I've got some relatives who are right-wingers, like hardcore. (we're talking "Glen Beck really knows what he's talking about!" hardcore) One of them insinuated himself into a Facebook post I made, which linked to a study that examined how many scientific articles which took a stand on global warming/climate change supported human-influenced climate change vs. those that rejected it. The percentages are staggering: 97% support in one study, 99.5% or something in another. one of my relative's posts said something to the effect of "Science doesn't require peer review; only publishing in a scientific journal does" Another said "science doesn't require a consensus."
what makes it staggering that he'd take these views (particularly the first) is that he's an engineer for a prestigious company in the USA. He used to work for a different prestigious research company (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute). And he doesn't think science requires peer review (and the implication is that he doesn't see the value in such a strong consensus).
What the effing eff?!?!
Between exchanges like that, and reading a little more about liberalism, I came to a conclusion. I used to say "I lean a little left," but that's not entirely accurate. I lean AWAY from the right.
It seems that, in the USA, the (radical) right is so wrong-headed and disingenuous on so many issues (economics, religion, climate/environment, women's health) that I can't understand how so many folks are so rabidly FOR this stuff. There is also the problem of their seeming to want everyone to have a say in all things--including non-scientists weighing in on science. This is an extremely liberal concept, unless I miss my guess...(feel free to correct me)
Not sure I have much of a point, except that I'd appreciate insight as to whether I'm bonkers here, and/or how anyone can actually swallow the crap spewed forth by the American Wrong.