Quoted:
yeah but I think that "conservatives" are even worse when it comes to ecology. they know even less and what they don't want to belive like evolution, green house effect, industrial pollution etc. they choose to ignore science or they get some "Scientician" to spout some BS that jibes with their views.
View Quote
1) Macro-evolution (the 'creation by evolution' side, a/o the 'selective breeding makes a million breeds of dog, adapts species to their environment, etc' side, which is fact) is as much a 'belief' as creation. It cannot be replicated by experament, and is thus just as much an 'origin story' as 'so and so created it all'... It's the humanist's creation myth, no more... The scientifically accurate statement is 'we have no idea'. But if you do (or don't) want to believe in a divine power, this usually affects your judgement and drives you to claim that your beliefs are 'fact' (i.e. 'God exists, so divine creation is right', or 'There cannot be a divine power, so there cannot be creation').
The next point is that it DOES NOT MATTER how we got here when dealing with any point of practical science. Weather we were created or evolved has no bearing on physics, on practical/medical biology, or anything becides the abstract section that tries to figure out how we got here...
2) Global warming (of the human inspired variety, not the 'solar activity is up, the solar system is warming up' variety) has been subject to MUCH distortion by both sides. Non-believers have come up wiith stacked-deck studies to prove it's a fallacy, and believers have done the same to convince us that we'll end up living in something out of the movie 'Waterworld' if we don't live like it's 1775AD.
In fact, the major study that inspired support for the Kyoto protocol was recently debunked. It was found that the authors had OMITTED DATA POINTS to lower their 'average' tempratures in earlier times and raise them in more modern periods, creating a false correllation between industrialization/C02 and 'global warming'.
The conservative position (maybe 'neo-conservative') is that the damage to our economy from Kyoto or other further 'climate change' regulation would be too severe to risk taking action in the current scientific climate. Action should be held untill the bullshit from both sides dies down, and we get some actual in depth impartial (gasp) scientific results not based on the agenda of one side or the other...
The industry-commissioned studies are tilted towards industry.
The 'academic' studies are generally tilted towards the extreme enviro position (due to the pre-existing beliefs of those attracted to 'environmental science' - Who'da thought that a study coming from UC Berkley (or similar) would say 'industry is evil, and unless we stop emitting CO2 we will all die'???)).