How Hostile To Science Are Republican Congressmen?

[hazlnut]

How Hostile To Science Are Republican Congressmen?

We started looking at the House Science Committee when a particularly brainless and outspoken freshman teabagger, Sandy Adams (R-FL), since defeated in a primary, started ranting and raving in a Science Committee hearing about how the National Weather Service should be disbanded because cable TV does such a great job, never considering exactly where cable TV gets their information. Another member of the committee told me that even most of the Republicans saw Adams as an embarrassment and as a focus for scorn and derision... and amusement. But not all of them. Long passed are the days when a mainstream Republican like Sherwood Boehlert would dominate and chair the Science Committee and spend his career working on environmental policy and energy efficiency. That kind of agenda has become anathema to today's Republican Party which eschews Science as a liberal conspiracy against their single-minded belief in Greed and Avarice. Today the Science Committee is chaired by the oldest (90) and one of the most senile Members of Congress, Ralph Hall, a former Texas Blue Dog who switched to the GOP after voting to impeach Bill Clinton, getting in on the Abramoff gravy train and endorsing George W. Bush. So what qualifies Hall to be chairman of the Science Committee? He's one of Congress' leading Climate Change deniers and has accused climate scientists of concocting the evidence for anthopogenic climate change in order to receive federal research grants. What more evidence could Boehner and Cantor possibly want to give Hall the gig?

GOP: Moving backwards!!

 

[martybegan]

How Hostile To Science Are Republican Congressmen?

We started looking at the House Science Committee when a particularly brainless and outspoken freshman teabagger, Sandy Adams (R-FL), since defeated in a primary, started ranting and raving in a Science Committee hearing about how the National Weather Service should be disbanded because cable TV does such a great job, never considering exactly where cable TV gets their information. Another member of the committee told me that even most of the Republicans saw Adams as an embarrassment and as a focus for scorn and derision... and amusement. But not all of them. Long passed are the days when a mainstream Republican like Sherwood Boehlert would dominate and chair the Science Committee and spend his career working on environmental policy and energy efficiency. That kind of agenda has become anathema to today's Republican Party which eschews Science as a liberal conspiracy against their single-minded belief in Greed and Avarice. Today the Science Committee is chaired by the oldest (90) and one of the most senile Members of Congress, Ralph Hall, a former Texas Blue Dog who switched to the GOP after voting to impeach Bill Clinton, getting in on the Abramoff gravy train and endorsing George W. Bush. So what qualifies Hall to be chairman of the Science Committee? He's one of Congress' leading Climate Change deniers and has accused climate scientists of concocting the evidence for anthopogenic climate change in order to receive federal research grants. What more evidence could Boehner and Cantor possibly want to give Hall the gig?

GOP: Moving backwards!!

Less hostile than Democratic congresscritters are to math and economics.

 

[PredFan]

How Hostile To Science Are Republican Congressmen?

We started looking at the House Science Committee when a particularly brainless and outspoken freshman teabagger, Sandy Adams (R-FL), since defeated in a primary, started ranting and raving in a Science Committee hearing about how the National Weather Service should be disbanded because cable TV does such a great job, never considering exactly where cable TV gets their information. Another member of the committee told me that even most of the Republicans saw Adams as an embarrassment and as a focus for scorn and derision... and amusement. But not all of them. Long passed are the days when a mainstream Republican like Sherwood Boehlert would dominate and chair the Science Committee and spend his career working on environmental policy and energy efficiency. That kind of agenda has become anathema to today's Republican Party which eschews Science as a liberal conspiracy against their single-minded belief in Greed and Avarice. Today the Science Committee is chaired by the oldest (90) and one of the most senile Members of Congress, Ralph Hall, a former Texas Blue Dog who switched to the GOP after voting to impeach Bill Clinton, getting in on the Abramoff gravy train and endorsing George W. Bush. So what qualifies Hall to be chairman of the Science Committee? He's one of Congress' leading Climate Change deniers and has accused climate scientists of concocting the evidence for anthopogenic climate change in order to receive federal research grants. What more evidence could Boehner and Cantor possibly want to give Hall the gig?

GOP: Moving backwards!!

Less hostile than Democratic congresscritters are to math and economics.

BAM! Pwned!

 

[PredFan]

Hezelnuts are the nuttiest of them all.

 

[Dot Com]

How Hostile To Science Are Republican Congressmen?

We started looking at the House Science Committee when a particularly brainless and outspoken freshman teabagger, Sandy Adams (R-FL), since defeated in a primary, started ranting and raving in a Science Committee hearing about how the National Weather Service should be disbanded because cable TV does such a great job, never considering exactly where cable TV gets their information. Another member of the committee told me that even most of the Republicans saw Adams as an embarrassment and as a focus for scorn and derision... and amusement. But not all of them. Long passed are the days when a mainstream Republican like Sherwood Boehlert would dominate and chair the Science Committee and spend his career working on environmental policy and energy efficiency. That kind of agenda has become anathema to today's Republican Party which eschews Science as a liberal conspiracy against their single-minded belief in Greed and Avarice. Today the Science Committee is chaired by the oldest (90) and one of the most senile Members of Congress, Ralph Hall, a former Texas Blue Dog who switched to the GOP after voting to impeach Bill Clinton, getting in on the Abramoff gravy train and endorsing George W. Bush. So what qualifies Hall to be chairman of the Science Committee? He's one of Congress' leading Climate Change deniers and has accused climate scientists of concocting the evidence for anthopogenic climate change in order to receive federal research grants. What more evidence could Boehner and Cantor possibly want to give Hall the gig?

GOP: Moving backwards!!

Less hostile than Democratic congresscritters are to math and economics.

"deflection" noted.

 

[Katzndogz]

The link is to a liberal blog. There is an outside chance that part of the reportage is true. But only a chance and only a part.

 

[SniperFire]

How Hostile To Science Are Republican Congressmen?



GOP: Moving backwards!!

Less hostile than Democratic congresscritters are to math and economics.

"deflection" noted.

Why? Republicans are heavily invested in science in all sorts of areas.

But did you ever know of a Democrat to take an economics class?


LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I find it funny that the Party that derided Reagan's successful space based anti missile system as "Star Wars", also killed the USA's Biggest Big Science Program the Superconduction Supercollider (it would have been many times more powerful than the one that just discovered the 'God Particle'), killed our Manned Space Program and really truly believes in ManMade Global Warming, accuses Republican of being "hostile to science"

Do you see how big a fucking brain dead moron you have to be to be a Liberal today?

 

[martybegan]

How Hostile To Science Are Republican Congressmen?



GOP: Moving backwards!!

Less hostile than Democratic congresscritters are to math and economics.

"deflection" noted.

considering the source of the infomration, "deflection" is all a Hazelnutter post merits.

 

[Papageorgio]

How Hostile To Science Are Republican Congressmen?



GOP: Moving backwards!!

Less hostile than Democratic congresscritters are to math and economics.

"deflection" noted.

And this thread seems like an entire deflection and deservedly so, taking a left wing nut job blog and pretending it as fact?

Even the article said most Republicans didn't like the views of the Congressman, then goes on to attach it all to the GOP. Dishonest is the blog, uneducated is the blog, worthless is the blog, yet left wing nut jobs, post it and treat it as fact and then get mad if challenged or minimized or called out on it.

 

[hazlnut]

Let's go on a field trip, children...

 

[hazlnut]

So glad I'm out of Roanbachers district.

What a tool.

 

[hazlnut]

The Anti-Science Pledge

The Pledge:

What is the Anti-Science Pledge?

The Pledge is an oath rejecting science, administered to elected officials and candidates for office.

How is the Anti-Science Pledge administered?

The candidate places their right hand on the Bible, and answers The Pledge administrant’s questions, under penalty of eternal damnation.

The Pledge administrant will ask the following series of questions, to which the candidate will answer “I do.”

• Do you reject Science? And all its works? And all its empty promises?
• Do you accept that the Earth is no more than 6000 years old?
• Do you reject the theory of evolution, and promise that neither you nor any of your descendants will evolve?
• Do you accept that the Earth is not getting warmer… and even if it is getting warmer, man is not responsible… and even if man is responsible, it’s really not that big a deal?
• Do you accept that the US can drill its way to energy independence, even though the country owns only 1.5% of the world’s oil, but consumes 22%?
• Do you reject the practice of administering vaccines, a known cause of mental retardation?
• Do you accept that solar panels drain the Sun of its energy and threaten the very existence of summer?
• Do you accept that wind farms are responsible for increasing the frequency and severity of hurricanes and tornadoes?

Who is currently qualified to administer the Pledge?

Sen. James Inhofe
Rep. Michele Bachmann
Former Gov. Sarah Palin

 

[hazlnut]

Hezelnuts are the nuttiest of them all.

Did you get any souvenirs from the creation museum?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Who killed the Superconducting Supercollider? Democrats

Who killed the Manned Space Program? Democrats

Who derided Reagan's successful space based anti missile program as "Star Wars"? Democrats

Who believes Consensus takes the place of real science? Democrats

Cracks me up when they pretend they have the high ground

 

[FJO]

SCIENCE and appropriate application thereof benefits all mankind.

Pseudo-sciences like Evolution (The greatest leap of faith - believing that everything just happened haphazardly) and the recent one about Global Warming/Climate Change Caused by Human Activities, benefits only limousine-rider, private-plane-flyer hypocrites like Al Gore.

Expect any day now these phonies come out with a "study" "proving" that the latest Ice Age ended because of the activities of cavemen, driving gas-guzzling SUV's.

 

[FJO]

Hezelnuts are the nuttiest of them all.

Did you get any souvenirs from the creation museum?

Did you get any souvenirs from the Evolution Museum?

Or the Climate Change Museum?

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Fast-forward a dozen years. Embryo research became a hot-button political issue, and strikingly, just as had been anticipated in 1994, public officials and candidates for office regularly spoke about the issue in terms of their family health problems. So it was that, in considering legislation to fund embryonic stem cell research in April 2007, a series of Senators, one after another, described illnesses suffered by relatives, constituents, and themselves — a parade of maladies, from cancer to Parkinson’s to diabetes to asthma. One Senator, explaining his vote in favor of using taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research, recounted his mother’s physical and mental decline due to Alzheimer’s disease: “When I look at her empty gaze and shriveled body, I cannot help but wonder, if we had started embryonic stem cell research years ago, would she still be suffering today?”[5]


While these Senators understandably focused on the face of the suffering that might be relieved if human embryos were destroyed for the sake of delivering a panoply of hoped-for cures, the imperative to relieve suffering was never in dispute, and they failed entirely to attend to the nature of the human embryo and its moral status — the ethical issue that was the very center of the debate.

(snip)
Crafting morally sound policies for stem cell research requires at least three kinds of scientific knowledge: first, an account of the medical treatments that stem cell research might make possible — along with an account of the likely challenges facing this research — so that we might judge whether funding such research is in the public interest; second, an understanding of biology and specifically embryology, so that we can reason about the moral status of the human embryo; and third, an assessment of the methodology and viability of alternative sources of stem cells for research and therapy so we can consider alternative policies.

(snip)
Misrepresentation 2: Embryonic stem cells are superior to adult stem cells, or adult stem cells are superior to embryonic stem cells. One of the most common misrepresentations of stem cell science and therapy has been the idea that one kind of stem cell is definitively better than other kinds. Advocates of embryonic stem cell research have often emphasized and exaggerated the potential of ES cells without acknowledging the extent to which adult stem cells may be useful to research and therapy. Meanwhile, some opponents of embryonic stem cell research have claimed that adult stem cells are definitively better than embryonic stem cells for providing therapies.

In summation, Democrats have attempted to portray ESC's as the beat all, most advanced method to advance their abortion Clinics while touting ESC technology. What has been found is that Democrats lied or at best went off half cocked. ESC research was not all that it was cracked up to be.(emphasis mine)

Read more:
The New Atlantis » The Stem Cell Debates - Lessons for Science and Politics

 

[daveman]

The Anti-Science Pledge

The Pledge:

What is the Anti-Science Pledge?

The Pledge is an oath rejecting science, administered to elected officials and candidates for office.

How is the Anti-Science Pledge administered?

The candidate places their right hand on the Bible, and answers The Pledge administrant’s questions, under penalty of eternal damnation.

The Pledge administrant will ask the following series of questions, to which the candidate will answer “I do.”

• Do you reject Science? And all its works? And all its empty promises?
• Do you accept that the Earth is no more than 6000 years old?
• Do you reject the theory of evolution, and promise that neither you nor any of your descendants will evolve?
• Do you accept that the Earth is not getting warmer… and even if it is getting warmer, man is not responsible… and even if man is responsible, it’s really not that big a deal?
• Do you accept that the US can drill its way to energy independence, even though the country owns only 1.5% of the world’s oil, but consumes 22%?
• Do you reject the practice of administering vaccines, a known cause of mental retardation?
• Do you accept that solar panels drain the Sun of its energy and threaten the very existence of summer?
• Do you accept that wind farms are responsible for increasing the frequency and severity of hurricanes and tornadoes?

Who is currently qualified to administer the Pledge?

Sen. James Inhofe
Rep. Michele Bachmann
Former Gov. Sarah Palin

And you really believe that site is published by Republicans?

 

[Stephanie]

Science, (global warming or as they call it now, CLIMATE CHANGE) and the Federal Government has become the new gods for the left..