Science, like reality, has a liberal bias.
Um, really? I think someone needs a lesson in correlation and causation.
A Pew Research Center Poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans; 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest "don't know" their affiliation.
I'm not surprised. I'm also not surprised that children who live in houses that contain books learn to read earlier and do better in school. This is not because books have magical powers, this is because the sorts of parents that have the time and money to devote to serious reading also have the time and money to devote to making sure their children do well in school.
My point is, books do not cause reading. Books correlate to reading. Being a Democrat does not make one a scientist or interested in science, but the qualities that inspire one to become a scientist are qualities shared by the party that understands that tax cuts to the rich don't actually help the rest of us. Oh, and they cost something, too!
Honestly, if you're part of the magical party that thinks that a $0.29 return on a $1 investment is a good deal, you probably don't care what science has to say about things. You'll be clinging to your ideology and fuck climate change.
What's the solution? Well, the author of this piece seems to think we need one, but I don't.
For example, survey data show that the scientific community enjoys the trust of 90 percent of Americans—more than for any other institution, including the Supreme Court and the military.
I'm shocked you can get 90% of Americans to agree on anything. Hell, I'd be willing to bet that only 66% of Americans agree the sky is blue. So, hey, the overwhelming majority of Americans trust scientists as they are, Democrat, Independent and undecided. Why change what's working?