The Left's War on Science

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,817
1,319
126
Won seats in the House, lost seats in the Senate. You guys try and spin 2018 as some kind of "blue wave" yet it was a mixed bag at best.
Losing a couple of seats in the Senate didn't really change anything. Winning the HOR def did. Dems also made considerable gains in State govts. We'll be back for more in 2020.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
Won seats in the House, lost seats in the Senate. You guys try and spin 2018 as some kind of "blue wave" yet it was a mixed bag at best.
FiveThirtyEight disagrees with you:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-it-was-a-blue-wave/

And this was written before the full extent of the Democrats' victory was known. The end margin actually turned out to be 8.6 points, making it the second largest wave in the last 25 years, behind only 2008. It was also the largest margin of victory in raw votes of any midterm in all of US history.

Look, you guys got crushed, and you got crushed because of Trump. I know that makes you feel bad emotionally but that's simply a fact.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
47,076
469
126
Won seats in the House, lost seats in the Senate. You guys try and spin 2018 as some kind of "blue wave" yet it was a mixed bag at best.
The number of vulnerable seats in the senate weighed against the Dems so this was expected. That Reps were crushed wasn't. You and them are the beginning of was is hopefully massive defeat in your war against the destruction of the environment.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
FiveThirtyEight disagrees with you:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-it-was-a-blue-wave/

And this was written before the full extent of the Democrats' victory was known. The end margin actually turned out to be 8.6 points, making it the second largest wave in the last 25 years, behind only 2008. It was also the largest margin of victory in raw votes of any midterm in all of US history.

Look, you guys got crushed, and you got crushed because of Trump. I know that makes you feel bad emotionally but that's simply a fact.
So IOW presuming you get another wave election (or maybe two or three) in your favor you might finally be able to enact your agenda. Presuming you actually win Congress and POTUS and manage to avoid still failing to enact your agenda like how the BTU tax failed in 1993 with Clinton and Dem Congress. And then if you do get it passed, you can hope the voters don't immediately vote you out in the next cycle and repeal that agenda like happened in Australia and Canada.

If the above is your strategy, then good luck.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
So IOW presuming you get another wave election (or maybe two or three) in your favor you might finally be able to enact your agenda. Presuming you actually win Congress and POTUS and manage to avoid still failing to enact your agenda like how the BTU tax failed in 1993 with Clinton and Dem Congress. And then if you do get it passed, you can hope the voters don't immediately vote you out in the next cycle and repeal that agenda like happened in Australia and Canada.

If the above is your strategy, then good luck.
Again, what you're saying isn't really relevant. Either climate change has to be addressed or it does not. If it does, you work towards it regardless.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
3,634
159
126
Unsure by what you mean by "special authority on the facts." Facts are facts and can be independently verified by any and all. If you mean special authority on what how to interpret the facts or what they mean, then scientists should be provided with less skepticism than the layperson because they're speaking on their domain of expertise (just like if I had a question on religious orthodoxy versus heresy I'd probably listen to the views of the pope less skeptically than I would the guy who attends church once a year and sleeps through the service). If you mean scientists should get some sort of "special authority on the facts" that allows them oversized influence (if not outright veto powers) to decide what the political implication of those facts are and what political policies should be adopted to address those implications, I believe that scientists should have the same one vote as their idiot neighbor who thinks that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and cavemen had rodeos where they'd ride brontosaurs.
I still don't get what your point is. Scientists do, indeed, get just one vote each, like everyone else. Also your whole stance on this seems weird - as if increased global morbidity and environmental destruction is just a side issue to gloating about beating the liberals in elections. You seem to be saying 'climate change may be real but nothing is going to be done about it because my lot are winning, ha ha.!' I guess the right have become increasingly nihilistic, for some strange reason.


If you wanted to attack people on the left for being dumb on science, you'd attack the anti-vax fools endangering their kids with measles, or anyone who buys scammy shit from Goop.

Instead you made this thread...

Don't know about the US, but in the UK the anti-vax people are very much on the right. Mel Phillips being one of the most prominent . It also seems to merge with US-backed NHS-bashing. It's pretty obvious why that would be - vaccination is about putting the collective good above individual preferences. Clearly the individualist right is not going to like that.

Edit - where I would concede the doubters are on the left, would be GMO and nuclear power. But not vaccines.
 
Last edited:

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
3,634
159
126
I also think the issue is complicated, because invariably issues of 'science' and 'expertise' constantly get mixed up with questions of commercial and political power.

I remember back in the '90s reading a book by one of the few genuine scientists on the AGW-skeptic side. Firstly they did raise what were at the time genuine problems with the orthodoxy (but all of them have since been resolved, e.g. the satellite observations that conflicted with prediction turned out to be wrong because of the failure to account for orbital decay, the radio-sonde readings were likewise in error due to failure to account for a change in instrumentation...and so on). But secondly the one part of the book I found not implausible was the argument as to how a 'false consensus' could emerge, due to institutional and financial considerations. Anyone on the left would have to concede such a thing is at least theoretically possible, because all scientific endeavors are also social and political ones.

Ultimately there's a sociological and political judgement involved. I believe the scale of the consensus and the degree to which climate science depends on (indeed, pretty much follows directly from) long-established basic principles of physics, makes it a vastly stronger consensus than, say, whatever "IQ researchers" say about race and IQ or "evolutionary psychologists" say about gender and a preference for pink.

Personally, having studied the subject academically (back when my brain still worked, undegraded by age), I felt I understood it well enough to decide for myself that the orthodox view was entirely convincing and consistent with all the evidence, and that all the 'skeptic' theories fell down (I distinguish 'skeptics' - who actually had, at least back then, testable theories to offer - from deniers, who generally talk nonsense because they don't understand the basics) But I can kind-of understand how reluctant people might be to take expert views on faith. Throw in people's self-interest in denial, and propaganda from vested commercial-interests and it's very surprising as many people accept the science as actually do.
 
Last edited:

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
7,049
285
126
Don't know about the US, but in the UK the anti-vax people are very much on the right. Mel Phillips being one of the most prominent . It also seems to merge with US-backed NHS-bashing. It's pretty obvious why that would be - vaccination is about putting the collective good above individual preferences. Clearly the individualist right is not going to like that.

Edit - where I would concede the doubters are on the left, would be GMO and nuclear power. But not vaccines.
In the US it looks like it cuts across the spectrum, although I'd be curious if it's for different rationales.

On the left I've seen it overlap with the "body purity" movements that also include GMOs, organic foods, and other skepticism about potential toxins being induced into the body.

On the right I would suspect religious beliefs, and anti-gov conspiracy theories (overlapping with climate change denial, etc.,) similar to what you connected.
 
Jul 11, 2001
20,972
112
126
Just another WTF thread started by SlowSpyder. Everybody knows that it's the right that's at war with science. This guy is just fucking with your head.

Don't feed the trolls.
 
Jul 12, 2006
92,907
1,250
136
The hilarity of your intellectual acrobatics here is they precisely mirror the same acrobatics done over tobacco and health in the 30-40 years after a clear undeniable consensus was reached in 1954 on tobacco causing lung disease and cancer.

The consensus on climate change is just as strong as the consensus on tobacco. And the corporate "doubt propaganda" campaign is exactly the same too.

But because of people like you who are dupes for a corporate propaganda campaign on climate change that is identical to the one on tobacco, we have to wait for millions to die and trillions of dollars lost before you acquiesce or die out and leave the problem to the younger generation.

Fucking luddites.
Oh, don't forget the industry attack on wide-spread lead poisoning, in the 60s and 70s. That shit was hilarious. Same conservative jackoffs of today were screaming about the fake science behind all the lead data, simply because the industry promised them it wasn't true....
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
6,209
333
136
Oh, don't forget the industry attack on wide-spread lead poisoning, in the 60s and 70s. That shit was hilarious. Same conservative jackoffs of today were screaming about the fake science behind all the lead data, simply because the industry promised them it wasn't true....
Slow would probably do well to read up about (or watch the Cosmos episode on) Clair Patterson and his quest to warn the public about lead.
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
7,654
374
136
Slow would probably do well to read up about (or watch the Cosmos episode on) Clair Patterson and his quest to warn the public about lead.
Funny, I just saw that episode last night. I agree he should see it.
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
7,654
374
136
Haha, wait, you actually believe that don't you? Wow...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timel...ironmental_and_occupational_health_regulation

Whereas using religion has consistently flopped with setting policies with regards to divorce, gays, and abortion.

Considering that science actually helped stymie efforts by religious idiots often, that you're claiming science has been as effective/ineffective is so ridiculously laughable that you have to be ignorant to such a degree that you seemingly don't understand basic facts about most topics. Which to be fair, does perfectly explain your posts.
Never mind how effective a political tool either is for the moment. The fact is that science brings us knowledge of actual reality. Religion, not so much. Glenn chastising us for science not working politically isn't something he should be doing a victory dance over. It's something he should be decrying. Science/=religion.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,817
1,319
126
Never mind how effective a political tool either is for the moment. The fact is that science brings us knowledge of actual reality. Religion, not so much. Glenn chastising us for science not working politically isn't something he should be doing a victory dance over. It's something he should be decrying. Science/=religion.
Please. The dark arts of disinformation & propaganda are highly scientific. It's more true than ever before. The believers are one thing. The perpetrators are entirely another. The latter have been destabilizing this country for decades, tearing us apart with wedge issues & this anti-gubmint culture warrior mentality. That's the GOP & their right wing billionaire donors. When all the craziness led to Trump, the Russians threw in for him to help push it over the top. The GOP never even blinked, never even considered why it might be that way.
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
7,654
374
136
People on the left should be able to have a conversation about anti-science stances on the left without whatabouting the right's own anti-science BS. There's plenty of it on the left, from anti-vax to anti-GMO to anti-ecig (check the actual research, not CNN).

I get it. Slow started the thread so that kind of dooms it to whataboutism hell. Yet the left needs to address its own anti-science elements. They are plenty of them and these beliefs are common. We lack credibility in calling out the right for rejecting climate science when so many liberals reject science on so many things, including the bulk of western medicine.
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
7,654
374
136
Please. The dark arts of disinformation & propaganda are highly scientific. It's more true than ever before. The believers are one thing. The perpetrators are entirely another. The latter have been destabilizing this country for decades, tearing us apart with wedge issues & this anti-gubmint culture warrior mentality. That's the GOP & their right wing billionaire donors. When all the craziness led to Trump, the Russians threw in for him to help push it over the top. The GOP never even blinked, never even considered why it might be that way.
That's all true, but it doesn't effect the validity of my post. If science really doesn't work as a political argument as Glenn says, that is not a good thing.
 
Jan 12, 2005
14,924
2,465
126
Just another WTF thread started by SlowSpyder. Everybody knows that it's the right that's at war with science. This guy is just fucking with your head.

Don't feed the trolls.

Disregarding your troll bs, that's the point of this thread. We've all heard of the right's war on science, and I agree that there are some on the right, in particular the conservative religious types, that disagree with what is commonly accepted science in some cases. But, the left stops some research from even happening because feelings > facts to them. There are good examples of this in the OP. There is a real leftist push against science too, and it shouldn't be brushed under the rug.
 
Jul 11, 2001
20,972
112
126
Disregarding your troll bs, that's the point of this thread. We've all heard of the right's war on science, and I agree that there are some on the right, in particular the conservative religious types, that disagree with what is commonly accepted science in some cases. But, the left stops some research from even happening because feelings > facts to them. There are good examples of this in the OP. There is a real leftist push against science too, and it shouldn't be brushed under the rug.
I don't remember seeing this in any degree. I see it all the time with the conservatives, the GOP (which are nearly congruent, in general).
 
Jul 12, 2006
92,907
1,250
136
The answer is "growing awareness"

<beep>

What is "how much Democrats have achieved on climate change in the last 30 years"

<ding ding>

I'll close out the category with "Things political losers say" for $1,000, Alex.
lol this doesn't make any sense. It's like you haven't paid any fucking attention to anything in the last 30 years.
 
Jul 12, 2006
92,907
1,250
136
Won seats in the House, lost seats in the Senate. You guys try and spin 2018 as some kind of "blue wave" yet it was a mixed bag at best.
math is hard for you. Dems actually won 3% more votes than fascists did in 2014 or 2010, which were rather record-setting at the time--this was actually quite devastating for the fascists in the GOP. Why don't you admit the observable truth? Why is that so fucking hard for you? It is no other way. There was only one actual outcome, and it was motherfucking devastating for your fucking nazi cultists.

Your world view has long ago collapsed. The country is wildly against you, and you know it. It's why you can't stop posting nonsense craziness and get angrier and angrier every day. Hell look at Glenn: dude banned himself from P&N months ago, and now he's back for some reason. He is apoplectic and just making shit up as he goes along. It's amusing and disturbing all at once, the way you brainless fascists eat yourselves as you witness your hateful culture dissolving before you.

There have certainly been worse times to be fascists, but you guys sure stumbled into one of the bad ones. It's about to get real nasty for you. Better clinch your anuses.

And seriously, though: Go fuck yourself. There is no room for ignorant Nazi shitbags like yourself in this country.
 
Mar 11, 2004
17,758
280
126
Never mind how effective a political tool either is for the moment. The fact is that science brings us knowledge of actual reality. Religion, not so much. Glenn chastising us for science not working politically isn't something he should be doing a victory dance over. It's something he should be decrying. Science/=religion.
That goes without saying. I was just pointing out how the basic facts of his argument don't even support it. As is the norm for basically all of the conservative morons on this site. I just point it out from time to time to remind them of the broken logic of their brains that they're stuck trying to compensate for.

I actually disagree about science not working politically, I think it works fine, its the politics that consistently is the problem.
 
Mar 11, 2004
17,758
280
126
He's using the same style arguments that creationists and alt-med peddlers use. It's classic science expertise undermining. The same shit the tobacco companies used too.

Anyone who tries to undermine a strong 90+% consensus of experts in a given field of science with the old" science has been wrong before" trope is full of shit.

Meanwhile, Dunning-Kruger 101: That any lay person thinks they can determine when a scientific consensus is questionable.
They're real life versions of Mac from Always Sunny.


Except Mac actually provided a more substantial argument than they usually do. If you watch the whole episode it actually become even more of an apt comparison (the situation there was the result of disagreements over who should pay after one of them rear-ended another one, and the one that got rear-ended was eating a bowl of cereal while driving, and it cause them to spill milk and cereal all over their car; oh and also Mac believe that through evolution that he could impregnate some famous woman and make an X-Men mutant, so he set out to prove that evolution as we know it is a lie - which of course has nothing to do with the whole cereal/crash part).
 

cytg111

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2008
8,120
360
126
People on the left should be able to have a conversation about anti-science stances on the left without whatabouting the right's own anti-science BS. There's plenty of it on the left, from anti-vax to anti-GMO to anti-ecig (check the actual research, not CNN).

I get it. Slow started the thread so that kind of dooms it to whataboutism hell. Yet the left needs to address its own anti-science elements. They are plenty of them and these beliefs are common. We lack credibility in calling out the right for rejecting climate science when so many liberals reject science on so many things, including the bulk of western medicine.
Sure.. First we'd habe to quantify the problem, with no regard to left and right, how many flatearthers(used as a cross denial metaphor here) are we looking at? When does it go from denial into looneytunes ala Alex Jones, what is misinformation and what is actual mental illness.. Personally I identify as progressive and globalist... I know of one science denier in my circles and he is an alt right dude... confused as fck believes in other crazy stuff as well..
Anyway, this excersice is pointless without numbers.
 

dawp

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2005
8,018
125
126
the only war I see here is slow's war with his own brain cells.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS