Scientists hate the GOP for a reason

[hcap]

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/scientists_hate_the_gop_for_a_reason/

Scientists hate the GOP for a reason

One of the great political shifts in the past decade has been the move of scientists toward the Democratic Party, a casualty of the Republican Party’s war on reality. It’s not about politics for scientists, it’s about the fact that only one party accepts scientific findings on everything from global warming to evolutionary theory to what does and doesn’t prevent pregnancy. Only 6 percent of scientists identify as Republican, whereas 55 percent identify as Democratic. In October of 2012, 68 Nobel-winning scientists co-signed a strong endorsement of Obama, saying the President “has delivered on his promise to renew our faith in science-based decision making.”

....At some point, the conservative movement began to realize that since these fights were going to come up over and over, it wasn’t enough to simply cast doubts on individual scientific claims. They had to sow suspicion of the field of science itself.

[TJDave]

[url] Only 6 percent of scientists identify as Republican, whereas 55 percent identify as Democratic.

What about the other 39%?

[hcap]

What about the other 39%?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html

A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is alienating scientists to a startling degree.

Only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. By comparison, 23 percent of the overall public considers itself Republican, while 35 percent say they're Democrats.

The ideological discrepancies were similar. Nine percent of scientists said they were "conservative" while 52 percent described themselves as "liberal," and 14 percent "very liberal." The corresponding figures for the general public were 37, 20 and 5 percent.

Among the general public, moderates and independents ranked higher than any party or ideology.

But among scientists, there were considerably more Democrats (55%) than independents (32%) and Republicans (6%) put together. There were also more liberals (52%) than moderates (35%) and conservatives (9%) combined.

[Dave Schwartz]

IMHO, the so-called unbiased scientist has fallen by the wayside same as the unbiased journalist.

[Robert Goren]

So since they no long believe the mistaken scientific ideas of the 19th century, they must be bias, huh.

[Dave Schwartz]

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby...

How many cases of collusion do you need for it to be a real problem?

How many scientific studies are funded by a corp with a goal to prove something that gets proven, only toi find out years later that the null hypothesis was true all along?

That is called "Agenda-Based Science for Money," and, IMHO, it lacks integrity.

[hcap]

How many republican congressman do you need to prove the null hypothesis that republican congressmen are NOT crazy?

/ZBy3MbP4WDo?

For someone who sits on a key congressional science advisory committee, Rep. Paul C. Broun (R-Ga.) seems to take a pretty dim view of science.

[Robert Goren]

How many republican congressman do you need to prove the null hypothesis that republican congressmen are NOT crazy?

/ZBy3MbP4WDo?

For someone who sits on a key congressional science advisory committee, Rep. Paul C. Broun (R-Ga.) seems to take a pretty dim view of science.And you wonder why most scientist are democrats.;) As long as the GOP embraces crackpots like this, real scientists are going to be democrats.

[fast4522]

crackpot = someone who wants a greater percentage of your earnings in taxes.

[Tom]

They hate the right because we call them out on their lying BS.
Simple as that.

Not that you could call most of the hacks scientists to begin with.
REAL scientists are working for big companies making lots of money developing REAL sciency-things.

The left has the bottom 47% of their classes. :lol:

[Robert Goren]

crackpot = someone who wants a greater percentage of your earnings in taxes.Now you are expert on crackpots like you are on homosexuality in animals.

[fast4522]

Hey Robert, get your shit straight.

[Robert Goren]

Hey Robert, get your shit straight.So do you believe the Earth was created in 6 days 10,000 years ago like that crackpot?

[ElKabong]

[Only 6 percent of scientists identify as Republican, whereas 55 percent identify as Democratic.

Take a swing at how many of these scientists are employed by the gubmint. Federal or state level.....Bet you find a clue or two there, Columbo

[Robert Goren]

Take a swing at how many of these scientists are employed by the gubmint. Federal or state level.....Bet you find a clue or two there, Columbotake a swing at how many scientist believe that world was created 10,000 years ago. When GOP disavows those crackpots instead of putting putting them on congressional science committees, you might actual get some scientist to vote for the GOP. Not everything is about money and politics, sometimes it about the truth. No self respecting scientist could vote for party that denies science, no matter how much they agree with them on other things. Conservatives have let the "rape victims can't pregnant" crackpots set the agenda for the GOP.

[hcap]

Take a swing at how many of these scientists are employed by the gubmint. Federal or state level.....Bet you find a clue or two there, ColumboAh! The loony tune contingent is complete. Kabong
has brought a new wrinkle to the table. Gubmint "tainted" scientists. :) :)

Of course! :lol:

[JustRalph]

Dave, excellent points :ThmbUp:

http://www.timbernard.org/gw-time-magazine-ice-age-global-warming.gif

[hcap]

Dave, excellent points :ThmbUp:

http://www.timbernard.org/gw-time-magazine-ice-age-global-warming.gif
There was never any real scientists worried about the coming "ice age" in '77. The media hyped it briefly

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1011/p13s03-sten.html

But those who have looked closely at the two eras or have been part of the scientific community then and now say the comparison is unfair. William Connolley, a sort of self-appointed historian of the global-cooling theory, says that although global cooling was briefly but prominently covered in some speculative news articles, the idea never got much traction within the scientific community. New data and research over the decades has convinced the vast majority of scientists that global warming is real and under way.

[Robert Goren]

When I was a kid there was two group of scientists speaking out about cigarette smoking causing cancer. The ones from government who said it did and the ones from the cigarette companies who said it didn't. The same scientists debated second hand smoke in the early 1990s. We now know who was right. We also know that at least some of the company paid scientists knew the truth all along and sold out for money. Now have scientists from the government and other places warning about global warning and ones from the coal and oil companies saying they are wrong. I think there are a lot of wishful thinkers believing the company paid scientists just as there was wishful thinking smokers in 1950s and again in the 1990s. My mother was one of those wishful thinkers smokers right up until cancer got her in 2004. I was one until 1982. Then I wised up. This time I am not going waste 14 years believing a company paid scientist.

[hcap]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

n the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalCooling.JPG

[hcap]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/house-gop-science-committee-akin-gingrey.php?ref=fpa

Meet The House GOP’s Anti-Science Committee

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) told an audience this week that former colleague Todd Akin was “partly right” when he claimed women’s resist pregnancy from “legitimate rape.” Gingrey has something else in common with Akin — both used to serve on the House Committee on Science.

The House Science Committee is no sanctuary from scientifically dubious, non-empirical, “truthy” policy positions. Republican committee members have in recent years created an array of controversies over reproduction, climate change, and evolution.

[Tom]

OK, the right has some science issues, but the left - totally lost on economics, immune to math......anal retentive......:lol:

Been warmer, been colder.
What's a matter with you, boy? this ain't Clown Science.
Oh, wait, yes it is.

[hcap]

If you want to see clown science, watch Faux and read WorldNut Daily.

Or attend the House when the he House GOP’s Anti-Science Committee meets
Bring popcorn.

They show cartoons during those long pauses when republican members momentarily draw a blank when attempting to use the English language other than their usual barnyard sounds :lol:

[nomad1102]

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/scientists_hate_the_gop_for_a_reason/

Scientists hate the GOP for a reason

One of the great political shifts in the past decade has been the move of scientists toward the Democratic Party, a casualty of the Republican Party’s war on reality. It’s not about politics for scientists, it’s about the fact that only one party accepts scientific findings on everything from global warming to evolutionary theory to what does and doesn’t prevent pregnancy. Only 6 percent of scientists identify as Republican, whereas 55 percent identify as Democratic. In October of 2012, 68 Nobel-winning scientists co-signed a strong endorsement of Obama, saying the President “has delivered on his promise to renew our faith in science-based decision making.”

....At some point, the conservative movement began to realize that since these fights were going to come up over and over, it wasn’t enough to simply cast doubts on individual scientific claims. They had to sow suspicion of the field of science itself.


1998 Study of Scientists belief in a personal God and immortality reported in the science journal Nature.

We are justifiably losing our moral compass to the detriment of not having a replacement.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

The results were as follows (figures in %):

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3

Note: The 1998 immortality figures add up to more than 100%. The misprint is in the original. The 76.7% is likely too high.

The authors elaborated on these figures:

Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

[fast4522]

So do you believe the Earth was created in 6 days 10,000 years ago like that crackpot?

I think it does not matter, while living the dream the only consideration is that I am not taxed greater than I am today, and as a whole we do not sell today's children into slavery by the national debt.

[hcap]

1998 Study of Scientists belief in a personal God and immortality reported in the science journal Nature.

We are justifiably losing our moral compass to the detriment of not having a replacement.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

The results were as follows (figures in %):

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3

Note: The 1998 immortality figures add up to more than 100%. The misprint is in the original. The 76.7% is likely too high.

The authors elaborated on these figures:

Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).
"justifiably losing our moral compass" ???........
"to the detriment of not having a replacement"??

Please explain.

[TJDave]

We are justifiably losing our moral compass to the detriment of not having a replacement.

Belief in God is not a prerequisite for living a moral life. An athiest would have no problem with eight of ten commandments.

[TJDave]

I think it does not matter, while living the dream the only consideration is that I am not taxed greater than I am today, and as a whole we do not sell today's children into slavery by the national debt.

It does matter...If being taken seriously is your goal.

[hcap]

It does matter...If being taken seriously is your goal.I suspect Fast is the only one who takes himself seriously :)

[fast4522]

It does not matter how one wants to carbon date to validate a position on global warming. No matter what is done, said, or taxed, the earth will do as it will without mans input.

[Actor]

Belief in God is not a prerequisite for living a moral life. An athiest would have no problem with eight of ten commandments.Which two would an atheist have a problem with? Personally I have a problem with four or five.

[TJDave]

Personally I have a problem with four or five.

Four or five?

I would think you'd have a better handle on it than that. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Allow me to speculate....the Liberal 10 Commandments:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
Well, they worship Obama, so out withi that one.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
So much for the trillion dollar coin Scratch this one.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
As long we have Bush, the libs will be taking HIS name in vain. Out
with this one.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Not in a long, long time. Out she goes.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother:
Far too many dem-dependents have no clue who's thiei daddy.
Remove this one.

6. Thou shalt not kill.
Drones say this one's out the door.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Adultery is the hallmark of Washington. buh-bye.

8. Thou shalt not steal.
This is all they do. :lol:

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
My bad, the do this all the time, too.

10. Thou shalt not covet.....
If they are alive, they covet....remember, "millionaires and billionaires?

Well now, so much for that!

[badcompany]

You could just as easily replace the word "scientists" with "deadbeats," "freeloaders," "unemployables," "junkies," etc..

[Robert Goren]

"10. Thou shalt not covet.....
If they are alive, they covert....remember, "millionaires and
billionaires?"
In this day and age, the Republicans covet even the wages of the minimum wage workers. Let alone those of a worker who happens to get a decent paycheck. And if they belong to a union..... The workers are violating commandment 8

[hcap]

Allow me to speculate....the Liberal 10 Commandments:

Tom,

Funny you don't look Jewish. Oh wait let mew check with boxcar. He knows who is really Jewish :lol: :lol:

http://www.internetweekly.org/images/compassionless_commandments.jpg

[hcap]

You could just as easily replace the word "scientists" with "deadbeats," "freeloaders," "unemployables," "junkies," etc..
Typical! :lol:

[Tom]

"10. Thou shalt not covet.....
If they are alive, they covert....remember, "millionaires and
billionaires?"
In this day and age, the Republicans covet even the wages of the minimum wage workers. Let alone those of a worker who happens to get a decent paycheck. And if they belong to a union..... The workers are violating commandment 8

Ease up on the medical mary jane, Bobby.

[Robert Goren]

Speaking about commandments , a lot of republicans have forgotten Reagan's 11th commandment.

[Actor]

Four or five?

I would think you'd have a better handle on it than that. :rolleyes:The various religions don't have a good "handle" on it. The Bible doesn't number them. It's possible to number the commandments in such a way that there are only nine, or as many as twelve. The problem is with the first and last.


The first could be

1. I am the Lord thy God who hath brought thee out of Egypt. Thou shalt have no other god's before me. Thou shalt not make thyself an idol.

or

1. I am the Lord thy God who hath brought thee out of Egypt.
2. Thou shalt have no other god's before me.
3. Thou shalt not make thyself an idol.


The last could be

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

or

9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbor's.


Catholics compress the first commandment into one and spit the last into two. Protestants generally make the first commandment(s) into two and compress the last into one.

[Tom]

Speaking about commandments , a lot of republicans have forgotten Reagan's 11th commandment.

Never trust a democrat?

[HUSKER55]

TRUST BUT VERIFY ???

[Actor]

Speaking about commandments , a lot of republicans have forgotten Reagan's 11th commandment."Never speak ill of another Republican."