As readers know, Iโm a regular monitor of polls capturing various aspects of the publicโs views on science. These polls consistently show that for the most part, even if people donโt know a ton about it, they basically think science rocks. Americans know very well that science has made their lives immeasurably better, and they show high levels of trust in the scientificย community.
There are, however, a fewย caveats.
Although people like science in general, theyโre more than willing to spike it in any particular instance, on any particular pet issue. Evolution, global warming, vaccinesโotherwise โpro-scienceโ people will happily deny reality on these subjects, and not necessarily even experience any cognitive dissonance in doingย so.
For the most part, I have tended to feel it is unfair to call such individuals โanti-science.โ If someone denies science on one particular topic, but nevertheless thinks science is a groovy thing in general, I figure theyโre not being anti-science, so much as just beingย human.
However, new polling data from Lawrence Hamilton, of the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire, suggests that the โanti-scienceโ epithet really does apply to many U.S. Republicansโat least on environmentalย issues.
Hamiltonโs data once again show that Republicans, in New Hampshire and elsewhere, doubt and deny climate science, doubt there is consensus on the issue among scientists, and are bizarrely confident that they know a lot about the issue. Dunning-Kruger,ย anyone?
When it comes to the specific issue of global warming, such things have been shown before. But Hamilton also included a question you donโt see as much in theseย polls:
Would you say that you trust, donโt trust, or are unsure about scientists as a source of information about environmentalย issues?
When you ask Americans this particular question, and break the result down by political party, you find a dramatic asymmetry. 67 percent of Democrats trust environmental scientists, 26 percent are unsure, and only 6 percent donโt trust them. But then look at the Republicans: 42 percent trust environmental scientists, 35 percent are unsure, and 22 percent explicitly say they donโt trustย them.
What these untrusting Republicans are saying, basically, is that scientists canโt be expected to get it right on environmental issues. They are no longer merely rejecting established science on the climate issue, then. Theyโre creating an โout-groupโ and putting all environmental scientists inย it.
In turn, that means that whenever the next environmental issue comes along, we can expect these Republicans to inherently distrust what scientific experts have to say about it. In other words, their animus goes far beyond climate science. And if that isnโt anti-science behavior, I donโt know whatย is.
Why do Republicans behave this way? It has a lot to do, I suspect, with the vast liberalism of science and academia in general. As I have extensively documented (see previous link), Democrats today are basically the party of experts, scientists, and Ph.Ds. This is a big change from the situation that obtained 30 years ago. And Republicans have reacted against this left-clustering of knowledge by coming to dismiss much of โliberalโ academia, and also much of science, across theย board.
But for precisely this reason, unlike 30 years ago, many Republicans now really are fundamentally anti-science. As the campaign season heats up this year, expect to see evidence of thisย aplenty.ย
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts