As is well known, politics makes odd bedfellows. Attacking the poor or the unemployed, some of whom are involved with the OWS movement, and nitpicking spurious comments made by Ph.D.s in climatotology makes for a demonstration of conservative weirdness.
The Occupy protesters have no concern with "class envy," a fraudulent conservative concoction. Rather, the conservatives are jealous of the protesters who are free enough to be able to spend time outside in protest of something the conservatives are not interested in, and dare not question. The conservatives claim to dislike what is going on. In actuality, they are apathetic to most of what they complain about, despite the misleading animation of their comments and opinions.
Modern-day finance and the sociological concept of social class are both far more complex than being opposed to civil rights violations or a war. The conservatives don't want anyone to delve into some of the complexity because this would go against their structured talking points. The defense of the status quo is antithetical to research and modifications of past theories on the basis of more recent evidence, which is basic to the scientific process.
Conservatives want scientists and engineers to support existing technologies, not discover new ones.
Doctors are ridiculous in thinking that they can improve treatment outcomes. They should be sticking with the use of leaches as a time-tested cure for many problems.
We should not worry about harm to humans. If people can't survive, that is just the scorched earth upon which we live. Regression is the path to restoring us to some past bliss.
Conservatives are also jealous of Ph.D.s in the natural sciences because they couldn't achieve intellectually what others have achieved. When you are jealous of someone but don't care to admit it, then it is necessary to find petty reasons to tear down the work that others, for all practical purposes, have dedicated their lives to.
Professor Richard Hofstadter, who was a Pulitzer Prize winning author, noticed the connection between disdain and contempt for the poor and the weak and toward intellectuals, a category which includes scientists. He wrote about both social Darwinism and anti-intellectualism in American history and culture. Both have a tendency to rock the boat, to upset the applecart, to shine a spotlight on societal and technological shortcomings or failings. These could effect the money and influence of many of the elite. Many conservatives are not members of the elite, but see nothing wrong in what the elite are doing.
Criticizing the economic conditions that existed when Jimmy Carter was president ignores the economic collapse that occurred when George W. Bush was president, or the balanced budget and partial success with job creation that occurred when Bill Clinton was president.
Some economic conditions would come into existence no matter which party was in office. Some policies that were begun by a Republican president were seen to their conclusion or full implementation by a Democratic administration. Some were supported by Republicans and were agreed to by Clinton. Other policies were supported only by one party and were opposed by the other. The simplistic manner in which people, conservatives moreso than liberals, place blame and distort the nuances of history is probably a part of the problem in selecting office-holders who will represent 99% of the population.
Ignoring the efforts that people have made to find employment, without success at least for a given period on the part of millions who are without jobs, in favor of hate-mongering comments attacking one's fellow citizens on the basis of false and simplistic generalizations, is all in the service of covering up the truth about failed economic policies involving deregulation, particularly of banking and finance, and of structural flaws in the economy. Even Michelle Bachmann has mentioned how America is falling behind the world technologically and economically. Her solutions no doubt are ridiculous and unworkable, as is also the case with certain statements previously made by Donald Trump.
You can't attack scientists because you don't like their findings, and then turn around and complain that we are falling behind in technological and scientific development. The attacks, just as in the case of the unemployed, have been on people's reputations. We can't have unqualified people trying to diminish, distort, or restrain the work of experts. Scientists do not always agree, but this point is exaggerated and misused for economic and political purposes by conservative critics.
The Christian angle is often mentioned as a point of conservative hypocrisy in not wanting to admit that there are people who are struggling for no fault of their own. The conservative viewpoint is one that is akin to the lottery. In fact, short story writer Shirley Jackson, many years ago, wrote a prominent short story called, "The Lottery." Life is merely a gamble, with winners and loses. Instead of admitting their true "tough luck" point of view, some conservatives and even some liberals talk insead about "tough love," which may have some merit to it, in theory, but in practice, conservative proposals seem discriminatory and impractical and unfair. When your basis is an overgeneralization, a stereotype, and when you ignore empirical social science research, the actual motive is to seperate and divide people as much as possible.
A protest movement involves disagreement with the authorities in power. The nature of that disagreement in American society is not always well-intentioned. Even if it is well-intentioned, knowing how progress can be achieved still seems difficult, even elusive.