Friday, September 13, 2019

+Myth: Science Denialism is as Rampant Among Liberals as Among Conservatives

The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis (divided into multiple sections)
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" version of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.

1.  The Myth and Its Flaw

Political conservatives in the United States, in comparison to liberals, remain less likely to accept the science on man-made climate change and evolution. They also trust scientists less on these topics. But left-leaning science denialism on vaccination, genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), and nuclear power balances out this right-leaning science denialism. So science denialism remains as prominent among liberals as among conservatives.

Proponents of the above myth include John Stossel [354], WattsUpWithThat [355], ClimateDepot [364], the Daily Show [357], Michael Shermer [360], Jared Celniker of The Decision Lab [361], the climate scientist Patrick T. Brown [356], and Chris Mooney [358] (though Mooney no longer holds this position [357]), among others [94, page 14; 349, page 764]. Ezra Klein offers a sensible rebuttal to the myth [406, from 1:01:20 to 1:04:57 (with 311)].

The myth's flaw: Liberals accept scientific claims and trust scientists at about the same, or greater, rate than conservatives on the topics of vaccination [35; 36; 61; 62, pages 28 - 30; 93, table 5 on page 81; 94, table 3; 98; 99; 343; 363], GMOs [22, figure 2; 35; 37; 61; 63; 65; 66, table 2; 82; 92, page 30; 94, table 3; 314], and nuclear power [61; 94, table 3, pages 28 and 31 - 32]. So these examples undermine the myth's false equivalence between liberals and conservatives on science denialism.

(Section 2.1 below explains the myth further, while section 2.2 rebuts the myth. So if you want to check the myth's veracity, then reading sections 2.1 and 2.2 suffices. Supplemental sections 2.3 and 2.4 discuss the political context surrounding the myth and why many people defend the myth.)

2. Context and Analysis

Section 2.1: The myth's resorts false equivalence in response to science denialism

"Denialist" and "denier" are fairly well-defined terms in science, history, and philosophy, with AIDS denialists being one of the standard examples of a science denialist group [41 - 43; 52; 53; 67 - 79; 83; 91; 107; 109; 305; 329 - 332; 334; 335; 351]. Science denialism involves not accepting scientific claims supported by overwhelming evidence [42; 52, page 1; 67; 68, pages 239 and 240; 69; 70, section 2; 71; 72, page 1; 79, section 5; 91; 108 - 111; 334, section 6]. Even some non-technical sources note this point [108; 110; 111], though one should not rely on non-technical sources for a term's meaning within a technical discipline. But these non-technical sources show that common usage of the term "denialist" largely matches what that term means in science, history, and philosophy. For example, the Oxford Lexico dictionary defines a "denialist" as:

"A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.
the small minority of very vocal climate change denialists
[as modifier] ‘the denialist view’ [108]"

Holocaust denialism is an example of denialism from the field of history [42; 52; 68; 69; 75; 109]. However, it represents only one type of denialism. For example, denialism occurs in fields outside of history, such as AIDS denialism [41 - 43; 52; 53; 67 - 79; 83; 91; 107; 109; 305; 329 - 332; 334; 335; 351] being one type of science denialism [42; 52, page 1; 67; 68, pages 239 and 240; 69; 70, section 2; 71; 72, page 1; 79, section 5; 91; 108 - 111; 334, section 6]. So calling someone a denialist/denier does not imply that they are a Holocaust denialist/denier, anymore than calling something a car implies that it is also a red car (ironically, a number of denialists on the field of climate science directly link their opponents to the Nazis, the Holocaust [390; 391 (with: 392); 397 (with 398); 399; 400; 408 (with: 409 and 410); 411 - 414; 415 (with 416 - 418)], or pedophiles [420 (with 421 and 422); 423 (with: 424, page 267); 425 - 431]).

Thus, if one feels offended at being called a denialist/denier because it reminds one of Holocaust denialists, then one should stop being a denialist, learn to live with being a denialist, or explain why one does not meet the definition of a denialist/denier. It is not enough to simply whine [109, page 25; 390; 401] about being reminded of Holocaust deniers. Terms such as "denier", "denial", etc. preceded Holocaust denialism and their meaning extends beyond it [393 - 396]. Nor are these terms inherently religious just because some religions use them, anymore than terms such as "true," "evidence," and "reason" are inherently religious just because some religions use them.

Denialism differs from scientific skepticism [52; 70; 77; 83, pages 46 and 47; 334, section 6; 335; 351], though many denialists portray themselves as being skeptics [69; 70, section 2.5; 79 - 81]; others readily call themselves deniers [370; 371; 402, from 9:22 to 9:40]. Skeptics change their position to match the evidence, while denialists do not [52; 70; 77; 91; 329; 351]. Many denialists employ a number of tactics in order to avoid accepting particular evidence-based conclusions. These tactics include evading an evidence-based scientific consensus [41; 42; 52; 53; 69 - 71; 91; 329 - 331; 334; 419, page S43], and inventing pernicious [84 - 90], paranoid conspiracy theories about the scientific community in order to sow distrust of scientists [41; 42; 52; 53; 69; 70; 72; 89; 91; 284; 303, section 2.3.2; 306; 331; 334; 335; 341; 342; 348; 385; 389]. 

A conspiracist mindset, contrarianism, financial incentives, ideological commitments, and other factors can each motivate denialism [41; 42; 52; 53; 69; 70 - 72; 91; 284; 334; 342; 389]. People's ideological commitments in particular can shape their beliefs about science [1 - 3; 22; 42; 71; 407]. So, for instance, many (but not all [4 - 7; 308; 387]) religious/social conservatives object to climate science on the grounds that humans cannot detrimentally affect the climate God created [8 - 10; 11, from 6:21 to 7:24], or on the grounds that climate science may be associated with nature worship [13 - 15]. This leads to a negative correlation between certain religious positions vs. environmental concern and accepting various climate science points [16 - 21; 22, figure 1; 316; 374]. Figure 1 depicts this correlation, along with negative correlations between religiosity and acceptance of claims in other branches of science:

Figure 1: Results of a 2014 survey on the relationship between Americans' religiosity vs. acceptance and perception of an evidence-based scientific consensus. Light gray shading represents the 95% confidence interval [22, figure 1 on page 10].
The queries for each of the panels were as follows: (g) that humans have been causing the Earth’s climate to warm in recent years; (h) that eating a genetically modified fruit could lead to a person’s own genes being modified; (i) that the Earth’s climate has been warming in recent years; (j) that the continents on which we live have been moving their locations for millions of years; and (k) that plants produce the oxygen that we breathe [22, table 1 on page 7].
The full version of this figure is here.

Similarly, many (but not all [5 - 7; 23 - 29; 388; 432]) fiscal conservatives distrust climate science research because they think this research could be used to support regulation and environmentalism [3; 5; 12, from 10:52 to 21:42; 13; 30 - 33; 311; 351, page 1; 366; 386]. This produces a negative correlation in the US between political conservatism vs. trusting climate scientists and accepting various scientific claims regarding climatology [3; 21; 22, figure 2; 30; 34 - 40; 54; 150; 311; 312; 316; 317; 375; 386]. The two aforementioned correlations result in an ideological controversy (in the non-expert public) on climatology, with both economic and religious/social dimensions. Industry-funded think tanks [31; 41; 42; 43, page 251; 44; 328; 333; 372], the media [45 - 51; 112; 113; 313; 327], and other denialists [41; 52; 53; 315; 419, page S43] further maintain the controversy by manufacturing more false doubt about climate science.

Controversy also surrounds other issues, such as evolutionary biology and stem cell research. Thus a negative correlation persists between acceptance of the evidence-based scientific consensus on evolution [37; 41, page 3.8; 270 - 273] vs. political conservatism [22, figure 2; 34; 37; 55; 56; 314], with much of this correlation explained by religiously-motivated opposition to evolutionary theory [16; 22, figure 1; 57; 314]. Conservatives also remain less likely to rely on their scientific knowledge [58; 59, page 105], and scientists [94, table 3; 349], when forming beliefs about stem cell research. Taken together, these examples lead to the charge that US political conservatives, or the Republican Party, are disproportionately science denialists, anti-science, misrepresenting science, contributing to a war on science, etc. [12, from 20:29 to 24:32; 357; 367; 368]. In response to this charge, myth proponents claim that political liberals display more anti-science / science denialist tendencies than conservatives on other topics, such as vaccines and GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) [349, page 764; 354 - 358; 360; 361; 364].

One might accept the myth because it can be comforting to think both sides in a discussion are equally flawed, and that both sides make equally valid points (bothsidesism). This idea may prevail in politics, where deference to both sides in a discussion makes political compromise easier, and makes one appear admirably neutral, instead of partisan. But reality need not need conform to this politically-motivated deference [ex: 96; 97; 309; 311]; to reject this point amounts to the fallacy of appeal to consequences or wishful thinking, in which one accepts or rejects a point because it accords or conflicts with one's desires. The example of science denialism shows that two sides in a discussion need not be on par, since science denialism lacks merit in comparison to evidence-based science. To say otherwise involves drawing a false equivalence (or false balance) between two sides in a discussion [48; 49; 53]. These motivations therefore serve as an inadequate justification for the myth. 

Section 2.2: Evidence against the myth's false equivalence between liberals and conservatives on science denialism

Contrary to the false equivalence offered by myth proponents, conservatives may be more likely than liberals to not accept scientists' evidence-based consensus on various scientific claims [309; 311]. In line with this, the myth proponents' claims largely fail with respect to GMOs, vaccines, and nuclear power, when one examines statistical trends among liberals and conservatives
{I discuss the consensus on vaccines and GMOs further in "Myth: Attributing Warming to CO2 Involves the Fallaciously Inferring Causation from a Mere Correlation", with the bracketed "Attributing" sections below indicating the corresponding sections of this blogpost}:

  • With regard to vaccines: The evidence-based [115 - 133] scientific consensus [37; 115; 133 - 136; 137, table 3 on page 4594] is that vaccines are generally safe, effective, and do not increase the risk of neurological conditions such autism. With respect to vaccination, liberals accept scientific claims [35; 62, pages 28 - 30; 93, table 5 on page 81; 98; 99; 363] and trust scientists [36; 61; 93, table 5 on page 81; 94, table 3; 343] at about the same, or greater, rate than conservatives, though one study disputes this point [65]. Donald Trump's supporters in particular are more likely to view vaccinations negatively [376; 381; 382], consistent with Trump's long history of vaccine denialism [208, from 2:15; 236 - 239; 376 - 380; 382 - 384] {sections 2.6 and 2.7 of "Attributing"}.
  • With regard to GMOs: The evidence-based [100 - 105; 114; 373, chapter 2] scientific consensus [37; 100 - 104; 106; 114; 373, chapter 2] is that the GMOs available on the market are as safe as their non-GMO counterparts. With respect to GMOs, liberals accept scientific claims [22, figure 2; 35; 37; 63; 65; 66, table 2; 82; 92, page 30; 314] and trust scientists [61; 66, table 2; 94, table 3] at about the same, or greater, rate than conservatives {sections 2.4 and 2.6 of "Attributing"; another study provides some further context to this subject [60, page 322], however, the study's questions are too broad to be helpful in assessing myth proponents' points [60, supplemental material]}.
  • With regard to nuclear power: I am unsure if there is an evidence-based scientific consensus on nuclear power. And if there is a consensus, I doubt that it is as strong as the scientific consensus on vaccination, GMOs, evolution, or man-made climate change, as others have noted [37; 94, table 1 on page 25]. Various studies present evidence on the benefits and risks of nuclear power [140 - 145; 146, page 33; 147 - 149]. With respect to nuclear power, liberals trust scientists [61; 94, table 3, pages 28 and 31 - 32] at a greater rate than conservatives.

Figure 2 illustrates some of the aforementioned points with respect to GMOs and climate change, with being a Democrat serving as proxy measure of liberalism and being a Republican serving as a proxy measure of conservatism:

Figure 2: Results of a 2014 survey on the relationship between Americans' political identification vs. acceptance and perception of an evidence-based scientific consensus. The x-axis measures partisan identification from strongly Republican (Strong R) to strongly Democratic (Strong D). Light gray shading represents the 95% confidence interval [22, figure 2 on page 12].
The queries for each of the panels were as follows: (g) that humans have been causing the Earth’s climate to warm in recent years; (h) that eating a genetically modified fruit could lead to a person’s own genes being modified; (i) that the Earth’s climate has been warming in recent years; (j) that the continents on which we live have been moving their locations for millions of years; and (k) that plants produce the oxygen that we breathe [22, table 1 on page 7].
The full version of this figure is here.

The results for the dark, solid line in panel (i) are borne out by several other studies [150; 312; 316; 375; 386]; though American political conservatives were disproportionately more likely to not accept that Earth warmed [22, figure 2 on page 12; 150], overall the majority of Americans accepted that Earth warmed [150; 151, page 5].
One might object to panels (g) and (i) by saying that there is not an evidence-based scientific consensus that humans caused warming nor that Earth recently warmed. I rebut the former objection in "Myth: Attributing Warming to CO2 Involves the Fallaciously Inferring Causation from a Mere Correlation", and I debunk the latter objection in "Myth: No Global Warming for Two Decades". Scientists from 2015 and earlier acknowledged that Earth continued to warm [ex: 152, page 194; 153; 154; 155, "In Brief" on page 80; 156 - 160; 365].

Panels g and i of figure 2 illustrate the large divide between liberals and conservatives (as measured in terms in party identification) with respect to accepting the evidence-based scientific consensus on climate change. This divide contrasts with panel h, where there is not a large, statistically significant difference between liberals and conservatives with respect to accepting the evidence-based scientific consensus on GMOs. Figure 3 below extends this point to vaccination and nuclear power as well, in a study of New Hampshire residents (in contrast to figure 2's more national sample):

Figure 3: Results of a 2014 - 2015 telephone survey on the relationship between New Hampshire residents' political identification vs. their trust in scientists on various topics. The x-axis measures the percentage of residents who reported trusting scientists on the topic in question, while the y-axis shows their self-reported political ideology from liberal to conservative. The significance tests shown indicate a statistically significant relationship between political ideology vs. trust in scientists for each topic; the p-values of below 0.001 reflect a probability of less than 1 chance in 1,000.
The queries for each of the panels were as follows: would you say that you trust, don’t trust, or are unsure about scientists as a source of information about (A) vaccines, (B) climate change, (C) nuclear power safety, (D) evolution, (E) genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The order of “trust” and “don’t trust” choices read by interviewers was rotated to avoid bias [61, figure 4].

One can use other sources to determine what proportion of a population one needs to sample in order for one to get a representative sample of that population, to a set level of uncertainty. For example, a sample of ~1100 or more is sufficient for a representative sample of New Hampshire's population or of the USA' population, to an uncertainty of +/- 3% or 4% [403 - 405].

So, contrary to what myth proponents claim, science denialism on GMOs, vaccines, and nuclear power is not as disproportionately prevalent among liberals as man-made climate change denialism is among conservatives. Thus the myth fails.

If you are only concerned about whether or not the myth is accurate, then you can stop reading this post at this point, since the supplemental sections below will not focus on the myth's veracity. Instead these supplemental sections will focus on: 
  • why people defend the myth
  • why the myth should not be used to misrepresent all conservatives
  • how science denialism affects policy stances
If these matters remain of interest to you, then feel free to continue reading.

Supplementary Section 2.3: Why the myth persists for irrational (and rational) reasons

Section 2.2 undermined myth advocates' claim that science denialism is just as prevalent on the left as on the right. So why do myth proponents defend their myth, despite the aforementioned evidence against the myth? One possibility is that myth defenders want a false equivalence / false balance between liberals and conservatives, so conservatives feel comfortable and more amenable to political compromise. Or myth proponents may wish to feel admirably neutral, instead of partisan. I rebutted these defenses in section 2.1.

Another possibility is that myth proponents confuse liberals' stance on policy with liberals' stance on science and scientists. Science denialism can affect one's policy position (as I discuss in supplementary section 2.4), but one's policy position need not be rooted in science denialism. For instance [ex: 359; 362; 369]:
  1. One liberal uses science denialism on GMOs to justify mandatory labeling of GMOs.
  2. A different liberal accepts the evidence-based scientific consensus on GMOs, while supporting mandatory labeling of GMOs. They advocate labeling because they think people have the right to know what went into making their food, even though the liberal accepts that GMOs are safe.
  3. Another social liberal who is not fiscally liberal (ex: me) opposes mandatory GMO labeling since they think mandatory labeling should not be simply based on people's desire to know, but should instead be based on evidence. So, for instance, there should not be mandatory labeling on food transported in 4-wheeled vehicles, food prepared by Jewish people or women, etc., even if some people want to know which foods have these attributes. Instead, mandatory labeling should apply to lists of ingredients, nutritional content, etc. since scientific evidence shows that these factors are relevant to people's health via mechanisms such as allergic reactants to ingredients.

So liberals might have policy differences on GMOs, vaccines, and nuclear power. But those policy disagreements are not necessarily equivalent to science denialism or distrusting scientists. Nor does this mean that liberals' policy preferences always match myth proponents' pre-conceptions, as in the three numbered examples listed above. Other examples include:

  • Vaccines: Liberals may be more likely than conservatives to support vaccination for themselves and mandatory childhood vaccination [37; 93; 343], though the evidence is mixed on this point [37; 65; 93]. Many health professionals also defend mandatory childhood vaccinations (with allowances for medically-based exemptions) [37; 137, table 3 on page 4594; 138; 139], consistent with physicians vaccinating their own children [135].
  • GMOs: Conservatives may express more support that liberals for agricultural biotechnology [66, table 2], and some liberals favor labeling GM food [65].
  • Nuclear power: Conservatives may be more likely than liberals to support building more nuclear power plants [37], though the evidence is mixed on this point [37; 64, table 1].

In addition to conflating policy stances with science denialism, myth proponents might also defend the myth because they read other research that placed the aforementioned points in context. Conservatives, for instance, often do not extend their anti-science stance to scientific research that produces new economic innovations and inventions; instead, some research indicates conservatives are more likely than liberals to trust scientists who work in this type of research [3]. The conservatives' anti-science stance is largely reserved for scientific research that has direct implications for policy on the environment or public health [3]. 

Some research also shows that fiscal conservatives display scientific literacy greater than that of fiscal liberals [23]. In contrast, social conservatives (especially conservative, sectarian Christians, who make up a large portion of the conservative Republican coalition) display low levels of scientific literacy [23; 310]. This lower level of scientific literacy extends to both religiously-controversial topics such as the Big Bang and evolution [22, figures 1 and 2; 310], and scientific topics that have no obvious connection to religious ideology [23; 310]. And as I previously mentioned in section 2.1, religiously-influenced scientific denialism may partially explain the negative correlation in the US between political conservativism vs. accepting the evidence-based scientific consensus on topics such as evolution and man-made climate change.

These differences between socially-/religiously-motivated vs. fiscally-motivated (or libertarianism-motivated) science denialism mean that political conservatives are not a homogeneous group. Moreover, not all political conservatives resort to denialism on science, as I mentioned in section 2.1 with respect to man-made climate change. And many liberals do resort to science denialism and biased attacks on scientists, since liberals are about as likely as conservatives to have negative emotional responses to evidence they find inconvenient for their ideology [95; 318; 352; 353] (though some research shows otherwise [304; 309]). Myth advocates may thus defend the myth because they recognize the aforementioned points.

However, myth proponents take things too far when they move from acknowledging that some people on both sides have similar problems, to claiming that the magnitude, or prevalence, of the problem is the same on both sides. The trends I discussed in section 2.2 debunk this central myth proponent claim, by showing that science denialism for topics such as vaccines and GMOs is not as disproportionately prevalent among liberals as science denialism on evolution and man-made climate change is among conservatives. But, once again, these statistical trends should not be taken as absolute, exception-less claims about all liberals and conservatives.

Supplementary Section 2.4: Ideology motivates science denialism and science denialism affects policy

Given the discussion of ideologically-motivated science denialism is sections 2.1, 2.2, and supplemental section 2.3, one might be curious about the ramifications of this denialism. Unfortunately, ideologically-motivated science denialism affects policy, policy stances, and how ideologues approach a number of scientific topics, including 
{I discuss some of these examples further in "Myth: Attributing Warming to CO2 Involves the Fallaciously Inferring Causation from a Mere Correlation", with the bracketed "Attributing" sections below indicating the corresponding sections of this blogpost}:

  • Republican President Donald Trump [208, from 2:15; 236 - 239] falsely [115 - 119] linked vaccines to autism and claimed doctors lies about this link. This is consistent with his contrarianism on vaccination [376 - 380; 382 - 384], and correlates with his supporters being more likely to view vaccines negatively [376; 381; 382] {further details in: "Attributing", sections 2.6 and 2.10}.
  • Many American social conservatives distorted [178 - 180] the efficacy of condoms in limiting the spread of human papillomavirus (HPV), a group of viruses that cause cervical cancer [181 - 187], and herpes simplex virus (HSV). Yet condoms reduce the risk of HSV [178, page 2; 188 - 192] and HPV infection [178, page 2; 192 - 196] {further details in: "Attributing", section 2.7}.
  • A number of religious and social conservatives [197 - 199; 200, page 4; 201] falsely [202 - 205] claimed that HPV vaccination would promote promiscuity and thus increase the prevalence of sexually transmitted infections. Instead HPV vaccination reduced the rate of HPV infection and the rate of cancers caused by HPV [181 - 187; 206; 207] {further details in: "Attributing", section 2.7}.
  • Republican Vice President Mike Pence discussed evidence on the health risks of smoking, while falsely [211 - 218] claiming that smoking doesn't kill [208, from 4:08 to 4:43; 209; 210]. Some libertarians also defended tobacco advertisements directed at children [245; 246], while many conservatives and conservative organizations downplayed [42; 43, page 2; 44; 52; 226 - 234; 319; 320; 419] the real risks of smoking [211 - 218] and second-hand smoking [218 - 225; 247; 336 - 340]. Some of these same conservatives then downplayed the risks of man-made climate change [41, page 3.9; 43, page 251; 44; 228 - 235] {further details in: "Attributing", sections 2.5 and 2.9}.
  • A number of conservatives distorted [161 - 169] the science on the association between saturated fat and heart disease [170 - 175; 176, chapter 1; 177] {further details in: "Attributing", section 2.1}.
  • Conservative think tanks, a number conservative scientists, and industry groups distorted [41, page 3.9; 240; 281; 282, pages 28, 30, and 33; 283; 350; 372] the science on a number of environmental topics, including ozone depletion [240; 260 - 265; 266, pages 599 and 600; 344 - 347], acid rain [267; 268; 274; 275], and leaded products such as gasoline [276 - 280; 321 - 325]. Conservatives may have resorted to these distortions in order to disguise how government-facilitated policy solutions [240; 260 - 265; 266, pages 599 and 600; 268; 269; 276; 321 - 325] helped address these environmental problems, with sometimes mixed results [326], though Republican-led governments often agreed to these policy solutions anyway [282; 283].
  • Some libertarians misrepresented [243; 244; 248, pages 219 - 220; 251; 259] the efficacy of seat belt [241; 242; 257] legislation [249; 250; 252 - 258] in limiting harm from car accidents.
  • Former Republican Congressman Todd Akin [12, from 3:54 to 7:36; 285; 289] falsely [286; 287; 288, table 1 on page 24; 290, pages 113 and 114] claimed, without a basis in reputable scientific evidence, that rape-related pregnancies are unusually rare because a woman's body prevents a pregnancy following rape. Akin used this claim to undermine pro-choice arguments that defend abortion in the case of pregnancy following rape; thus Akin pursued a strategy used by some pro-life advocates for decades [288, page 23; 289; 291; 292].
  • A commentator at the Wall Street Journal [298], and law enforcement officials [299], falsely [293; 294; 297] claimed a version of "Ferguson effect" existed. This effect is named in reference to police officers shooting Michael Brown in the St. Louis, Missouri. The effect involves crime rates increasing nationwide because police showed more restraint in their law enforcement, in response to people protesting against police shooting unarmed civilians such as Michael Brown [293; 294; 298]. Though this nationwide effect does not manifest [293; 294; 297], public protests likely impact how police officers behave in specific cities [295; 296]. 

And that is not even touching on the possible relationship between ideologically-based prejudice and low scientific knowledge during earlier crises, such as the 1980s/1990s HIV/AIDS epidemic [301, pages 519 - 521; 302, page 754]. Nor does the above list cover possible distortions on other issues, such as the effect of birth control medication on health, risk of unsafe sex, and risk of unplanned pregnancies [300, pages 47083 - 47804; 307]. So plenty of other domains exist in which ideologically-motivated science denialism can run rampant and damage society. 

3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis

4. References

  1. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks"
  2. "Cultural cognition of scientific matters"
  3. "The influence of political ideology on trust in science"
  4. "Ethics and public perception of climate change: Exploring the Christian voices in the US public debate"
  5. "As a conservative, evangelical Republican, why climate change can’t be True (even though it is)"
  8. "Prominent signers of "An evangelical declaration on global warming"
  9. "An evangelical declaration on global warming"
  10. "Ralph Hall speaks out on climate change"
  11. Youtube, potholer54's video: "26 -- Science vs. the Feelies"
  12. Youtube, potholer54's video: "6 dumbest ideas politicians have about science"
  13. "Why conservative Christians don’t believe in climate change"
  14. "Dobson, others seek ouster of NAE vice president"
  16. "Examining links between religion, evolution views, and climate change skepticism"
  17. "Religion does matter for climate change attitudes and behavior"
  19. "An examination of the “Greening of Christianity” thesis among Americans, 1993–2010"
  20. "The role of religion in environmental attitudes"
  21. "Conservative Protestantism and skepticism of scientists studying climate change"
  22. "It’s not my consensus: Motivated reasoning and the sources of scientific illiteracy"
  23. "Scientific literacy, optimism about science and conservatism"
  24. "What We KNOW About Climate Change - Kerry Emanuel"
  25. "Richard Muller: I Was wrong on Climate Change"
  26. "How a North Carolina meteorologist abandoned his climate change skepticism"
  28. "A paid climate change skeptic switches sides"
  29. "What evidence would persuade you that man-made climate change is real?"
  30. "Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change"
  31. "Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement's counter-claims"
  32. "Regulating climate change: Not science denial, but regulation phobia"
  33. "The challenge of climate-change neoskepticism"
  34. "A four-party view of US environmental concern"
  35. "Not all skepticism is equal: Exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptance and rejection"
  36. "Trust in scientists on climate change and vaccines"
  41. "Science denialism: Evolution and climate change"
  42. "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?"
  43. "Climate change denial: Sources, actors and strategies"
  44. "The sceptic meets his match"
  45. "Overcoming endpoint bias in climate change communication: The case of arctic sea ice trends"
  46. "Global warming estimates, media expectations, and the asymmetry of scientific challenge"
  47. "Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014)"
  48. "Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press"
  49. "Public enemy No. 1? Understanding media representations of outlier views on climate change"
  50. "'Ye Olde Hot Aire'*: reporting on human contributions to climate change in the UK tabloid press"
  51. "Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change"
  52. "How the growth of denialism undermines public health"
  53. "Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate"
  54. "GSS 1972-2012 cumulative datafile" [Row is "GWSCI"; Column is "POLVIEWS(1-7)", Selection Filter(s) is "Year(2010)"]
  56. "GSS 1972-2012 cumulative datafile" [Row is "EVOLVED1"; Column is "POLVIEWS(1-7)", Selection Filter(s) is "Year(2012)"]
  58. "Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research"
  59. "The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research"
  60. "Evidence for absolute moral opposition to genetically modified food in the United States"
  61. "Conservative and liberal views of science: Does trust depend on topic?"
  62. "Vaccine risk perceptions and ad hoc risk communication: An empirical assessment"
  63. "GSS 1972-2012 cumulative datafile" [Row is "EATGM" or "GMMEM"; Column is "POLVIEWS(1-7)", Selection Filter(s) is "Year(2006)"]
  64. "Knowledge, risk, and policy support: Public perceptions of nuclear power"
  65. "The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science"
  66. "Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology"
  67. "Commentary: Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent"
  68. "AIDS denialism and public health practice"
  69. "HIV denial in the internet era"
  70. "The ethics of belief, cognition, and climate change pseudoskepticism: Implications for public discourse"
  71. "Science denial: a guide for scientists"
  72. "Countering evidence denial and the promotion of pseudoscience in autism spectrum disorder"
  73. "Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers"
  74. "Debating global warming in media discussion forums: Strategies enacted by “persistent deniers” and implications for schooling"
  75. "Science denial as a form of pseudoscience"
  76. "Science denial and the science classroom"
  77. "Sceptics and deniers of climate change not to be confused"
  78. "Still crazy after all these years: The challenge of AIDS denialism for science"
  79. "Dealing with climate science denialism: experiences from confrontations with other forms of pseudoscience"
  83. "Global warming: How skepticism became denial"
  84. "Conspiracy theories in science" [DOI: 10.1038/embor.2010.84]
  85. "Climate change: Why the conspiracy theories are dangerous"
  86. "The conspiracy-effect: Exposure to conspiracy theories (about global warming) decreases pro-social behavior and science acceptance"
  87. "The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions"
  88. "The social consequences of conspiracism: Exposure to conspiracy theories decreases intentions to engage in politics and to reduce one’s carbon footprint"
  89. "The robust relationship between conspiracism and denial of (climate) science"
  90. "NASA faked the moon landing—therefore,(climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science"
  91. "Commentary to: How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public"
  92. "Climate-science communication and the measurement problem"
  93. []
  94. "Does partisanship shape attitudes toward science and public policy? The case for ideology and religion"
  95. "The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science"
  96. "Ideological asymmetries in conformity, desire for shared reality, and the spread of misinformation"
  97. "Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign"
  98. "The determinants and consequences of accurate beliefs about childhood vaccinations"
  99. "Beliefs about childhood vaccination in the United States: Political ideology, false consensus, and the illusion of uniqueness"
  100. "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research"
  101. "Safety of genetically engineered foods: Approaches to assessing unintended health effects"
  102. "Genetically engineered crops: experiences and prospects"
  103. "Overall assessment of the safety of GM foods and feeds" [Chapter 9 of "Genetic Modification and Food Quality: A Down to Earth Analysis"]
  104. "A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops"
  105. "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons"
  106. "GM crops and foods: What do consumers want to know?"
  107. "Internet blogs, polar bears, and climate-change denial by proxy"
  109. "Errors in Celia Farber's March 2006 article in Harper's Magazine" []
  112. "The News You Choose: news media preferences amplify views on climate change"
  113. "The great divide: understanding the role of media and other drivers of the partisan divide in public concern over climate change in the USA, 2001–2014"
  114. "Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review"
  115. "Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies"
  116. "Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism"
  117. "Number of antigens in early childhood vaccines and neuropsychological outcomes at age 7–10 years"
  118. "Vaccines and autism: A tale of shifting hypotheses"
  119. "Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children" (DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3)
  120. "Vaccination status and health in children and adolescents"
  121. "Lack of broad functional differences in immunity in fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children"
  122. "Vaccinated versus unvaccinated children: how they fare in first five years of life"
  123. "Nonmedical vaccine exemptions and pertussis in California, 2010"
  124. "Addressing parents' concerns: do multiple vaccines overwhelm or weaken the infant's immune system?"
  125. "Addressing parents' concerns: do vaccines cause allergic or autoimmune diseases?"
  126. "Do vaccines modify the prevalence of asthma and allergies?"
  127. "Addressing parents' concerns: do vaccines contain harmful preservatives, adjuvants, additives, or residuals?"
  128. "The changing concept of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: Diagnostic coding shifts, controversies regarding the sleeping environment, and new variables to consider in reducing risk"
  129. "Vaccine adjuvants: Putting innate immunity to work"
  130. "Aluminum toxicokinetics regarding infant diet and vaccinations"
  131. "Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination"
  132. "Towards an understanding of the adjuvant action of aluminium"
  133. "The childhood immunization schedule and safety: Stakeholder concerns, scientific evidence, and future studies"
  134. "Physicians who do and do not recommend children get all vaccinations"
  135. "How do physicians immunize their own children? Differences among pediatricians and nonpediatricians"
  136. "General practitioners' concerns about childhood immunisation and suggestions for improving professional support and vaccine uptake"
  137. "Association of vaccine-related attitudes and beliefs between parents and health care providers"
  138. "Mandatory immunization: the point of view of the French general population and practitioners"
  139. "Vaccine refusal, mandatory immunization, and the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases"
  140. "Safety and security of commercial spent nuclear fuel storage"
  141. "Lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear accident for improving safety of U.S. nuclear plants"
  142. "Lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear accident for improving safety and security of U.S. nuclear plants: Phase 2"
  143. "Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power"
  144. "Comment on "Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power""
  145. "Response to Comment on "Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas Emissions from historical and projected nuclear power""
  146. "The impacts of combustion emissions on air quality and climate – From coal to biofuels and beyond"
  147. "Reassessing the safety of nuclear power"
  148. "Impacts of nuclear plant shutdown on coal-fired power generation and infant health in the Tennessee Valley in the 1980s"
  149. "Renewable and nuclear electricity: Comparison of environmental impacts"
  150. []
  151. "Climate change in the American mind: May 2017"
  152. "Climate change 2013: The physical science basis; Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface"
  153. "Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends"
  154. "An apparent hiatus in global warming?"
  155. Michael Mann: "Climate change: False hope"
  156. "Debunking the climate hiatus"
  157. "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus"
  158. "Change points of global temperature"
  159. "Lack of evidence for a slowdown in global temperature"
  160. "Has there been a hiatus?"
  161. (
  166. ("Bacon and eggs won’t kill you (But making Uncle Sam your nutritionist might)")
  170. "A systematic review of the effect of dietary saturated and polyunsaturated fat on heart disease"
  171. "Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease"
  172. "Association of specific dietary fats with total and cause-specific mortality"
  173. "Saturated fats versus polyunsaturated fats versus carbohydrates for cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment"
  174. "Saturated fats compared with unsaturated fats and sources of carbohydrates in relation to risk of coronary heart disease: a prospective cohort study"
  175. "Dairy fat and risk of cardiovascular disease in 3 cohorts of US adults"
  176. "Dietary guidelines: 2015 - 2020" (Chapter 1: "Key elements of healthy eating patterns")
  177. "Saturated fatty acids and coronary heart disease risk: the debate goes on"
  178. "Condoms for sexually transmissible infection prevention: politics versus science"
  179. "Public health advocates say campaign to disparage condoms threatens STD prevention efforts"
  180. "With God on their side: How Christian fundamentalists trampled science, policy, and democracy in George W. Bush's White House"
  181. "The early benefits of human papillomavirus vaccination on cervical dysplasia and anogenital warts"
  182. "Reduction of low- and high-grade cervical abnormalities associated with high uptake of the HPV bivalent vaccine in Scotland"
  183. "Effect of human papillomavirus vaccination on cervical cancer screening in Alberta"
  184. "Effect of HPV on cervical cancer screening in Alberta
  185. "Effectiveness of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine for the prevention of cervical abnormalities: case-control study nested within a population based screening programme in Australia"
  186. "Early impact of human papillomavirus vaccination on cervical neoplasia--nationwide follow-up of young Danish women"
  187. "Impact of a population-based HPV vaccination program on cervical abnormalities: a data linkage study"
  188. "Effect of condom use on per-act HSV-2 transmission risk in HIV-1, HSV-2-discordant couples"
  189. "A pooled analysis of the effect of condoms in preventing HSV-2 acquisition"
  190. "The relationship between condom use and herpes simplex virus acquisition"
  191. "Case-crossover analysis of condom use and HSV-2 acquisition"
  193. "Consistent condom use reduces the genital human papillomavirus burden among high-risk men: the HPV infection in men study"
  194. "Condom use in prevention of human papillomavirus infections and cervical neoplasia: systematic review of longitudinal studies"
  195. "Condom use and the risk of genital human papillomavirus infection in young women"
  196. "Condom use promotes regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and clearance of human papillomavirus: A randomized clinical trial"
  197. "HPV vaccine and behavioral disinhibition"
  198. "Parents’ and sons’ beliefs in sexual disinhibition after human papillomavirus vaccination"
  199. "Most parents do not think receiving human papillomavirus vaccine would encourage sexual activity in their children"
  200. "A tale of two vaccines—and their science communication environments"
  202. "Tempest in a teapot: A systematic review of HPV vaccination and risk compensation research"
  203. "No evidence that HPV vaccination leads to sexual risk compensation"
  204. "Human papillomavirus vaccine-related risk perceptions and subsequent sexual behaviors and sexually transmitted infections among vaccinated adolescent women"
  205. "Human papillomavirus vaccine-related risk perceptions do not predict sexual initiation among young women over 30 months following vaccination"
  206. "A prophylactic quadrivalent vaccine for the prevention of infection and disease related to HPV-6, -11, -16 and -18"
  207. "The efficacy and safety of the quadrivalent human papillomavirus 6/11/16/18 vaccine Gardasil"
  208. Youtube, C0nc0rdance's video: "Why I Can't Vote for Trump"
  209. (see:
  211. "Systemic effects of smoking" (DOI: 10.1378/chest.06-2179)
  212. "Pathobiology of cigarette smoke-induced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease"
  213. "21st-century hazards of smoking and benefits of cessation in the United States"
  214. "Mechanisms of cigarette smoke-induced COPD: insights from animal models"
  215. "Inflammatory diseases of the lung induced by conventional cigarette smoke: a review"
  216. "Tobacco smoking and cancer: a brief review of recent epidemiological evidence"
  217. "Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence in the 1900s relating smoking to lung cancer"
  218. "Cigarette smoking and lung cancer – relative risk estimates for the major histological types from a pooled analysis of case-control studies"
  219. "Secondhand smoke exposure and risk of lung cancer in Japan: a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies"
  220. "Second-hand smoke and the risk of tuberculosis: a systematic review and a meta-analysis"
  221. "Tobacco smoke, indoor air pollution and tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
  222. "Meta-analysis of the association between second-hand smoke exposure and ischaemic heart diseases, COPD and stroke"
  223. "The health effects of passive smoking: An overview of systematic reviews based on observational epidemiological evidence"
  224. "Effect of smoke-free legislation on perinatal and child health: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
  225. "Effect of tobacco control policies on perinatal and child health: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
  226. "Challenging the epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking: tactics of tobacco industry expert witnesses"
  227. "Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions"
  229. ("I have argued as most people who have looked at it that the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good.")
  230. "The truth about global warming", Newsweek, 7/22/01
  231. "The denial industry"
  232. "Five lies about tobacco: The tobacco bill wasn't about kids" ("Several experts (including two who are very anti-smoking) have told me that smoking fewer than seven cigarettes a day does not raise a smoker's risk of lung cancer. When have you seen that fact reported in a newspaper or admitted by a public health official?" ; [])
  234. ("Number of the Month, November 2005: That terrible randomness")
  235. ("Number of the Month, November 2001: Synchronised spinning")
  239. Youtube, C0nc0rdance's video: "Vaccines: Too Many Too Soon"
  240. "The ozone story: A model for addressing climate change?"
  241. "Mortality reduction with air bag and seat belt use in head-on passenger car collisions"
  242. "Changes in traffic crash mortality rates attributed to use of alcohol, or lack of a seat belt, air bag, motorcycle helmet, or bicycle helmet, United States, 1982–2001"
  244. (Time Magazine: "The hidden danger of seat belts")
  245. Amitai Etzioni's: "Suffer the children"
  246. "Tobacco, commercial speech, and libertarian values: the end of the line for restrictions on advertising?"
  247. "Smoke-free legislation and hospitalizations for childhood asthma"
  248. "Lives, liberty, and seat belts in Britain: Lessons for the United States"
  249. "Estimating the impact of seat belt use on traffic fatalities: empirical evidence from Canada"
  250. "Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to increase the use of safety belts"
  252. "Effectiveness of primary enforcement safety belt laws and enhanced enforcement of safety belt laws: A summary of the Guide to Community Preventive Services systematic reviews"
  253. "Primary enforcement seat belt laws are effective even in the face of rising belt use rates"
  254. "Getting Americans to buckle up: The efficacy of state seat belt laws"
  255. "States with primary enforcement laws have lower fatality rates (updated)"
  256. "Reconsidering the effects of seat belt laws and their enforcement status"
  257. "Changing paradigms of seat belt and air bag injuries: what we have learned in the past 3 decades"
  258. "The effects of mandatory seat belt laws on driving behavior and traffic fatalities"
  260. "Depletion of the ozone layer in the 21st Century"
  261. "The Antarctic ozone hole: An update"
  262. "Antarctic ozone loss in 1979–2010: First sign of ozone recovery"
  263. "Quantifying the ozone and ultraviolet benefits already achieved by the Montreal Protocol"
  264. "Evidence for the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer"
  265. "Emergence of healing in the Antarctic ozone layer"
  266. "Stratospheric temperature trends: Our evolving understanding"
  267. "Acid rain and its ecological consequences"
  268. "A fresh look at the benefits and costs of the US acid rain program"
  269. "From acid rain to climate change"
  270. "Organic-walled microfossils in 3.2-billion-year-old shallow-marine siliciclastic deposits"
  271. "Estimating the timing of early eukaryotic diversification with multigene molecular clocks"
  272. "Can modern evolutionary theory explain macroevolution?"
  273. "Exploring macroevolution using modern and fossil data"
  274. "Effects of acid rain on freshwater ecosystems"
  275. "Effects of acid precipitation on terrestrial ecosystems"
  276. "Childhood blood lead levels and intellectual development after ban of leaded gasoline in Taiwan: A 9-year prospective study"
  277. "Effects of reducing lead in gasoline: an analysis of the international experience"
  278. "Childhood lead exposure and uptake in teeth in the Cleveland area during the era of leaded gasoline"
  279. "A 'gift of God'?: The public health controversy over leaded gasoline during the 1920s"
  280. "Leaded-gasoline additives still contaminate groundwater"
  281. "Scientific certainty argumentation methods (SCAMs): science and the politics of doubt"
  282. "Incentive-based environmental regulation: a new era from an old idea?"
  283. "The evolving regulatory role of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget"
  284. "The conditional effect of conspiracy thinking on attitudes toward climate change"
  286. "Are per-incident rape-pregnancy rates higher than per-incident consensual pregnancy rates?"
  287. "Rape-related pregnancy: Estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women"
  288. "Pregnancy as a result of rape" (DOI: 10.1080/01614576.1988.11074920)
  290. "Reasons U.S. women have abortions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives"
  293. "Was there a Ferguson Effect on crime rates in large US cities?"
  294. "The alleged “Ferguson Effect” and police willingness to engage in community partnership"
  295. "Documenting and explaining the 2015 homicide rise: Research directions"
  296. "Sensitivity to the Ferguson Effect: The role of managerial organizational justice"
  297. "Crime in 2015: A preliminary analysis"
  300. CMS-9940-IFC (
  301. "Correlates of AIDS knowledge in samples of the general population"
  302. "Attitudes of professionals, students and the general public to HIV/AIDS and people with HIV/AIDS: a review of the research"
  303. Rutjens et al.: "Attitudes towards science" (chapter in "Advances in experimental social psychology")
  304. "The elusive backfire effect: mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence"
  305. "‘Nothing can be done until everything is done’: the use of complexity arguments by food, beverage, alcohol and gambling industries"
  306. "Are HIV/AIDS conspiracy beliefs a barrier to HIV prevention among African Americans?"
  308. "The evangelical debate over climate change"
  309. "Why people “don't trust the evidence”: Motivated reasoning and scientific beliefs"
  310. "Religion and scientific literacy in the United States"
  311. "Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010"
  312. "The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views of global warming, 2001–2010"
  313. "An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming"
  314. "Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics"
  315. "Leading voices in the denier choir: Conservative columnists' dismissal of global warming and denigration of climate science"
  316. "Weather, climate, politics, or God? Determinants of American public opinions toward global warming"
  317. "Predictors of trust in the general science and climate science research of US federal agencies"
  318. "Science denial across the political divide: Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to deny attitude-inconsistent science"
  319. ("Smokescreens – The World Health Organization is showing signs of allowing politics to get in the way of truth" The Economist March 14th, 1998)
  320. "Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer’s second-hand smoke study"
  321. "Global approach to reducing lead exposure and poisoning"
  322. "The effectiveness of housing policies in reducing children’s lead exposure"
  323. "Primary prevention of lead poisoning in children: a cross-sectional study to evaluate state specific lead-based paint risk reduction laws in preventing lead poisoning in children"
  324. "The association between state housing policy and lead poisoning in children"
  325. "Rochester's lead law: evaluation of a local environmental health policy innovation"
  326. "Evaluating the effectiveness of state specific lead-based paint hazard risk reduction laws in preventing recurring incidences of lead poisoning in children"
  327. "Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects"
  328. "The climate lobby: a sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016"
  329. "The history of the discovery of the cigarette–lung cancer link: evidentiary traditions, corporate denial, global toll"
  330. "How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public"
  331. "Advocating for vaccination in a climate of science denial"
  332. "MMR vaccine and autism: vaccine nihilism and postmodern science"
  333. "Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations"
  334. "Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015"
  335. "Science and the public: Debate, denial, and skepticism"
  336. "Meta-analysis of the effect of comprehensive smoke-free legislation on acute coronary events"
  337. "Cardiovascular effects of second-hand smoke help explain the benefits of smoke-free legislation on heart disease burden"
  338. "Respiratory symptoms, pulmonary function, and markers of inflammation among bar workers before and after a legislative ban on smoking in public places"
  339. "Association of anti-smoking legislation with rates of hospital admission for cardiovascular and respiratory conditions"
  340. "Lung function and exposure to workplace second-hand smoke during exemptions from smoking ban legislation: an exposure–response relationship based on indoor PM2.5 and urinary cotinine levels"
  341. "Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations"
  342. "Climate change conspiracy theories" [DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.328]
  343. "The influence of political ideology and trust on willingness to vaccinate"
  344. "UV impacts avoided by the Montreal Protocol"
  345. "Skin cancer risks avoided by the Montreal Protocol — Worldwide modeling integrating coupled climate-chemistry models with a risk model for UV"
  346. "Mortality tradeoff between air quality and skin cancer from changes in stratospheric ozone"
  347. "Climate change and human skin cancer"
  348. drkstrong's video: "CLIMATE MYTH 21: ITS A CONSPIRACY"
  349. "The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science"
  350. []
  351. "Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions"
  352. "Are conservatives from Mars and liberals from Venus? Maybe not so much"
  353. "Post-truth, anti-truth, and can't-handle-the-truth: How responses to science are shaped by concerns about its impact"
  354. Youtube, John Stossel's: "The Left's War on Science"
  356. []
  357. []
  358. []
  359. []
  360. []
  361. []
  362. []
  363. [ ; margin of error: ,]
  364. []
  365. "Analysis of global and hemispheric temperature records and prognosis"
  366. "The ideology of climate change denial in the United States"
  369. potholer54 Youtube comment: (
  370. []
  371. []
  372. "Heated debates and cooler heads: Think tanks and climate politics in the United States"
  373. "A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2000 - 2010)"
  374. []
  375. "“Global warming” or “climate change”? Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording"
  376. "Donald Trump and vaccination: The effect of political identity, conspiracist ideation and presidential tweets on vaccine hesitancy"
  377. "Populist politics and vaccine hesitancy in Western Europe: an analysis of national-level data"
  378. "Vaccine hesitancy: More than a movement"
  379. "What will Donald Trump’s presidency mean for health? A scorecard"
  380. Letter to the editor: "Concerns about the attitudes of President Trump toward isolationism, vaccination, and climate change"
  381. "It’s not all about autism: The emerging landscape of anti-vaccination sentiment on Facebook"
  382. "Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon"
  383. "Vaccines do not cause autism: Pediatricians fight back against anti‐science"
  384. "A survey instrument for measuring vaccine acceptance"
  385. "The impact of elite frames and motivated reasoning on beliefs in a global warming conspiracy: The promise and limits of trust"
  386. "Mitigation system threat partially mediates the effects of right‐wing ideologies on climate change beliefs"
  387. []
  388. []
  389. "Climate modeling: comments on coincidence, conspiracy, and climate change denial"
  390. []
  391. ["The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler [...]" ;]
  392. Youtube, Bob Cesca's video (of William Happer): "Princeton Professor: CO2 is like the Jews"
  393. []
  394. []
  395. []
  396. []
  397. []
  398. []
  399. []
  400. [ ; of: (]
  401. []
  402. ["Climate change, pot plants and small frogs" ;]
  403. []
  404. []
  405. []
  406. The Weeds: "The road to polarization", from January 24, 2020
  407. "A test of three theories of anti-science attitudes"
  408. []
  409. []
  410. []
  411. []
  412. []
  413. []
  414. []
  415. []
  416. []
  417. []
  418. []
  419. "Manufacturing uncertainty: contested science and the protection of the public's health and environment"
  420. []
  421. []
  422. []
  424. "The hockey stick and the climate wars: Dispatches from the front lines"
  425. []
  426. []
  427. []
  428. []
  429. []
  430. []
  431. []
  432. Youtube, greenmanbucket's video: "Richard Alley on Being a Republican Climate Scientist"

No comments:

Post a Comment