Newspaper Editors Don't Trust Science

(Note: LATimes.com only allows visitors to access a certain number of articles per month for free.) The Leftist goal of portraying conservatives and Christians as ignorant, uneducated, and illogical (despite Leftism being based on emotion rather than logic) is evident in today's Los Angeles Times, in an article by John Hoeffel headlined "Conservatives' Trust in Science Has Declined Sharply".

I'm a conservative and I trust science. Most conservatives do. We must define what we mean by "science", however. People like me believe the scientific method is helpful in discerning things about the physical universe. What people like me do not trust without verification, and for good reason, is how findings by scientists are reported, especially in the Left-leaning media. Also, when a scientist makes statements that relate to metaphysics, the supernatural, or philosophy (such as expressing a worldview of philosophical naturalism), we rightly question the statement rather than trust it.

Here's how the article opens:

As the Republican presidential race has shown, the conservatives who dominate the primaries are deeply skeptical of science — making Newt Gingrich, for one, regret he ever settled onto a couch with Nancy Pelosi to chat about global warming.

Really? If we don't believe there is man-made global warming that we are able to (and better off if we do) fight through drastic restrictions on human freedom and centralization of power in government… we're "skeptical of science"? It shouldn't be news that conservatives are skeptical of political Leftism.

A study released Thursday in the American Sociological Review concludes that trust in science among conservatives and frequent churchgoers has declined precipitously since 1974, when a national survey first asked people how much confidence they had in the scientific community. At that time, conservatives had the highest level of trust in scientists.

The "scientific community" even if it were to be unified, does not equal science. This smacks of identity politics, like when the MSM reports that someone who doesn't think a brideless pairing forms a marriage is "anti-gay".

Confidence in scientists has declined the most among the most educated conservatives, the peer-reviewed research paper found, concluding: "These results are quite profound because they imply that conservative discontent with science was not attributable to the uneducated but to rising distrust among educated conservatives."

So why wasn’t the headline "The More Educated the Conservative, the Less Trust of Scientists"? That would have been more accurate. But notice how terms scientists, the "scientific community" and science are all being used interchangeably in this article. It's like saying that someone does not approve of President Obama’s job performance, or believe what he says doesn't trust the Constitution.

To highlight the dramatic impact conservative views of science have had on public opinion, [report author Gordon] Gauchat pointed to results from Gallup, which found in 2012 that just 30% of conservatives believed the Earth was warming as a result of greenhouse gases versus 50% two years earlier. In contrast, the poll showed almost no change in the opinion of liberals, with 74% believing in global warming in 2010 versus 72% in 2008.

You see, "belief" in "global warming" = science.

Chris Mooney, who wrote "The Republican War on Science," which Gauchat cites, agreed. "If you think of the reasons behind this as nature versus nurture, all this would be nurture, that it was the product of the conservative movement," he said. "I think being educated is a proxy for people paying attention to politics, and when they do, they tune in to Fox News and blogs."

In other words, conservatives don't just believe whatever the New York Times, TIME, and MSNBC say.

The study also found that Americans with moderate political views have long been the most distrustful of scientists, but that conservatives now are likely to outstrip them.

Moderates are typically less educated than either liberals or conservatives, Gauchat said. "These folks are just generally alienated from science," he said, describing them as the "least engaged and least knowledgeable about basic scientific facts."

And yet, we didn't have a headline that said "Moderates Less Educated".

Gauchat, who has been studying public attitudes toward science for about eight years, has applied for a National Science Foundation grant to investigate why trust in science has waned.

Maybe it is because of the influence of grants?

He plans to ask a battery of questions, including some focused on scientific controversies, such as those over vaccines and genetically modified foods, to try to understand what makes conservatives and moderates so distrustful.

Yes, you see, it isn't Leftists who are making any of that noise about vaccines and genetically modified foods. Oh no… it is those churchgoin’ conservatives and those uneducated moderates. Yessiree.

"cognoscenti" at 5:55 AM March 29, 2012 commented:

It's funny (ironic?) in Google News today, this LAT story is highlighted and directly beneath it is a Reuters story of how a lead cancer researcher found 47 of 53 popular scientific research 'findings' couldn't be replicated. No wonder people have lower faith in science with stories like this, Climategate, hockey stick graphs, etc etc. When scientists make up results to either gain grants, patents or notoriety for their cause the truth eventually comes out.

The same peson later added:

The one thing that bothers me about the IPCC reports over the last 10 years regarding AGW is the slow redaction of pieces of it, bit by bit. Like the claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 which turns out to be completely false. Or wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. These loose 'facts' were all a result of the lack of peer-reviews and an eagerness to push an agenda.

"moristheflorist" at 6:53 AM March 29, 2012:

A lot of this distrust might be due to the sorry state of science journalism

(see graphic: http://larvatusprodeo.net/files/2011/05/phdcomics-science-news-cycle.gif)

"basswork" at 9:02 AM March 29, 2012 gets it right:

Such comedy. The headline would suggest that conservatives mistrust science in general. But no, it's anthropenic global warming that is at issue. And by people who have studied the issue more carefully than most, including presumably those who write about it in the media.

In fact, believers in AGW behave much like religionists, smiting all heretics who dare question the popular doomsaying dogma.

Why not write about liberals who believe in feng shui, not inoculating their children and that government provided services are free?

For a reasoned argument against AGW read here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html

"nikkkko" at 10:10 AM March 29, 2012 wrote:

It’s not just science, that conservatives have a problem with. They have a problem with any fact or rational idea that conflicts with their views.

Pot, meet kettle. (A bunch of Leftists just remembered they were meaning to light up.)

The majority in this party do not believe in evolution, and many of those believe the earth is 4000 years old.

Conservatives are not the GOP, but I think it is safe to say that the majority of Republicans and conservatives do believe in "change over time" if that is what is meant by "evolution". But if you mean by "evolution" that everything that exists - including all of the woundrous biological diversity and irreducibly complex natural systems, sunsets and surfing, our sense of right and wrong, the mind of Einstein, the music of Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and great sex – are the result of nothing more than the mindless interactions of molecules that emerged from nothing without the aid of God, then no, most people don't believe that.

And Young Earthers think it is at least 6,000 years, often 10,000 years or more.

No More Shotguns

Guys, if you knock up your girlfriend, there's no need to marry her, or speed up marriage plans. Marriage isn't about children. At least, it isn't if brideless or groomless pairings are marriage.

Who Cares About the Younger Generations?

Candidate for the GOP nomination for President Mitt Romney is making an excellent point.

This clip is a good one:



The video ends too soon, however. As reported by McClatchy, Romney goes on to question why young voters would vote Democrat:

"And I say that for this reason: That party is focused on providing more and more benefits to my generation. And (amassing) trillion dollar annual deficits my generation wil never pay for.

"The interest on that debt," he said, "is going to young people in America....it's going on piece by piece. My party is consumed with the idea of getting federal spending down and creating economic growth and opportunity so we can balance our budget and stop putting these debts on you."

Just see Paul Ryan's latest budget proposals and see the reactions.

"Those debts are not frightening to people my age," he said. "Because we'll be gone."

Just look at what has been happening in Greece.

Every service, every thing that is designed, engineered, sculpted, cooked, mixed, fixed, built, manufactured, recorded, transported, or installed is the result of someone working. It takes work to provide goods and services. One person may choose to provide another with something for free, but what the person doing the questioning was asking for was for someone else to be forced to provide something to her for "free". Only, it won't be free. Someone has to pay for it, because it isn't growing naturally in large quantities on free land all around us. Given how far in debt we are as a country, it is the younger generations and generations yet unborn who would be doing the payment.

Romney's official take on this can be found here.

Some young people want to believe that they can have everything they want without working for it - that they can get a higher education and respected degree, a nice house, contraception, and anything else they want without working hard for it. That's not living in reality, and the younger generations of voters need to think about the size and intrusion of government, the national debt, and where these things are going to be when they are seasoned citizens. What kind of nation will their children and grandchildren be left with?

If you want "free stuff", vote for Obama and the other Democrats on the ticket, but realize that the free stuff isn't really free.

When is a Private Citizen No Longer Private?

In a response to a column Meghan Daum discussing Rush Limbaugh's comments and Bill Maher's comments towards women, the Los Angeles Times printed some letters of note. (Note that clicking the link adds to your monthly total of visits to LATimes.com, which has a pay wall after a certain number of visits per month.)

Christine Gregory of Beverly Hills wrote:

It is true that Bill Maher has insulted Sarah Palin, but she is a public figure who put herself into the public square — and condemnation and reverence comes with the territory.

What crossed the line is Rush Limbaugh calling a private woman who desires birth control a "slut" and a "prostitute."

Are we really to believe that Fluke did not put herself into the public square? Where, when and to whom did she make the statement to which Limbaugh reacted?

Nor was Limbaugh criticizing her desire for birth control. He was criticizing her insistence that it must be provided by a Catholic university.

Likewise, Sidney Morrison of Los Angeles wrote:

But Limbaugh crossed the line when he attacked a private citizen, a young woman exercising her right to express her views.

Doesn't the same right to express views apply to Limbaugh?

With freedom comes responsibility. Some has the freedom to choose contraceptives or abortive chemicals. Others should have the freedom to opt out of paying for it.

Democrats to Church: Shut Up But Pay Up

Cynthia Schultheis of Lakewood, California dutifully and obediently turned Democrat talking points into a letter to the Orange County Register:

I'm tired of hearing and seeing men argue and discuss women's issues, without any women present (i.e., a recent panel in Washington, D.C.).

Ms. Schulteis, I agree that Congress should not be discussing "women's issues". However, since the Obamacare unconstitutionally inserts the federal government into these matters, we don't really have a choice, ironically.

The men you cite were elected, under the Constitution, by voters. Then their peers appointed them to a committee. It isn't like they are a bunch of whiny protesters who just showed and started spouting off at the mouth., like Occupy or a group of hair-legged feministas.
Finally, Testicular Americans can have logical, reasonable points about matters under public debaste, and there's something called the First Amendment.

I feel moral outrage over an organization riddled with pedophiles expressing their moral outrage over contraception.

Feel anything you want. What does it matter to anyone else in the world what you feel? If someone felt you were a shrew, would that mean anything?

An organization riddled with pedophiles. Hmmm... who is she talking about? LAUSD? The Directors' Guild? Planned Parenthood? My guess is the Catholic Church. So the Catholic Church is never again allowed to have its teachings because there were some pedophiles in it? How does that follow? The Catholic Church isn't telling anyone they can't use contraception. It is objecting to being forced to pay for it.

How can celibate men who will never marry or have children counsel anyone on sex, contraception, marriage or child-rearing?

The same way government officials and public educators can counsel (and make and enforce law) about things they've never done themselves. The difference is, people have a choice about whether or not to support or attend a Catholic Church or follow its teachings. The church does not have the power to fine you, take your property, or throw you in prison.

It's irresponsible and inconceivable that the Roman Catholic Church preaches abstinence or forbids condoms to those who may be infected with HIV or AIDS, again only proving how out of touch and medieval they truly are.

Uh, do you know what abstinence means? There's no chance of spreading HIV if you abstain. But at least you are in touch. Sounds like literally.

The RCC has been around for 2,000 years. Does that quality as medieval? Let's grant the mistaken assumption that the teaching is medieval. There are no doubt things from that time period you believe or live by, so your use of that word might be emotionally effective, but doesn't really discount the teaching.

What consenting individuals and/or couples do in the privacy of their bedrooms is no one else’s business; it is truly a personal decision, not the government’s or the church's.

Exactly. And that's why neither the government (taxpayers) nor the church should pay for it.

Doug Sorey or Irvine also wrote in:

After reading about the $168 million judgment against a unit of Catholic Healthcare West for sexual harassment, it seems that the Roman Catholic Church, to say the least, has some serious women issues.

Mr. Sorey, anyone with a penis is at risk for being sued for sexual harassment. This includes, I presume, you.

The Catholic Church appears to be like the Republican Party: a little bunch of old white men trying to run the lives of females.

Since when is refusing to pay for someone else's private behavior trying to run their lives? And he's right. The GOP is nothing but old white men. See for yourself.


Democrat Playbook

Step 1: Pass unconstitutional federal law.
Step 2: Have some "ordinairy Jane" publicly testify before Congress about something with which Congress shouldn't be involved in the first place, demanding strangers pay for her private decisions.
Step 3: Sit around all day listening to commentators who might disagree with Jane's position, to document what they say.
Step 4: Feign outrage at a commentator's statement (even if it is like something someone on your side said that you didn't say squat about).
Step 5: Cite commentator's statement as an example of some sort of concerted war on all women.

Too bad I don't have any sponsors to harass, right?

HBO We Can't Believe In

The Leftist Democrats have the machinery of almost all of the major news outlets and most of the television media in general to get their messages out, true or not. HBO is part of that.