Just read an article in
Scientific American with this title:
Science in a Republican Senate: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
But when I read that, I chuckled, realizing that there won't be much science in a Republican Senate. At least not the normal mainstream kind of science, the one that answers questions about how nature and the universe work.
Another reason there won't be much science in a Republican Senate? Because the Tea Party is powerful enough that its influence must be acknowledged, and apparently Tea Partyists don't believe much in science as an authority on determining how nature and the universe work.
POLL: Tea Party Members Really, Really Don't Trust Scientists
Question: "Would you say that you trust, don't trust, or are unsure about
scientists as a source of information about environmental issues?"
And the results? (You can see a graphical presentation in the article, if you want.)
"This is pretty striking: The first three political groups—Democrats,
independents, and non-tea party Republicans—all trust scientists on the
environment. But then you come to tea party members, and suddenly,
distrust in scientists soars. The numbers are stark: 60 percent of
traditional Republicans trust scientists on the environment, versus only
28 percent of tea partiers."
This explains a lot. Mainly why the Tea Party supports a lot of anti-environmental legislation and initiatives. They don't believe scientists when scientists say that's bad, and that the ramifications (had to use that word) could be worse.
Oh yeah, why don't they trust scientists?
"The main factor, Hamilton thinks, is that the highly polarized climate
issue is leading climate deniers to break up with scientists in general.
"Climate change is sort of bleeding over into a lower trust in science
across a range of issues," says Hamilton. That means the consequences
are not limited to the climate issue. "The critiques of climate science
work by often arguing that science is corrupt, and then that spills over
to other kinds of science," Hamilton observes. Prior research has found
that watching Fox News, in particular, leads to a declining trust in
climate scientists."
Now, getting back to the
Scientific American article:
The "Good" :
"If Republicans win the Senate,
it is likely that Thad Cochran would return to his prior post (2005-2007) as chairman of Appropriations. Cochran, too, supports
increased funding for NASA,
and back in 2013 he was one of the few Republicans who voted in favor
of protecting ocean, coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems. In the past, he
has voted for telecommunications deregulation and even advocated for an
extra $18 billion toward waterway infrastructure."
The "Bad" :
"Meanwhile, based on senate seniority, it is likely that the Republicans
would appoint Ted Cruz as chairman of Commerce, Science and
Transportation. Cruz is
a climate skeptic who recently
pushed for a reduction in NASA’s budget. It is also noteworthy that he was the public face of last year’s government shutdown, which did
lasting damage to scientific research. "
The "Ugly" (also Horrible, Unbelievable, Tragic, Awful, and Unfathomable)
"If Republicans win the Senate, James Inhofe will likely take charge of Environment and Public Works.
That would be disastrous for science. ... If Inhofe gains control of the Senate committee in charge of climate
change legislation, that’s probably the end of climate change
legislation (not that great strides have been made in the past seven
years of Democratic dominance). And, global warming aside, it’s probably
not a good idea to put someone who calls
scientific consensus a “hoax” in charge of a Senate committee that holds the purse strings for scientific funding."
Well, the Republicans are in charge of the Senate now. The ride is going to be really bumpy for science and the environment.
