The "science" is fixed!!!

[Truthmatters]

They dont fucking care rdean, they dont run on facts or use logic.

They hate science, need to rewtire history, spew hate on higher education, deny the exsistance of court documentation, redefine the definition of words and deny economic studies that make it hard for them to retain their failed ideas.

We are dealing with pure emotion based on ass pull with the right in this country.

 

[daveman]

science verses photoshopped racist photos.

What's racist about them?

 

[Truthmatters]

Only a racist would have to ask

 

[Wry Catcher]

Climate change?

Evolution?

Hard work?

The ability to think rational thoughts?

Independent thinking?

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

It's not only that liberals know more, it's that conservatives know less but are very sure of what they think they know. It's called faith v. science. Republicans, in general, believe what they are told and rail against anything which suggest Republcan dogma might be wrong.
There are certain 'truths' both sides hold immutable, for example a liberal/progressive and a conservative may both agree all men are created equal under the law, yet conservatives find it okay to find exceptions.
Examples you ask? Sure, gays and lesbians in terms of marriage and militry service; Scooter Libby, and the entire debacle of the DOJ under Gonzales and Goodling. Yet somehow Republicans find this consistent with a belief that all men should be treated equally before the law.
It is magical thinking, or conceret thinking, something inconsistent with the rigors of scientific enquiry and quite common in the thinking of most right of center.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah...Science.

US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society...It’s so utterly damning that I’m going to run it in full without further comment.

Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.​

US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life' – Telegraph Blogs

 

[rikules]

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.

not bothering to argue your nonsense i will just say......

can there be no doubt that repuiblican/conservative science would be even MORE fixed?



non-republican/conservative scientists/researchers start investigating a problem like this;

1. is global warming real?
2. let's investigate and see....


while republican/conservative scientists start like this;

1. global warming is NOT real
2. end of research

 

[mdn2000]

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.

Old Crock cut down the forest for twenty years and Old Crock speaks of intelligence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

I have peer reviewed this post and it's totally full of shit

 

[daveman]

Only a racist would have to ask

I don't think you're aware that the meaning of "racist" ISN'T "anything a leftist doesn't like".

For an "intellectual", you're pretty damn dumb.

 

[daveman]

Climate change?

Evolution?

Hard work?

The ability to think rational thoughts?

Independent thinking?

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

It's not only that liberals know more, it's that conservatives know less but are very sure of what they think they know. It's called faith v. science. Republicans, in general, believe what they are told and rail against anything which suggest Republcan dogma might be wrong.
There are certain 'truths' both sides hold immutable, for example a liberal/progressive and a conservative may both agree all men are created equal under the law, yet conservatives find it okay to find exceptions.
Examples you ask? Sure, gays and lesbians in terms of marriage and militry service; Scooter Libby, and the entire debacle of the DOJ under Gonzales and Goodling. Yet somehow Republicans find this consistent with a belief that all men should be treated equally before the law.
It is magical thinking, or conceret thinking, something inconsistent with the rigors of scientific enquiry and quite common in the thinking of most right of center.

Pointing to your own bigotry as proof of anything proves only that you're a bigot.

 

[mdn2000]

Bush was a great Scientist.

 

[daveman]

non-republican/conservative scientists/researchers start investigating a problem like this;

1. is global warming real?
2. let's investigate and see....

I believe you mean:

Non-Republican/conservative scientists/researchers start investigating a problem like this:

1. Global warming is real and is caused by man!
2. Let's manipulate and cherrypick the data to support our conclusion!

 

[mdn2000]

And all those Democrat scientist are busy trying to figure out if its getting cold or hot, day by day.

We need to cut off funding to the idiot Democrat-Scientists.

 

[rdean]

And all those Democrat scientist are busy trying to figure out if its getting cold or hot, day by day.

We need to cut off funding to the idiot Democrat-Scientists.

Then we wouldn't have any scientists at all.

 

[rdean]

Bush was a great Scientist.

To you I'm sure he was.

 

[rdean]

Yeah...Science.

US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society...It’s so utterly damning that I’m going to run it in full without further comment.

Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.​

US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life' – Telegraph Blogs

Shit
shit
shit

Read this:

Harold Lewis’ letter is an example of senility. At one time Lewis was a respected scientist, but he is now 87 years old and a victim of father time.

Some twenty years ago Lewis wrote a book on technological risk. Lewis stated:
“All models agree that the net effect will be a general and global warming of the earth; they only disagree about how much. None suggest that it will be a minor effect, to be ignored while we go about our business.”

“Yet, despite the complexity, the bottom line is that the earth will be substantially warmed by the accumulation of man-made gases, mainly carbon dioxide, and that warming could conceivably approximate the time of the dinosaurs.”

Science and the media: 9 - 15 October - Physics Today Politics and Policy

Get it? That was from his OWN BOOK!

Now, I love this part. It's so right wing Republican and conservative:

Another article reports that a newly released Republican policy document "is telling in both its emphasis and its omissions," in that the words tax, taxes, and taxpayer appear 56 times, and the words science, research, and education not at all.

Doesn't that sound Republican????? Seriously?

I love it when you guys give me new stuff to research. You help me to understand the Right Wing Conservative Republican Position better and better.

 

[Oddball]

Looks to me like he's seen the light and recanted.

You lose, again, Buckwheat.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's not only that liberals know more, it's that conservatives know less but are very sure of what they think they know. It's called faith v. science. Republicans, in general, believe what they are told and rail against anything which suggest Republcan dogma might be wrong.
There are certain 'truths' both sides hold immutable, for example a liberal/progressive and a conservative may both agree all men are created equal under the law, yet conservatives find it okay to find exceptions.
Examples you ask? Sure, gays and lesbians in terms of marriage and militry service; Scooter Libby, and the entire debacle of the DOJ under Gonzales and Goodling. Yet somehow Republicans find this consistent with a belief that all men should be treated equally before the law.
It is magical thinking, or conceret thinking, something inconsistent with the rigors of scientific enquiry and quite common in the thinking of most right of center.

Pointing to your own bigotry as proof of anything proves only that you're a bigot.

I'm not utterly intolerant of all conservatives, only the RW Fringe types like you.

 

[daveman]

It's not only that liberals know more, it's that conservatives know less but are very sure of what they think they know. It's called faith v. science. Republicans, in general, believe what they are told and rail against anything which suggest Republcan dogma might be wrong.
There are certain 'truths' both sides hold immutable, for example a liberal/progressive and a conservative may both agree all men are created equal under the law, yet conservatives find it okay to find exceptions.
Examples you ask? Sure, gays and lesbians in terms of marriage and militry service; Scooter Libby, and the entire debacle of the DOJ under Gonzales and Goodling. Yet somehow Republicans find this consistent with a belief that all men should be treated equally before the law.
It is magical thinking, or conceret thinking, something inconsistent with the rigors of scientific enquiry and quite common in the thinking of most right of center.

Pointing to your own bigotry as proof of anything proves only that you're a bigot.

I'm not utterly intolerant of all conservatives, only the RW Fringe types like you.

Well, at least you're proud of your bigotry.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Pointing to your own bigotry as proof of anything proves only that you're a bigot.

I'm not utterly intolerant of all conservatives, only the RW Fringe types like you.

Well, at least you're proud of your bigotry.

Not proud, I simply gave an honest response. I find you to be stupid, intolerant and self righteous.