The "science" is fixed!!!

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Aug 6, 2009
37,963
6,385
1,140
Not the middle of nowhere
Where are the Republican Scientists?—
By Kevin Drum
| Thu Dec. 9, 2010 11:39 AM PST.

Daniel Sarewitz writes in Slate today about a Pew poll showing that only 6% of scientists identify as Republicans (55% are Democrats and 32% are independents), a state of affairs he finds alarming. Matt Steinglass, though perhaps less alarmed, wishes Sarewitz had spent more time trying to figure out why so few scientists are Republicans. He proposes three possibilities:

The first is that scientists are hostile towards Republicans, which scares young Republicans away from careers in science. The second is that Republicans are hostile towards science, and don't want to go into careers in science. The third is that young people who go into the sciences tend to end up becoming Democrats, due to factors inherent in the practice of science or to peer-group identification with other scientists.

I'd add a twist to #2: not that young Republicans are hostile toward science, but that they're more attracted to the business world and its opportunities for vast wealth than to the grind of the laboratory and its upper middle class limits. So that's where they go. Still, here's my take on Matt's three guesses:

1.This seems uninteresting to me. Of course scientists are hostile toward Republicans. As far as they're concerned, Republicans are troglodytes who don't believe in evolution, don't believe in climate change, want to ban stem cell research, and don't want to fund the NSF. They'd be crazy not to be hostile toward Republicans.2.This one seems quite testable and potentially interesting. Surely there are surveys of children, teenagers, college students, and 30-somethings that correlate political views with intended career choices? (If not, there should be!) I'm not sure what it would tell us, but I'd be curious to see what the trends over time look like.
3.This also seems uninteresting to me. After all, it's almost certainly true, both for generic reasons of basic group dynamics as well as for the specific reasons outlined in #1.
Roughly speaking, though, this doesn't seem like such a hard question to me. The more time you spend practicing science, the more time you're going to spend discovering that conservatives hold scientific views that you find preposterous. Sure, liberals have PETA and the odd vaccination fetishist, but really, it's no contest. In the Democratic Party those are just fringe views. Even the anti-GM food folks don't amount to much. The modern Republican Party, by contrast, panders endlessly to the scientific yahooism of its base. What would be amazing is if much more than 6% of the scientific community identified with the Republican Party.

Where are the Republican Scientists? | Mother Jones













In other words...........the "science" is fixed. The "science" is what these people determine the "science" needs to be to meet their objectives........to ensure perpetuation of their special intersts.

What is it like?

Its like inviting a person to play the game of Science Jeopardy, but the Republican contestant is told at the beginning of the show, "Oh.....and by the way.......you cant use the following letters: A, E, I, O or U.......... Sorry"






In other words.............the "science" is bogus.




13960_189855479432_503149432_2664011_7029878_n-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
There are so few Republicans in science because science requires a higher level of intellect than average. So there are few Republicans that can meet that requirement. Proof of that is the poster above.
 
There are so few Republicans in science because science requires a higher level of intellect than average. So there are few Republicans that can meet that requirement. Proof of that is the poster above.

Or the vetting process is a bit jaded. Hmmmm... I wonder????
 
There are so few Republicans in science because science requires a higher level of intellect than average. So there are few Republicans that can meet that requirement. Proof of that is the poster above.

Ahhh, the old "If you don't agree with me, you're STUpid!" gambit. Very effective. Does it win you any converts?
 
where are the republican scientists?—
by kevin drum
| thu dec. 9, 2010 11:39 am pst.

Daniel sarewitz writes in slate today about a pew poll showing that only 6% of scientists identify as republicans (55% are democrats and 32% are independents), a state of affairs he finds alarming. Matt steinglass, though perhaps less alarmed, wishes sarewitz had spent more time trying to figure out why so few scientists are republicans. He proposes three possibilities:

the first is that scientists are hostile towards republicans, which scares young republicans away from careers in science. The second is that republicans are hostile towards science, and don't want to go into careers in science. The third is that young people who go into the sciences tend to end up becoming democrats, due to factors inherent in the practice of science or to peer-group identification with other scientists.

I'd add a twist to #2: Not that young republicans are hostile toward science, but that they're more attracted to the business world and its opportunities for vast wealth than to the grind of the laboratory and its upper middle class limits. So that's where they go. Still, here's my take on matt's three guesses:

1.this seems uninteresting to me. Of course scientists are hostile toward republicans. As far as they're concerned, republicans are troglodytes who don't believe in evolution, don't believe in climate change, want to ban stem cell research, and don't want to fund the nsf. they'd be crazy not to be hostile toward republicans.2.this one seems quite testable and potentially interesting. Surely there are surveys of children, teenagers, college students, and 30-somethings that correlate political views with intended career choices? (if not, there should be!) i'm not sure what it would tell us, but i'd be curious to see what the trends over time look like.
3.this also seems uninteresting to me. After all, it's almost certainly true, both for generic reasons of basic group dynamics as well as for the specific reasons outlined in #1.
Roughly speaking, though, this doesn't seem like such a hard question to me. The more time you spend practicing science, the more time you're going to spend discovering that conservatives hold scientific views that you find preposterous. Sure, liberals have peta and the odd vaccination fetishist, but really, it's no contest. In the democratic party those are just fringe views. Even the anti-gm food folks don't amount to much. The modern republican party, by contrast, panders endlessly to the scientific yahooism of its base. What would be amazing is if much more than 6% of the scientific community identified with the republican party.

where are the republican scientists? | mother jones













in other words...........the "science" is fixed. The "science" is what these people determine the "science" needs to be to meet their objectives........to ensure perpetuation of their special intersts.

What is it like?

Its like inviting a person to play the game of science jeopardy, but the republican contestant is told at the beginning of the show, "oh.....and by the way.......you cant use the following letters: A, e, i, o or u.......... Sorry"






in other words.............the "science" is bogus.




13960_189855479432_503149432_2664011_7029878_n-2.jpg

hilarious!
 
There are so few Republicans in science because science requires a higher level of intellect than average. So there are few Republicans that can meet that requirement. Proof of that is the poster above.

Ahhh, the old "If you don't agree with me, you're STUpid!" gambit. Very effective. Does it win you any converts?

no... sometimes people really are stupid...


like the O/P. :)
 
There are so few Republicans in science because science requires a higher level of intellect than average. So there are few Republicans that can meet that requirement. Proof of that is the poster above.

Ahhh, the old "If you don't agree with me, you're STUpid!" gambit. Very effective. Does it win you any converts?
Old Cock will just say that you're stupid for asking the question.
 
Climate change?

Evolution?

Hard work?

The ability to think rational thoughts?

Independent thinking?

Uh-huh, I would go with "number two".
 
There are so few Republicans in science because science requires a higher level of intellect than average. So there are few Republicans that can meet that requirement. Proof of that is the poster above.

Ahhh, the old "If you don't agree with me, you're STUpid!" gambit. Very effective. Does it win you any converts?

no... sometimes people really are stupid...


like the O/P. :)
Oh, no question people can be stupid.
 
There are so few Republicans in science because science requires a higher level of intellect than average. So there are few Republicans that can meet that requirement. Proof of that is the poster above.

Ahhh, the old "If you don't agree with me, you're STUpid!" gambit. Very effective. Does it win you any converts?
Old Cock will just say that you're stupid for asking the question.
Of course. If he answered it, it would show how ineffective it is. But the tactic is emotionally satisfying, and for people who operate solely on emotion, that's all that matters.
 
Climate change?

Evolution?

Hard work?

The ability to think rational thoughts?

Independent thinking?

Uh-huh, I would go with "number two".
youknowmoremi6.jpg

Liberal:

Black
brown
white
conservative
liberal
Christian
Jew
Atheist
Muslim
rich
poor
educated
uneducated
American born
Foreign born
gay
feminist
men
women
scientist
college professors

Conservative:

90% white
mostly Christian

within the leftover 10% are a few of each:

Black
brown
white
conservative
liberal
Christian
Jew
Atheist
Muslim
rich(MOSTLY JUST THE LEADERS)
poor(MOSTLY EVERYONE ELSE)
educated(MOSTLY JUST THE LEADERS)
uneducated(MOSTLY EVERYONE ELSE)
American born
Foreign born
gay
feminist
men
women
scientist
college professors

Those in red are possibly down in double digits or less.
 
Well...........I guess that just makes me the asshole here!!!!!

I do have one question however.............

If the skeptics contingent is so fcukking stupid, why is Cap and Trade dead???



103069_001.jpg
 
Climate change?

Evolution?

Hard work?

The ability to think rational thoughts?

Independent thinking?

Uh-huh, I would go with "number two".
youknowmoremi6.jpg

Liberal:

Black
brown
white
conservative
liberal
Christian
Jew
Atheist
Muslim
rich
poor
educated
uneducated
American born
Foreign born
gay
feminist
men
women
scientist
college professors

Conservative:

90% white
mostly Christian

within the leftover 10% are a few of each:

Black
brown
white
conservative
liberal
Christian
Jew
Atheist
Muslim
rich(MOSTLY JUST THE LEADERS)
poor(MOSTLY EVERYONE ELSE)
educated(MOSTLY JUST THE LEADERS)
uneducated(MOSTLY EVERYONE ELSE)
American born
Foreign born
gay
feminist
men
women
scientist
college professors

Those in red are possibly down in double digits or less.
101708.jpg
 
Of course...........the asshole of this forum apparently is astute enough to point out the current going rates of the Chicago Futures Exchange. To see how much the "science" on global warming is a done deal, check out the carbon exchange stocks graph below.................


Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFE) is a landmark derivatives exchange that currently offers standardized and cleared futures and options contracts on emission allowances and other environmental products. CCFE is a wholly owned subsidiary of CCX. (Visit CCFE's

Chicago Climate Exchange

061211101210003CCX2010.png











Clearly...........Im the retarded asshole here!!!!!

:fu::fu::D:D:lmao::lmao::fu::fu::funnyface::funnyface::boobies::boobies::fu::fu:
 
Well...........I guess that just makes me the asshole here!!!!!

I do have one question however.............

If the skeptics contingent is so fcukking stupid, why is Cap and Trade dead???



103069_001.jpg

Why is anything dead?

Ask the "filibuster party".

Now get this. This is what's "hilarious".

Republicans have filibustered many of their own bills. That's right. The legislation they wrote, they filibustered. Why? Because they hate the "black" guy in the WHITE House so much, they screw their own base to make sure they "get him". Isn't that "hilarious"? Seriously. Aren't Republicans laughing their silly heads off?

Cloture-Invoked3Final.png


Newsvine - Republicans Record Number of FILIBUSTERS
 

Forum List

Back
Top