The researchers, all of whom are possible candidates for the red team, attacked the
findings of mainstream science that humans are the primary cause of climate change.
Now if this was the 1980s they might have had a point, but the fact that aerosols are an important climate forcing, have a net cooling effect on climate and, in part, arise from the same industrial activities that produce greenhouse gases, has been
part of mainstream science for 30 years.
Such
criticism of mainstream science often takes the form of conspiracy mongering, and conspiracies need a villain — the more powerful and cold - hearted the better.
On a whole range of issues (evolution, passive smoking, climate change, the breast - cancer abortion link, CFCs and the ozone layer and so on) Republicans attack scientists, reject the
conclusions of mainstream science and promote political talking points over peer - reviewed research.
Sagan attributed the persistence of unbelief to ignorance and hucksterism and set out to cure the problem with popular books, magazine articles, and television programs promoting the
virtues of mainstream science over its fringe rivals.
Every day brings fresh claims from the
world of mainstream science, claims that must be weighed, then tortured to fit the framework of creationist belief or discounted with some sort of scientific - sounding explanation.
In her day - to - day work, Dr. Feygina oversees projects ranging from a large - scale collaboration with the National Academies of Science on
skepticism of mainstream science to our continued research on the framing of attribution messages.
The tragic irony here is that the stunted
imagination of mainstream science is a consequence of the very autonomy that scientists insist is the key to their success.
This failure seems so obvious I find it puzzling that more people lacking the expertise to check the science themselves don't notice the dead end a complete rejection of two
centuries of mainstream science has created.
Libertarians in particular are keen to reject the
results of mainstream science (on climate change, for example) and inevitably resort to postmodernist / relativist / social constructionist arguments to support this.
The IPCC and the
rest of mainstream science agrees that we will begin experiencing the effects of climate change some time after 2040.
«In 2011 Mr Warburton co-authored a two part - article in the conservative journal Quadrant called «The Intelligent Voter's Guide to Global Warming», which questioned the findings
of mainstream science about how much global warming would be caused by man - made emissions.»
You're seriously underestimating the depth, breadth and
solidity of the mainstream science, which depends on many lines of evidence, many approaches, and many confirmations of the theory over time.
climate science, including the «earth endogenous energy theory (sic)» There's a good writeup in Slate: «Other Theories of Physics: Amateurs around the world take on the
priesthood of mainstream science»
'' [T] he real, scientific reasons why Republicans reject the widely accepted
findings of mainstream science, economics, and history — as well as many undeniable policy facts.»
Humans are imperfect, and that certainly includes supporters
of the mainstream science, so «never say never.»
That political line can be sustained either through constitutional provisions (critical in the US0 or by fighting at a national level where (we hope) supporters
of mainstream science are a majority.