[malandrew]

> they're at the point where in some circles they discredit science as a concept.

Because the left has politicized science. Science should be apolitical. Many on the left do not fail to provide those on the right justifications for dismissing science outright. This will not be fixed until those on the left with a high respect for the impartiality of science start to condemn those on the left that abuse that science to further their message.

The right discrediting science as a concept is the effect, not the cause.

[eesmith]

Science is always political. It's always been political, and it always will be political.

As easy examples, 1) a lot of underwater research was driven by the US military who wanted better ways to detect Soviet subs, 2) much of computer science in the 1960s was funded by the military through ARPA, 3) the Tuskegee Syphilis study existed because the people running the study thought it was better to let black people suffer in order to get scientific data - a decision solidly rooted in the race politics of the time, 4) much of Near Eastern archaeology is driven by politics related to the Abrahamic religions, far beyond what 'impartial science' might do, 5) the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funds so much education research (and journalists, think tanks, lobbying organizations and governments) that it can overwhelm opposition, including objections to the quality of the science.

(Eg, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bill-gates-pulle... for how $200 million, which combined research and advocacy, helped convince many states to switch to the Common Core, even though there were no pilot studies or other solid evidence that it was worthwhile.)

Nor are scientists impartial. When Rowland and Molina published their findings about CFCs and the ozone layer, "they also made an effort to announce their findings outside of the scientific community, informing policy makers and the news media of their work." (Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_J._Molina .)

They didn't decide to be impartial and apolitical.

[fweespeech]

> Because the left has politicized science. Science should be apolitical. Many on the left do not fail to provide those on the right justifications for dismissing science outright. This will not be fixed until those on the left with a high respect for the impartiality of science start to condemn those on the left that abuse that science to further their message.

No. The fact the Right has moved so far past the center that they can't find facts to support their positions has resulted in the Right politicizing science and when that fails they ban information from being used and/or removing them from advisory boards.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/florida-has-seen-...

> North Carolina, whose barrier islands are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, was widely mocked in 2012 when the General Assembly passed a law barring communities from using a report containing 100-year projections of sea level rise—up to 39 inches—in their planning. Three years later a compromise was reached; legislators found a new report with a 30-year time horizon less alarming, and agreed that was permissible.

> In the interim, though, coastal planning lagged. Under then-Governor Pat McCrory (R), climate change information disappeared from the state’s Department of Environmental Quality Web site. The legislature altered the makeup of the Coastal Resources Commission, which overseas coastal planning, to remove some scientists and conservation group representatives and replaced them with more business-friendly members.

[Oletros]

> Because the left has politicized science

Curiously, like creationism, the only part of the world were climate change is a problem is in some sectors of USA.

In the rest of the world, even the right parties agree that climate change is happening and it is a real problem.

Don't blame the left for politicing something when almost ALL of the world, left or right agree and some right groups in USA are the ones making the noise.

[jeremyt]

Your entire comment is political. There's nothing scientific in it.

You're basically just saying that everybody else agrees, so you need to get in line.

[Oletros]

> You're basically just saying that everybody else agrees, so you need to get in line.

No, what I'm saying is that everybody excep a little group abides to scientific facts.

Like in the case of Creationism, the little group disregards any scientific fact and proof because ideology.

[accountyaccount]

Why is the assumption that when a political party hates something, it's because the opposing party did something wrong?

I know a lot of over-zealous liberals who have definitely misrepresented facts, but honestly I don't think I've seen anyone ever do anything that made me think "oh ok, science must be fake"

It's just willful ignorance.

[ericd]

It's not that the left has embraced a certain branch of science, it's that the right has embraced entrenched business interests, specifically oil and gas, to the point where they're forced to dismiss that science, because it's incompatible with profit maximization of those entrenched businesses.

[UncleMeat]

Several state legislatures have made it illegal for climate scientists to testify in their chambers. And the left is politicizing science?

[okreallywtf]

Can you cite a specific example? I know of some political attacks against climate science, this for example [1].

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/north-carolina-state-hiding-c...