thereisnospoon
Gold Member
Different words same tune. More taxes, less personal liberty, more crushing regulations on commerce.You're confusing weather with climate.
Wrong, you and the AGW fools are confusing weather and climate. Man is not affecting either the weather or the climate.
Historically, it's been quite common for conservatives to be on the opposite side of the acceptance of new scientific discoveries if and when those discoveries challenged previously long-held (some might call them traditional) beliefs. Why should this be any different?
Well, I do see something a little different about it. Part of it seems to be an automatic reaction to the fact that liberals believe it. It's almost as if that's all it takes, really. Just let liberals embrace a new idea or discovery, and conservatives will flock to the opposite side as if on cue.
Of course, academia and scientific research organizations are overwhelmingly comprised of people who readily admit to being open to new ideas. <shudder> I think they're mostly on the liberal end of the political spectrum, as well. So, what do conservatives conclude from that? They decide that since scientists are more likely to be liberal in their political views, there scientific findings MUST automatically be suspect, as well.
Talk about specious reasoning!
Under normal conditions, I don't care about conservative sophistry as long as conservatives are only misleading their own flock of believers while leaving the rest of us to pursue objective truth regardless of where it leads. So, if you want to build a Creation Museum? Go for it! I don't care. But something as important as climate change is TOO important to the collective future of humanity (YES, I said collective future) to allow science deniers the leverage to prevent our country and our institutions from rising to the challenge while there's still time.