Its Ok, We Can Not Understand Science Together

Since I still have time to read news sources in the morning, I spent a little time on NPR this morning. On the right-hand side I saw this little gem: "In GOP Presidential Field, Science Finds Skeptics." My blood pressure is elevated here.

Anyone who knows me well knows that I have no problem admitting that intelligent people can be conservatives in a sense of the word that extends beyond our vernacular use of it. There have been many people who I have met who have rooted their beliefs in a philosophy that is often coined "conservative" on the American spectrum. I'm perfectly fine with that because I can understand and respect that. What I have a huge issue with, however, is when something like this happens:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has publicly doubted the science of climate change and says creationism should be taught alongside evolution, is the new front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination.

I know many people who are global warming deniers, and they all seem to formulate their opinions based not upon the actual scientific principles behind the phenomenon and instead on the political ramifications they perceive from the "pushing of the global warming agenda." Look, it's really not difficult to understand that the evidence for global climate change is not based upon local weather but on chemical reactions occurring in the atmosphere and in the oceans. The fundamental principles of these chemical reactions are extremely simple and not negotiable. These are things that any one, irrespective of their major field of study, can understand. But instead, the understanding of the science is dominated by some political point being made.

The fear of "big government" has become the driving force in global warming denialism- not a skepticism of the science. I have come to understand that there are many who believe that global warming is a plot to simply generate more taxes- which makes it all the more peculiar that it is not only American scientists who see evidence of global warming. This misapprehension of the way in which one should disagree or agree with a scientific point is precisely what leads to presidential candidates who lack a fundamental understanding of scientific findings can somehow find themselves in front of their primary.

By the way, at least two of the candidates in the GOP field also deny evolution on grounds that they mask as being scientific but which are firmly religious.

This ties in well to a point I have tried to make with many of my friends in the so-called "hard sciences." They have asserted that the rigor of their fields and the objectivity of their work give the hard sciences some sort of privileged position among other fields of study. I have contended that science works very well among those who understand it and who are willing to engage it on more neutral terms (though never wholly neutral). However, science only matters to non-scientists in so far as it confirms or improves the reality they have constructed and perceive. Controversial science among the non-scientific public is not that which is still up for scientific review or the findings are still left for interpretation, but rather that which upsets the socio-political order that people wish to maintain. In this case, it is a move away from federal government and towards a "free-market" state.

I suppose the only point I want to pull out from all of this is that the idea that denying global warming is not being a skeptic- its confusing science and political posturing. My suspicion is that a few of the "conservative" lawmakers and candidates are fully aware of this and are deliberately stating these positions to garner votes. However, I have a much more sickening suspicion- namely that a few of them actually believe what they are saying.