4 ms·

It's odd that the author only traces the political aspect back to 2015, when climate change denial has been a political issue since the turn of the millennium:

It's odd that the author only traces the political aspect back to 2015, when climate change denial has been a political issue since the turn of the millennium: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_the...

pjmorris 6y ago
And I'd heard of the anti-vaxx movement in the mid-90's.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  Certainly, though it was mostly ignored by major political parties in those days. And WRT EamonnMR's point, while the article invokes 'antiscience' as a movement, its author is clearly only interested in medical science. Personally, I'm not convinced that there is a unitary, consolidated anti-science movement, though it might be developing.
- jfengel 6y ago
  Anti-vax took a weird twist over the past decade. It used to be a hippie-liberal notion, heavily informed by being anti-corporate anti-big-pharma. But it became more mainstream and cross-party when endorsed by celebrities, and then cross-fertilized with the anti-science anti-government Republican party. I'm sure the crunchy-granola antivaxers are still out there, but they were a fringe group and remain a fringe group. But for the GOP it's mainstream. COVID's a little different from general anti-vax, being driven by a hoax narrative from the President combined with the perception of rushing a vaccine through (with the intention of having it be an October surprise for the election). That makes everybody nervous, on all sides of the spectrum.
  - djrogers 6y ago
    > But for the GOP it's mainstream. No, it's really not. It's only mainstream in the GOP if you get your news from the left - if you associate with and listen to people on both sides of the aisle, you realize that it's a fringe element on both sides.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - taylodl 6y ago
      25% of the GOP members in the US House of Representatives refusing to get the vaccine doesn't sound "fringe" to me.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    The vaccines were accelerated by spending money and the high prevalence of the infection, they weren't rushed. 4 months into widespread use they have been safe and have demonstrated high efficacy in real world use. The blood clotting with the AZ vaccine is an issue, but that risk is still a good trade-off for a big segment of the population.
    - jfengel 6y ago
      I've tweaked my post slightly; I was referring to the perception of it being rushed for political reasons. It's clearly safe and pursued using proper scientific methods, but there was legitimate concern that the President would apply pressure to approve something prematurely. That would be very much in character -- as we saw when he applied pressure to change votes.
michaelt 6y ago
And things like creationism/resisting the teaching of evolution in schools goes back well before the turn of the century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_publ...
sleepysysadmin 6y ago
Climate change is a political issue and has basically nothing to do with science. The unusualness of 2015 is because that's when Obama lost control. Republicans had control of senate and house. Then also paved way for making Trump presidents just a couple years later. Let's just assume for a second climate change is the equivalent to 4-5 hiroshima bombs per second. Which is the political assertion that we are about to go extinct every 12 years. The problem with politicization of climate change is that if it's true, we cannot act in time anymore. Then again Al Gore(politician) made a ton of claims in his movie that were quite false. According to Al Gore florida is pretty much entirely under water right now.

pjmorris 6y ago

And I'd heard of the anti-vaxx movement in the mid-90's.

mannykannot 6y ago
Certainly, though it was mostly ignored by major political parties in those days. And WRT EamonnMR's point, while the article invokes 'antiscience' as a movement, its author is clearly only interested in medical science. Personally, I'm not convinced that there is a unitary, consolidated anti-science movement, though it might be developing.
jfengel 6y ago
Anti-vax took a weird twist over the past decade. It used to be a hippie-liberal notion, heavily informed by being anti-corporate anti-big-pharma. But it became more mainstream and cross-party when endorsed by celebrities, and then cross-fertilized with the anti-science anti-government Republican party. I'm sure the crunchy-granola antivaxers are still out there, but they were a fringe group and remain a fringe group. But for the GOP it's mainstream. COVID's a little different from general anti-vax, being driven by a hoax narrative from the President combined with the perception of rushing a vaccine through (with the intention of having it be an October surprise for the election). That makes everybody nervous, on all sides of the spectrum.
- djrogers 6y ago
  > But for the GOP it's mainstream. No, it's really not. It's only mainstream in the GOP if you get your news from the left - if you associate with and listen to people on both sides of the aisle, you realize that it's a fringe element on both sides.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - taylodl 6y ago
    25% of the GOP members in the US House of Representatives refusing to get the vaccine doesn't sound "fringe" to me.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  The vaccines were accelerated by spending money and the high prevalence of the infection, they weren't rushed. 4 months into widespread use they have been safe and have demonstrated high efficacy in real world use. The blood clotting with the AZ vaccine is an issue, but that risk is still a good trade-off for a big segment of the population.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    I've tweaked my post slightly; I was referring to the perception of it being rushed for political reasons. It's clearly safe and pursued using proper scientific methods, but there was legitimate concern that the President would apply pressure to approve something prematurely. That would be very much in character -- as we saw when he applied pressure to change votes.

michaelt 6y ago

And things like creationism/resisting the teaching of evolution in schools goes back well before the turn of the century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_publ...

sleepysysadmin 6y ago

Climate change is a political issue and has basically nothing to do with science. The unusualness of 2015 is because that's when Obama lost control. Republicans had control of senate and house. Then also paved way for making Trump presidents just a couple years later. Let's just assume for a second climate change is the equivalent to 4-5 hiroshima bombs per second. Which is the political assertion that we are about to go extinct every 12 years. The problem with politicization of climate change is that if it's true, we cannot act in time anymore. Then again Al Gore(politician) made a ton of claims in his movie that were quite false. According to Al Gore florida is pretty much entirely under water right now.