Do conservatives really believe that the vast majority of scientists are PURPOSELY LYING?

Question

about man made global warming, evolution, and the big bang just to make money?

That is one of the conspiracy theories cons use. The other one is that the vast majority of scientists who support man made global warming are socialists who want to destroy capitalism.

Answer 1

To be a conservative today requires an enormous capacity for self-delusion. I've heard them say over and over that scientists are lying in hopes of getting research money and grants. They also believe that evolution is a competing religion, or that it's 'just a theory'. That our founding fathers were fundamentalist Christians who really meant the US to be a theocracy (and filled the Constitution with references to God for that purpose). And that the major corporate media have a strong liberal bias.

It all started with believing that we could balance the budget by taxing -less- and spending -more-. And that middle-class people would benefit from the tax cuts. If you can manage to believe this, you can believe just about anything!

Answer 2

you're making an undesirable lot of assumptions. i'm a Christian, and likewise majored in Evolution. they're not at the same time unique, in reality once you actually understand what you're speaking about they in good structure at the same time quite nicely. yet first you need to be open to study what they both truly say - too a lot of human beings on both aspect purely make assumptions. i'm getting both offended at scientists who say you are able to't trust in both - they're purely atheists who've anger in route of prepared faith. Evolution isn't random or purposeless. Morality has been round longer than the bible - people have continuously had cultural norms to help us degree what's "sturdy" and "undesirable" (though those techniques of route replace over the years). even with in case you purely trust in evolution, it really would not recommend you do not have any reason to steer an ethical existence. i do not act morally because i'm petrified of the consequences, I act morally because it truly is the right component to do for my fellow people. I surprisingly recommend you study evolution in-intensity. in case you nevertheless favor to argue adverse to it, a minimum of you'll have a reliable argument. i will get you all started: Evolution would not take care of advent. it truly is microbiology. Evolution does not state everywhere that we got here from monkeys. Evolution has a large number of helping data, and many evolutionary archives (the interest, whales, and so on.) are particularly finished. Evolution is utilized by using believers and non-believers on a daily basis. operating example - hybridization (beefalo, ligers, brocciflower), or purely breeding your animals for particular features (prize-triumphing cattle, different canines breeds, and so on.). it truly is all evolution. it truly is not scary, it truly is positive, and easily guarantees that existence will proceed in a continuously replacing international. it truly is all evolution is - a mechanism to conform to alterations. existence takes on different varieties, and at the same time as a disaster takes position, a lot of those varieties could die yet with range, there's a significantly better threat that one or 2 will proceed on. i imagine this can be a lot more desirable spectacular than believing that God created a static universe that by no skill alterations.

Answer 3

I don't think that people are lying about evolution, in fact, I support it 100%.... I'm not sure with the big bang though... There is no actual evidence to prove it... You can prove and disprove global warming, however, I do think that everybody should do their share of cleaning up the enviroment. I just think that the earth is going through one of those 'phases', you know like the when the earth was covered in ice. I saw it on one of those shows on the discovery channel... its quite interesting. Anyway, I don't see how conservatives lying would make them money. Liberals like to raise taxes, I don't suspect they are trying to sneek in a few bucks for themselves though, huh?

Answer 4

As a conservative, or a liberal, or an in between believe that science uses global warming and global freezes as a money maker. I lived during the big freeze and remember the money they made off of that until all of a sudden things started to thaw and it would appear they were wrong. We didn't all die in an iceberg! The reason there is so much melting of the ice cap is during the big freeze it crept out furthur than it should have leading them to think we would be covered by it. Many people freaked. Well, it warmed up and this excess started melting so they use it to push their global warming. I can almost promise you in 20- 30 yrs it will get cold again. I do believe we pollute to much.

Answer 5

Al Gore is not telling the entire story. Most scientists think man made global warming is only a very small piece of the equation. Solar Cycles are a much larger piece. The earth naturally goes through warm and cool cycles. Long before the industrial age Greenland was named Greenland for a reason.

Did Keith Oberman tell you this stuff?

Answer 6

I'd like to see a list of that "Majority of Scientists" along with their credentials and who is funding them.

BTW:

Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming - Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics
By Julie Smithson
Oct 17, 2006 - 10:26:00 PM
http://www.magic-city-news.com/Julie_Smithson_94/Decorated_Scientist_Defects_From_Belief_in_Global__6831.shtml

Answer 7

We are suffering the repercussions of the "cult of the expert."

Now, I am NOT saying that experts are bad, we need experts. We need them very much. But when we as a society worship experts to the point where we trust them more than we trust our our own ability to judge on the basis of what we do know and understand we are in trouble.

For example, a modestly intelligent reader could very quickly stumble upon the simple piece of information that carbon dioxide serves to increase heat in our environment, and that if it didn't, earth would probably be too cold to sustain much plant or animal life on it at all.

Without needing an expert, said modestly intelligent person could then go on to surmise that if, indeed, that is true, than pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the air every year would be a very dangerous and bad thing to do, and recognize immediately the truth of anthropogenic global warming.

But, in the cult of the expert that we have now, we are very culturally susceptible (especially now, when we are entering the post-literate age) to trusting whatever experts we have placed our trust in, over and above our own powers of intellect.

So, for example, a sold liberal like myself (if I weren't terribly confident in my own judgment--unfortunately I usually have the opposite problem) who depended too much on experts wouldn't have much trouble believing it at all, because of the experts they had placed their trust in.

Post literate, expert belieing conservatives are truly up a tree. They are torn between trusting their own common sense, and trusting the experts our educational system has been telling us to trust for generations. Because they have spent so much time trusting these experts, and nobody likes to admit that they were wrong, psychology has proven (especially with studies of propoganda techniques) that to reduce cognitive dissonance, they will go on believing the experts they originally believed, no matter how much evidence stacks up against the position.

Furthermore, we are running into a severe problem based on the extraordinarily good understanding that conservative spin masters have of human psychology.

You see, they have put us into a terrible position, because they don't have to WIN this argument at all. They don't have to convince us categorically that anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist. All they have to do is muddy the debate sufficiently, to make it seem like there is enough debate on the subject, to make it seem more rational to wait until we get more information before we act on the knowledge we have.
So they put us into a position where we DO have to prove categorically that it is, and it is our fault, before we can truly get enough momentum to solve the problem.

Furthermore, back to the cult of the expert, smart neocon groups with plenty of money are setting up front groups, that seem to be unrelated scientific studies and experts who claim that anthropogenic global warming studies are laughable and totally false.

Never mind that if you investigate closely, pretty much all of them turn out to be not qualified in any scientific discipline even CLOSE to climatology, but the funding always goes back to a con think tank.

And, even worse, every time that one of these front groups is discredited, another pops up in its place.

If only we could rework the educational system to encourage love of reading, true education (not just "turning out good, loyal workers who don't question too much), and the ability to confidently analyze sources, arguments, and make judgments based on sound reasoning.

Answer 8

The NWO invented man-made global warming.

:-(

Answer 9

I don't think too many dispute the science of Global Warming...

Answer 10

Science must be separate from politics because the latter will just use the former to advance its interests.