According to [1] most scientists are indeed liberal: 52% of scientists describe themselves as liberal versus 9% as conservative. The numbers for the general public are 20% and 37%, respectively.

[1] http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-...

Maybe my meaning was lost. I don't think it does a service to our political dialogue when we casually throw "mostly left-leaning" on "scientists." We don't want to encourage the instant siloing / ignorance that can accompany labeling someone whose profession is gathering objective evidence with a particular subjective political tribe.

Language matters. I think "reality has a liberal bias" and other patronizing quips have helped usher us into a post-truth era.

What myth?

Until the right stops rejecting science and promoting lies (cough crowd size cough) that saying is pretty much true.

The left is equally guilty of being anti-science when it suits them. The anti-vaxxer and anti-GMO crowds tend to be predominantly left-wing, for example.

Anti-vaxxers are a fringe element of the left. Climate deniers are the mainstay of the right. Do not falsely equivalate the two.

Anti-GMO is most certainly not fringe, particularly not in Europe where it's as mainstream a position as climate change denial is in the US, and just as dismissive of science.

In the US, though, it's most definitely fringe, and that's what's pertinent to the discussion in this thread.

Without context, fringe has no meaning, that is what's pertinent. It's about as popular as Scientology (anti-GMO seems to be about twice the anti-vax).