort[/url] are/were both on the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Science,_Space_and_Technology#Members]United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology[/url].
-
由Vgnut編輯: 7/15/2013 6:14:34 AMThere hasn't been any sight of the Republicans hitting the reset button after their beating in the last election. Romney didn't come within a mile of beating Obama and the Republicans handed the Democrats the Senate on a silver platter. They lost seats in the House. With the likes of Rick Perry gearing up for another presidential run it looks like the GOP primaries may be a repeat of what we saw this past cycle. If that's the case the Democrats will be cruising into another four years of controlling the White House. Things can obviously change. The midterms are still more than a year away and in politics that can be a lifetime of change. Right now it's not looking like much will change in 2014 though. The Democrats probably retain the Senate and the Republicans will definitely retain control of the House.
-
The fact that you're getting peple on the science board in America saying "Evolution is a lie from the pits of hell" is anything but beneficial to mankind. You know what would be helpful, to put the scientifically intelligent people in a position where they can do something, not OH IT'S ALL A LIE FROM HELL LET ME SUCK GODS DICK DAMN THOSE SCIENTISTS
-
I am about as conservative as you can get, and I believe in climate change. Global. Warming or humans causing the earth to get warmer however is the smelliest bs since Obama took office.. It was admitted to bring false years ago by the very scientist who created it as a plan to get money off of carbon credits.. Incase no other human knew.. When we exhale, it make this EXTREME POISON THAT DESTROYS ALL LIVING THINGS, aka carbon dioxide, aka plant food... On to the next topic of this thing called evolution. I know the religion this country was based on is for some reason idiotic or obsolete, but there's this guy, he's called God. Ok and his son, Jesus, was his son, lol. But seriously, it's like the first book of the Bible, it tells you the whole story that you guys are so confused about. Now it'll take some reading skills but if you try I know you can do it, and if you want I can pray for you. But once you do you'll understand..
-
To elaborate on the scientific consensus on climate change. 97% of climate scientists say it is very likely that greenhouse gases produced by humans are responsible for the unequivocal warming of the Earth. Further, remaining 3% "... average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates."
-
由angry0lbgrampa編輯: 7/15/2013 1:01:08 PMClimate change is a natural occurence, our impact as humans has simply sped it up by about 50 years last I read. Large scale evolution is impossible biologically and mathematically...However, Small scale evolution is possible, in reference to Adaption. What I love is your sheer lack of knowledge most of all. Republicans have done more for medical science then anyone else in this country.
-
I'm not disagreeing with you on evolution, but the climate change thing is something that needs to be dropped with regards to the GOP. Now, I'm not going to get into whether or not there should be new climate legislation (which would be on top of the preexisting ones, mind you), but I can say [i]without a doubt[/i] that it simply doesn't matter whether or not the US enacts climate laws. [b]One country restricting emissions won't do a single thing against climate change[/b] (Note: I am not confirming or denying it, I really don't feel like arguing about that). I mean, what about other countries like Russia, China and India that have huge populations and/or industries but don't really have any legislation concerning it? Shouldn't some of my environmentalist friends be tearing them apart just as much as the GOP? Climate laws are simply futile, wasted effort. If other countries who emit more than us won't enact laws, then what's the point in wasting our time trying to fix it on our own or arguing about it when we could be, you know, trying to save the economy so people will have food to eat? [b][i]Seriously![/i][/b]
-
I agree with everything there except for Climate Change, which is definitely false. We are still coming out of the last Ice Age. As for the other stuff, there are many Republicans and Conservatives that believe in it, the problem is that there is not any politicians to represent their thoughts. The Republican party today is just a bunch of anti-liberals, hence the reason they do not support much science.
-
-
Democrats do it just as often. Also, there is NO PROOF humans are affecting this climate significantly.
-
Implies all republicans believe these things. Guess what, the whole man made climate change thing, is an actual debate in the scientific community, although I side with the pro-human caused side, we can not rule out other data just because it contradicts our ideas. The evolution thing is kind of stupid, but in time it will be recognized fully.
-
As if the Democratic party doesn't also deny science for its own purposes. That's why I hate the politicization of science.
-
Straight up creationists are weird. Intelligent design mixes microevolution (which has good proof) with the universe having a beginning and therefore a creator (which also has good evidence), and is overall the more logical belief. Which proves to me again how I'm leaning towards being a conservative-libertarian. I like mixing views of both sides.
-
Science is complicated and often counterintuitive. Conservatism favors things that are more intuitive. Therefore, the Conservative party is more likely to ignore things that don't seem to be right.
-
First of all, let's clear the air. Many of these studies are skewed to represent the results in a biased way. This is not scientific or particularly productive. In addition, the data for these results are not consistent, as they are admittedly derived from statements given (for instance, a statement that questions the certainty of manmade climate change, such as the magnitude of effect or reliability of data, counts as "not believing"). This is not scientific. So from the beginning, we've got biased results across the board with questionable presuppositions and motives. The GOP is undergoing a schism between its old members and younger members. It is essentially staunch conservative republicans against more progressive, yet slightly more libertarian members. This causes fierce competition, leading to extremism on both sides, since moderates would not appeal to the hardline voters. Skewed data such as this doesn't actually do anything except misrepresent what is currently happening. So, effectively, this thread accomplishes nothing except create greater polarity and partisanship. I'm a Republican that does not believe in young-Earth "science", I think a freer economy is a road to national and individual prosperity, I believe states deserve much greater say in the policies that affect their citizens, I believe excessive taxation is irresponsible in a recession, I believe that evidence points to humanity affecting the climate but it is not unreasonable to continue to question results (as is scientific). And I'm also smarter than a significant number of people on here, not because you're all dumb, but because I'm older and more educated than you are. So yeah, we're not all dumb, blind-faith idiots that wants science eradicated from schools. In fact, most aren't, and we'd all probably get along great with you if we went out for drinks or something.
-
Funny how the republicans funded the national science foundation more than the democrats. What's also funny is how democrats are dumb enough to believe the Republican Party denies science, which is exactly why republicans don't take you people seriously.