Comments about ‘Conservatives increasingly distrust science, study finds’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, March 28 2012 10:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
salt lake city, utah

I'm with you Blue. It's interesting how the article just randomly connects global warming to all of science, and then off we go. Global warming despite all the real science that has been done has been turned into a pop science, because of it's political ramifications. "I've done a lot of reading about climate change..I'm getting an advanced degree therefor I think". Some how you never hear these statements, even in casual conversations about particle physics, or microbiology.

The wildest scientific claim hidden in this thread was this "A news article out just today tells of a discovery by researchers of "Billions of habitable planets within the Milky Way." . billions..with water, atmospheres etc. Seriously.

Provo, UT

Conservatives don't trust science.

That seems very appropriate, seeing how...

...science increasingly has no trust or faith in Conservatives!

Hayden, ID

@ CHS. Thanks for asking! It’s a chronological analysis of events recorded in the Old Testament. In other words, we know how to count backwards. What we don’t know is how long the intelligent design (organization of matter) took. In essence, my argument is that true science and true religion is the same thing! The problem we struggle with today is that we have much false science and false religion competing and we are left to distinguish the difference, at least for now.

Salt Lake City, UT

Questioning is okay, nobody has a problem with questioning or healthy skepticism. It's the fanatical rejection of everything to the contrary of your view under the assumption that it's one all global conspiracy theory... that's the problem.

Provo, Ut

The problem with this article, and the ensuing comments, is that they rely on gross overgeneralizations. This is an inept rhetorical strategy that allows people to make outrageous accusations without having to be accountable for them. First no one should be expected to trust “science”. That goes completely against the nature of what science should be. Science isn’t an authority, it is a system. Good science explains its reasoning and evidence. Criticisms against science should therefore not be levied against its authorial credibility, but against its reasoning and evidence. If someone doubts the validity of global warming, then they should show why the scientific evidence doesn’t stack up. That’s all pretty simple. Science can neither be right or wrong, because at its heart it is not a body of knowledge, but rather a system of observation. Scientists can, and often are, be wrong. That’s okay. But, the conversation is much more useful when it is approached on scientific grounds, rather than invented partisan grounds.

Gregg Weber

It isn't science. It's the abuse of science for political reasons. When engineers take off their engineering hat and replace it with a manager's hat people, like the Challenger crew, die. They should stand up to the truth. When I was a Catholic kid I was taught that one purpose of religion, and it's religious beliefs, is to describe why God does things. The purpose of science, and it's theories, is to describe how God does it.
It seems like weekly, something comes out that refutes something that came out previously. I can see improvement in accuracy, but going the opposite direction brings up the question of which, if either, is correct. Was data manipulated by the principal investigator or whoever paid for the research?
This is the source of distrust.

The American
Spanish Fork, UT

I'm a scientist. I'm working on completing my degree in Earth Studies. I can with basic 101 concepts prove global warming, due to human activity, to be false. I agree global warming (climate change) is happening, but we as humans have no control over it by any degree. I believe in truth and most of the so called facts out there are false. It's not science I don't trust it's people and what they claim to be science. For religion if you question me on that, I believe God to be the Ultimate Scientist.

Hayden, ID

@ Mormon Cowboy. You nailed it and you are absolutely correct. Any scientist that says they have the final word is no scientist at all. All science is incomplete and all religion is incomplete as well (I refer to the LDS 9th article of Faith). I love that about my religion, to know that it is incomplete!

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The increased political nature of our world is the result of the commercial competition between the giants of our world. As the one group of giant corporations find ways to get a commercial advantage, there is always the other group who looses. In times past, distance and isolation played an important part in tempering the conflicts. Today’s world is becoming so crowded that this tiny world cannot hope to separate the conflicts.

If we would remove science and other non commercial entities from the effects of the commercial competition we would have to remove the commercial giants from our government.


One scientific study isn't proof positive. It is only after several studies, sometimes many studies are conducted that a theory is established or rejected. Often what happens in the media is one study is reported on and everybody jumps on the bandwagon. Then later, after more research is done, the picture which emerges might not be so simple.

Climate change is that is real. Even the Koch-funded climate skeptic realized he had been wrong claiming climate change was not real. To those Utahns who claim there is no need to be concerned I would like to ask, what will happen to Utah's economy when there is no snow? What will you do for water when there is no snowpack?

A certain level of skepticism in life is healthy. But that means skepticism applied to both sides of the question.

Salt Lake City, UT

Mountanman: "Until then its more logical to trust the greatest scientist in the universe (God)..."

Maybe, but has he published any original research in peer reviewed journals? I see a pretty scant record of publication-- only one work of consequence, and it was written by the technical staff, not the principal investigator.

Washington, UT

Yes, I have a college degree, and yes, I am more and more distrustful of science. This is as much factor of science becoming less scientific, more politicized, and shoddy; as it is my disbelief of real and valid science. No one should ever assume that just because something is called "science," that is is correct. Science has been wrong often, and recently.

Newport Beach, CA

"1896 was the year that the first scientist did the calculations and published the model of how global warming works."

Yes. Svante Arrhenius. And his calculations predict vastly less warming, for each doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, than either the alarmists or the "consensus" people predict.

To get enough warming to care about, you need to hypothesize that from this point forward, there will be significant net-positive feedback effects that magnify the small amount of initial CO2-driven climate warming. This is a problem, because for most of Earth's history, feedbacks have been net-negative -- that is, the Earth is cooler than it would be if only greenhouse -gas warming were driving its temperature, becuase convection and other feedbacks cool things down. I don't see the case being made sufficiently for this assumption, and neither do my astrophysicist father or geologist brother (both of whose disciplines, incidentally, bear directly on many of the key disciplines that go into the hybrid field of "climatology".)

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

As some people have pointed out... many theories that were once accepted as "science" were subsequently disproven, so why would we now make it a point of ridicule to not accept everthing a politician/scientist says as 100% fact foever more with no more questioning or testing? Even thought there is not hard proof (only consensus of opinion) that the theory is proven fact?

I don't think it's a threat to question science. That is the role of scientests... to question what we NOW know and to prove it or dis-prove it in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. I don't think we will ever stop discovering new things and disproving old things as long as man exists.

Ammon, ID

If conservatives are losing confidence in science at a rate greater than the national average it is because they are the ones paying closest attention to what has been happening to science. A lot of science has become agenda driven rather than fact driven for the purpose of politics or money or recognition. There have been a lot of examples of this that have been excused and glossed over by mainstream spokesmen and if you are not paying close attention you may have missed it. You could also look at it in this way: Because the practice of science is closely tied to Academia, which has elevated “Political Correctness” to its highest principle, conservatives are the segment of the general population less likely to align themselves with the influences of Political Correctness. Political Correctness is politics and emotion based and de-emphasizes truth and science so this would be a reasonable decision by conservatives.

Pleasant Grove, Utah

@The American

You should submit your evidence get it peer reviewed and collect your Nobel Prize.

Hayden, ID

@ Lagomorgh. God has no peers, only floundering understudies and we call them scientists.

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

"@Riverton Cougar - I hate to break it to you, but the Church has no official stance on organic evolution. They have stated that the scriptures tell why we were created, but not how."

Um, I think Genesis makes it clear that the creation of humans came before the creation of animals. What version of the Holy Bible do you read?

"I bet you also believe the Church thinks abortion is murder, right?"

I base my comments on Elder Nelson's talk "Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless" in the Oct. 2008 Ensign/Liahona.

"Most liberals are not atheists."

I never said most were atheists, I simply said many are atheists, which is true.

"For the record, being atheist does not make you an evil person. Being conservative does not make you a saint. Making broad and sweeping generalizations regarding religious vs. non-religious or liberal vs. conservative is no better than promoting junk science."

I never implied either. I said that religious people have religion to explain many mysteries of life, while atheists don't hold to those beliefs and turn to science for answers. Sorry if that offends you, but it seems you chose to be offended by it.


"Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA
The earth and man were created 6000 years ago. That's all the science one needs to know."

Very comical. And the Earth is still flat .... or else religion will put you in jail!


Don't know why I'm getting denied here, it's ludicrous and biased. Other's are making the same opinions.

All this talk about Science being 'questionable' because it comes from humans who can sometimes be distrustful and biased. All I'm saying is the same can be said for any religion ... it was all transcribed, voiced, or written by a human through his interpretation of God. Science is all transcribed, voiced, and written by a human through his interpretation of studies.

So both religion and science, ultimately, come down to a human being telling us 'the truth'. We either take it or leave it.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments