Originally Posted by noodles
I'm tired of this card being played by moderate conservatives who want to sit on the fence. Raw scientific data doesn't have a bias. It does not have a political view. It just is what it is. I don't know how melting ice caps and dwindling species numbers can be construed to have a bias in either direction. It is simple cause/effect, not conservative/liberal.
Cause: Higher levels of carbon-based gases in the atmosphere.
Effect: Rising temperatures across the globe.
If you can place a bias on that, then you can find a way to say 2+2=5 for extremely liberal views of the value of two, which is why we need to take a more conservative value of two, leading to 2+2=3.
You point out a fundemental flaw in the mindset of a vast majority of religious-right Americans, something that goes much deeper than Global Warming and politics. It was a somewhat shocking revelation when, while having a religious debate with a deeply religious friend of mine, I discovered that from a religious point of view, science is simply another godless religion, heavily biased by the mindset of the scientists themselves. It seems that most people, politicians or not, overlook the word 'raw' in 'raw data.'
All science stems from observation, and cold, hard, and indisputable facts. However, playing the devil's advocate, I would reply to your post in saying that scientists have an agenda they want to further, thus the data they collect helps further their agenda, and their interpretation of this data only furthers their agenda even further. It makes no difference what the raw data says, since the the pieces of raw data collected help serve the scientists's bias (and likewise, raw data not supporting their agenda would be omitted).
This is literally what came out of my religious friend's mouth, and what a politician would respond to your statement with. On top of wanting to sit on the fence, politicians saying stuff like this connects with the vast right-wing religious majority in the U.S.
Sad, but true.
I have set my friend right, though, since that conversation, so no worries there
Excellent post, BTW, + e-rep for you