How Politics Hijacked Science and Religion

[Michie]

Ideology has driven politically engaged Americans to think of religion as red and science as blue — and both are the worse for it.

Continued below.
Politics Hijacks Science & Religion | National Review

 

[Fantine]

I read the article (hint: if you have trouble, open an icognito window).

I don't really see science and religion as being taken over by partisan identity. While evangelical Christians trend Republican, they are only a segment of America's religious groups. And, being an optimist, I think that most people believe in science, and while evangelicals may not believe in aspects of paleontology, geology, and perhaps astronomy, they probably believe in most other scientific disciplines.

An article I read a year or so ago seems more likely. I believe it is based on the work of social psychologist Jonathan Haidt.

Over the last few decades, party allegiances have become increasingly tied to a core dimension of personality we call “openness.” Citizens high in openness value independence, self-direction, and novelty, while those low in openness value social cohesion, certainty, and security. Individual differences in openness seem to underpin many social and cultural disputes, including debates over the value of racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity, law and order, and traditional values and social norms.

These authoritarian dimensions have become the critical factor in how people make political associations.
Authoritarianism and the Identity Politics of the Republican Party | Washington Monthly

Haidt, who has some good TED talks, to his credit, never says that "openness" is 'better' than "authoritarianism," or vice versa.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I read the article (hint: if you have trouble, open an icognito window).

I don't really see science and religion as being taken over by partisan identity. While evangelical Christians trend Republican, they are only a segment of America's religious groups. And, being an optimist, I think that most people believe in science, and while evangelicals may not believe in aspects of paleontology, geology, and perhaps astronomy, they probably believe in most other scientific disciplines.

An article I read a year or so ago seems more likely. I believe it is based on the work of social psychologist Jonathan Haidt.


Haidt, who has some good TED talks, to his credit, never says that "openness" is 'better' than "authoritarianism," or vice versa.

"The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Religion and Politics," by Haidt and Gildan is a good read

I read it years back after I saw Johnathan Haidt on Book TV

 

[Fantine]

Yes, we watched his TED talk in an ecumenical group in an effort to help us understand one another better.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yes, we watched his TED talk in an ecumenical group in an effort to help us understand one another better.

I have TED Talk on my YouTube list

I'm currently watching an interview of Johnathan Haidt by Joe Rogan, on Social Media giving our kids anxiety.

Think I'll check out TED Talk with him

 

[The Barbarian]

The problem for the extreme right and extreme left is that sooner or later, almost all science is going to run afoul of someone's political beliefs.

And moderates on the right and left will usually think; "oh, maybe I need to re-examine that." And the extremists will think "they are (communists/fascists/whatever) out to make us all (slaves/whatever)."

Trump didn't invent this process. He just realized it could be exploited.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The problem for the extreme right and extreme left is that sooner or later, almost all science is going to run afoul of someone's political beliefs.

And moderates on the right and left will usually think; "oh, maybe I need to re-examine that." And the extremists will think "they are (communists/fascists/whatever) out to make us all (slaves/whatever)."

Trump didn't invent this process. He just realized it could be exploited.

This happens when we allow reporting on science to be political rather than factual.

Climate change is real. What's debatable is what is causing it. Some say it's man causing it, other's say it's the natural cycle.

Had they been smart, instead of turning it political, they should've just pushed for making the planet clean by not polluting the air or water.

Trump was right in backing out of the Paris Climate Accord, because the US taxpayers were going to pay developing countries billions to stop polluting and go with green energy.

Did you know that the UN still has India and China as developing nations ? They were going to be paid to develop clean energy for their own country, at the expense of the US and other Western Nations. What a screwing !

Anyway, Biden has put us back and already is promising billions to foreign nations.

 

[The Barbarian]

Climate change is real. What's debatable is what is causing it.

Not if you stick to the science. The recent solar minimum pretty much ruled natural causes for the heating. You see, in a solar minimum, we should be seeing lower average global temperatures. Instead, we're seeing record highs. Anthropogenic factors are overriding natural cycles. No way to overcome the data.

 

[The Barbarian]

Trump was right in backing out of the Paris Climate Accord, because the US taxpayers were going to pay developing countries billions to stop polluting and go with green energy.

Not quite...

To “pay” for the Paris Agreement, countries would contribute money to the above funds, in addition to spending money to combat climate change within their own borders.

But when we asked the White House for support for Trump’s claim that the U.S. “pays billions of dollars” for the Paris Agreement while China, Russia and India have paid and will pay “nothing,” White House spokesman Steven Cheung specifically referred us to the Green Climate Fund.

The U.S. has promised to contribute $3 billion to this fund, but as of March 3 it has contributed only $1 billion. The fund’s website states that the U.S. contribution is subject to availability of funds.
...
China, India, Russia and the U.S. were all donors in the latest funding cycle for the Global Environment Facility. Out of a total of $4.43 billion for the 2014 to 2018 cycle, U.S. funds made up 14.7 percent, or just over $651 million; China contributed 0.54 percent, or almost $24 million; Russia gave 0.4 percent, or $17.7 million; and India provided 0.32 percent, or just over $14 million. The U.S. contributed the second most overall, topped by Japan, which contributed 16.34 percent, or almost $724 million.

It’s also important to mention that, per capita, the U.S. emitted more greenhouse gases than China and India combined in 2015, as we’ve written previously.

Each person living in the United States contributed 16.07 tons to the country’s total on average, while each person living in China and India contributed 7.73 and 1.87 tons on average, respectively. However, China still emits the most in total tons because its population is almost 1.4 billion people, while nearly 325 million live in the United States. Russia, on the other hand, emitted 12.27 tons per person on average in 2015, or the 5th most in total tons, after China, the U.S., the European Union and India.
Trump on the Paris Agreement - FactCheck.org

Note also that Trump lied about India and China not contributing.

It's cost us almost exactly what it cost us when Trump treated himself to a massive tax cut:
Trump Could Save More Than $1 Billion Under His New Tax Plan
Trump Could Save More Than $1 Billion Under His New Tax Plan

A billion here, a billion there; it adds up.

 

[The Barbarian]

Did you know that the UN still has India and China as developing nations ?

Imagine that... they are developing. They have big cities, but a lot of people still live in undeveloped rural areas.

They were going to be paid to develop clean energy for their own country, at the expense of the US and other Western Nations. What a screwing !

See above. They've actually been contributing to other developing nations. And China's breakthrough in capacitors has permitted batteryless electric buses, which solves a lot of environmental problems and a lot of problems associated with battery electric power in buses.
The Supercapacitor Electric Bus Is Adopted in China – Supercaptech.com

 

[The Barbarian]

Anyway, Biden has put us back and already is promising billions to foreign nations.

Turns out, it's not what Trump told you.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Not if you stick to the science. The recent solar minimum pretty much ruled natural causes for the heating. You see, in a solar minimum, we should be seeing lower average global temperatures. Instead, we're seeing record highs. Anthropogenic factors are overriding natural cycles. No way to overcome the data.

There are scientists who say it's not caused by humans, but the result of wobble effect in the earth's axis.

Some say with the pandemic shutting down many factories in China, and less driving over all, we should've seen a reduction of air pollution in the atmosphere which is suppose to be the main cause of climate change. But nothing changed other than the air was cleaner.

Remember, scientist during Galileo's time said the earth was the center of the universe. Scientist often disagree with each other.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Not quite...

To “pay” for the Paris Agreement, countries would contribute money to the above funds, in addition to spending money to combat climate change within their own borders.

But when we asked the White House for support for Trump’s claim that the U.S. “pays billions of dollars” for the Paris Agreement while China, Russia and India have paid and will pay “nothing,” White House spokesman Steven Cheung specifically referred us to the Green Climate Fund.

The U.S. has promised to contribute $3 billion to this fund, but as of March 3 it has contributed only $1 billion. The fund’s website states that the U.S. contribution is subject to availability of funds.
...
China, India, Russia and the U.S. were all donors in the latest funding cycle for the Global Environment Facility. Out of a total of $4.43 billion for the 2014 to 2018 cycle, U.S. funds made up 14.7 percent, or just over $651 million; China contributed 0.54 percent, or almost $24 million; Russia gave 0.4 percent, or $17.7 million; and India provided 0.32 percent, or just over $14 million. The U.S. contributed the second most overall, topped by Japan, which contributed 16.34 percent, or almost $724 million.

It’s also important to mention that, per capita, the U.S. emitted more greenhouse gases than China and India combined in 2015, as we’ve written previously.

Each person living in the United States contributed 16.07 tons to the country’s total on average, while each person living in China and India contributed 7.73 and 1.87 tons on average, respectively. However, China still emits the most in total tons because its population is almost 1.4 billion people, while nearly 325 million live in the United States. Russia, on the other hand, emitted 12.27 tons per person on average in 2015, or the 5th most in total tons, after China, the U.S., the European Union and India.
Trump on the Paris Agreement - FactCheck.org

Note also that Trump lied about India and China not contributing.

It's cost us almost exactly what it cost us when Trump treated himself to a massive tax cut:
Trump Could Save More Than $1 Billion Under His New Tax Plan
Trump Could Save More Than $1 Billion Under His New Tax Plan

A billion here, a billion there; it adds up.

Still American taxpayer dollars going to the so-called "green climate fund," which would fund developing nations to use clean energy instead of coal and fossil fuel.

It was a loss for Americans and the West and a giant win for China who ignores trade and climate agreements anyway

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Turns out, it's not what Trump told you.

Actually it was bad for the United States, regardless of what Trump said

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually it was bad for the United States, regardless of what Trump said

No, that's wrong, too. You see, warming will have winners and losers. And geographically we are situated to be losers, if it continues. Here's why:

Gulf coast states and states on the lower Atlantic coast, will see more severe storms. Simple issue. Storms derive their power from the heat of the water. Specifically, from the temperature gradient between sea and air. The more heat in the water, the more powerful the storm.

It's already becoming a problem. Insuring a home on the Gulf Coast is much more expensive today, and could become even more costly. Notice it's not more storms, it's that the storms are becoming more powerful and destructive.

The second issue is that the Great Plains will become warmer and drier. Arid land will become dessert, pasture land will become arid, and croplands will become pasture, in many places. Irrigation is possible, but the Ogalala Aquifer is now rapidly declining and eventually, will be unusable at today's rates, much less increased usage.

Atmospheric dust levels are rising in the Great Plains

Dust increases reflect farming practices and climate trends reminiscent of the lead-up to the 1930s Dust Bowl

Date:
October 13, 2020
Source:
University of Utah
Summary:
A study finds that atmospheric dust levels are rising across the Great Plains at a rate of up to 5% per year. The trend of rising dust parallels expansion of cropland and even seasonal crop cycles. And if the Great Plains becomes drier, a possibility under climate change scenarios, then all the pieces are in place for a repeat of the Dust Bowl that devastated the Midwest in the 1930s.
Atmospheric dust levels are rising in the Great Plains: Dust increases reflect farming practices and climate trends reminiscent of the lead-up to the 1930s Dust Bowl

Third issue is the clear winner: Sub-Saharan Africa. As the Great Plains begin to dry out, the opposite is happening in Africa. Warmer temperatures are disrupting the flow of dry air out of Central Asia, and things are greening up.

However in sharp contrast to this gloomy outlook, it seems that global warming has exactly the opposite effect on the Sahara and the Sahel. The Sahara is actually shrinking, with vegetation arising on land where there was nothing but sand and rocks before.4 The southern border of the Sahara has been retreating since the early 1980s, making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa. There has been a spectacular regeneration of vegetation in northern Burkina Faso, which was devastated by drought and advancing deserts 20 years ago. It is now growing so much greener that families who fled to wetter coastal regions are starting to come back. There are now more trees, more grassland for livestock and a 70% increase in yields of local cereals such sorghum and millet in recent years. Vegetation has also increased significantly in the past 15 years in southern Mauritania, north-western Niger, central Chad, much of Sudan and parts of Eritrea.5 In Burkina Faso and Mali, production of millet rose by 55 percent and 35 percent, respectively, since 1980.6 Satellite photos, taken between 1982 and 2002, revealed the extensive re-greening throughout the Sahel.7 Aerial photographs and interviews with local people have confirmed the increase in vegetation.8
https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mueller-sahel.pdf

It's clearly in our interest to deal with this before it's a massive problem. As you see, it's much more than a billion-dollar issue.

 

[The Barbarian]

There are scientists who say it's not caused by humans, but the result of wobble effect in the earth's axis.

Can't think of one who still says that. The data have clearly ruled that out. And precession wouldn't measurably affect global temps. The two key elements are solar output and albedo (reflectance) of the Earth. It's not a new discovery, even in the 1970s, most climate scientists were predicting warming, based on CO2 emissions.

EDIT: The reason CO2 matters is that it reduces the Earth's effective albedo in the infrared range of the spectrum, an effect predicted in the 1800s.

 

[The Barbarian]

Remember, scientist during Galileo's time said the earth was the center of the universe.

Nope. By the time Galileo died, all scientists knew that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Kepler's laws, showing how it worked, were published in Galileo's lifetime. And even long before Copernicus, some scientists, like Aristarchus, already knew that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

Scientist often disagree with each other.

This one is over. You can still find some creationists among scientists, too. But the evidence has ended these issues as far as science is concerned.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

As a conservative Christian who opposes secular liberaldom, how can my religion not have an impact on politics without simply resigning cultural dominance to the current and prevailing liberal world order?

To speak of politics hijacking religion is nonsense. Christianity from it's inception has been political.

 

[probinson]

Remember, scientist during Galileo's time said the earth was the center of the universe. Scientist often disagree with each other.

Agreed.

True science is never "settled". Constant questioning and disagreement is what drives new discoveries. We don't know what we don't know until we know it, and we'll never know it as long as there are arrogant people who decide there are issues that are "settled" and not allowed to be questioned any more.

You may have seen Dr. Fauci yesterday claim in an interview that any "attack" on him is an attack on science. This kind of arrogance and self-importance is incredibly concerning and runs counter to actual science.

 

[The Barbarian]

As a conservative Christian who opposes secular liberaldom, how can my religion not have an impact on religion without simply resigning cultural dominance to the current and prevailing liberal world order?

Don't know about you, but I'm in the world, but not of it. Works for me.

To speak of politics hijacking religion is nonsense.

Demagogues do it all the time. The religious wars in Europe were predominately caused by political hijacking of religion. ISIS and Al-Qaeda are examples. The Crusades were so. It's why Madison crafted such a strong Bill of Rights. He cited the hijacking of religion for political purposes as one of the key evils that had persisted in Christianity.

Christianity from it's inception has been political.

If so, Jesus would certainly not have advised his followers to let Caesar have what is Caesar's. His way didn't last long for some people. By Constantine, it was overtly seen as a way to power. "In hoc signo vinces."