Hilarious! 2300 top scientists ask Trump and GOP to respect science. Falling down laughing!

[rdean]

Why 2,300 Scientists Sent a Letter to the Trump Transition Team

ore than 2,300 scientists around the US have co-signed a letter written by the Union of Concerned Scientists to the incoming administration, including 22 Nobel Prize winners and former presidential advisors. It lays out the scientific community’s expectations for the next four years and beyond. They sent their missive to the Trump transition team.

The letter asserts key principles to how public policy and science should interact, including that federal agencies “be led by officials with demonstrated track records of respecting science as a critical component of decision making,” and that the administration ensures “our nation’s bedrock public health and environmental laws—such as the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act—retain a strong scientific foundation.”

Rosenberg remembers a similar fight for integrity during the Bush era, with concerns about manipulation of scientific evidence and advisory panels stacked with special interest groups. But

------------------------------------

Republicans’ belief in evolution declining

A similar fight for integrity during the Bush era? And how did that work out?

Integrity, Bush, Trump and the GOP are not words I would use in the same sentence. Come on USMB Republicans. Even you have to admit Republicans respecting science is laughable.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Read please don't cut our funding.......

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"We're counting on Federal Funding to support our consensus"

 

[DGS49]

Here's some science for you:

An embryo is HUMAN - a scientific fact. Even if you delay recognition of humanity to the time of viability (per Roe v. Wade), you are looking at 6 months or so of gestation until viability. Thus, aborting a late term pregnancy is taking a HUMAN life. What is the positon of these "scientists" on murder in the womb?

Except in extremely rare cases of biological deformity, gender is genetically determined and is not a "social construct" or a matter of personal choice. What is the position of these "scientists" on voluntary mutilation of individuals by professionals in the Medical community to support a neurotic and preposterous delusion about one's gender?

Even the most optimistic of "scientific" climate forecasters estimate that even FULL COMPLIANCE BY EVERY government on earth with the latest climate agreement would result in LESS THAN ONE HALF OF ONE DEGREE CELSIUS difference versus normal climatic warming over the remainder of this century. What is the opinion of these "scientists" on the tradeoff of the massive costs of changes to energy consumption versus the microscopic benefit? How many of them have participated in studies to ascertain the very real and observable BENEFITS of global warming (i.e., longer growing seasons, shorter and milder winters- less energy consumption, and so forth)?

Given the very real and demonstrable differences between men and women (size, strength, mass, temperament), what is their "scientific" opinion on the absurd pretense that women can be valuable combat soldiers and sailors?

Given the fact that species extinction is a normal and necessary process that has gone on for millions of years, what is the "scientific" opinion on the incredible economic costs of "preserving" "endangered species"?

Is it noteworthy that the vast majority of members of the Union of Concerned Scientists are academicians and government hacks who couldn't make it in the Real World? Nah.

 

[MisterBeale]

Read please don't cut our funding.......

Agreed.

But no contemporary has ever shown empirically that governments need fund science—the assertion has been made only on theoretical grounds. Remarkably, the one economist who did look at the question empirically found that the evidence showed that governments need not fund science, but his claim has been for a long time ignored, because he was notoriously a libertarian—and libertarians have no traction amongst the scholars, politicians, and corporate welfarists who dominate the field. In 1776, moreover, that economist supported a revolution, so he is not only outdated but he was, presumably, subversive of the social order.

Nonetheless, if only out of antiquarian interest, let’s look at what this empiricist reported. The evidence showed, he wrote, that there were three significant sources of new industrial technology. The most important was the factory itself: “A great part of the machines made use of in manufactures … were originally the inventions of common workmen.” The second source of new industrial technology were the factories that made the machines that other factories used: “Many improvements have been made by the ingenuity of the makers of the machines.” The least important source of industrial innovation was academia: “some improvements in machinery have been made by those called philosophers [aka academics.]” But our economist noted that that flow of knowledge from academia into industry was dwarfed by the size of the opposite flow of knowledge: “The improvements which, in modern times, have been made in several different parts of philosophy, have not, the greater part of them, been made in universities [ie, they were made in industry.]” Our empiricist concluded, therefore, that governments need not fund science: the market and civil society would provide.

Arguments for the subsidy of so-called public goods, moreover, were dismissed by our libertarian economist with: “I have never known much good done by those who have affected to trade for the public good.” In particular, arguments by industrialists for subsidies were dismissed with: “people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversions, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.” And our revolutionary underminer of the social order dismissed the idea that wise investment decisions could be entrusted to politicians, even to that nice Mr Obama, because he distrusted: “that insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesman or politician.”

Our long-dead economist recognized the existence of public goods, which he described as those “of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals”, but he could not see that scientific research fell into that category.


The economist in question was, of course, Adam Smith, whose Wealth of Nations from which these quotes were drawn was published in 1776. And he is indeed long-dead. Yet the contemporary empirical evidence supports his contention that governments need not support scientific research. Consider, for example, the lack of historical evidence that government investment in research contributes to economic growth.
The Case against Public Science

 

[rdean]

Noah's Ark is REAL human history.

It was at the Tower of Babel that some became black and some became asian.

The first man and woman was Adam and Eve.

The first gay was Steve.

 

[DGS49]

Good points, Mister Beale, and you might also note that spending on "science" is prohibited by the Tenth Amendment.

But the argument for government spending on science is that there are some potentially beneficial technologies that are too far removed from commercialization to attract private sector investment. Nuclear fusion being one example. Space exploration being another.

 

[rdean]

Read please don't cut our funding.......

Agreed.

But no contemporary has ever shown empirically that governments need fund science—the assertion has been made only on theoretical grounds. Remarkably, the one economist who did look at the question empirically found that the evidence showed that governments need not fund science, but his claim has been for a long time ignored, because he was notoriously a libertarian—and libertarians have no traction amongst the scholars, politicians, and corporate welfarists who dominate the field. In 1776, moreover, that economist supported a revolution, so he is not only outdated but he was, presumably, subversive of the social order.

Nonetheless, if only out of antiquarian interest, let’s look at what this empiricist reported. The evidence showed, he wrote, that there were three significant sources of new industrial technology. The most important was the factory itself: “A great part of the machines made use of in manufactures … were originally the inventions of common workmen.” The second source of new industrial technology were the factories that made the machines that other factories used: “Many improvements have been made by the ingenuity of the makers of the machines.” The least important source of industrial innovation was academia: “some improvements in machinery have been made by those called philosophers [aka academics.]” But our economist noted that that flow of knowledge from academia into industry was dwarfed by the size of the opposite flow of knowledge: “The improvements which, in modern times, have been made in several different parts of philosophy, have not, the greater part of them, been made in universities [ie, they were made in industry.]” Our empiricist concluded, therefore, that governments need not fund science: the market and civil society would provide.

Arguments for the subsidy of so-called public goods, moreover, were dismissed by our libertarian economist with: “I have never known much good done by those who have affected to trade for the public good.” In particular, arguments by industrialists for subsidies were dismissed with: “people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversions, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.” And our revolutionary underminer of the social order dismissed the idea that wise investment decisions could be entrusted to politicians, even to that nice Mr Obama, because he distrusted: “that insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesman or politician.”

Our long-dead economist recognized the existence of public goods, which he described as those “of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals”, but he could not see that scientific research fell into that category.


The economist in question was, of course, Adam Smith, whose Wealth of Nations from which these quotes were drawn was published in 1776. And he is indeed long-dead. Yet the contemporary empirical evidence supports his contention that governments need not support scientific research. Consider, for example, the lack of historical evidence that government investment in research contributes to economic growth.
The Case against Public Science

What's hilarious about Republicans, science and government is their determined ignorance.

Business funds scientific research to make money. So the science they study tends to be limited. Aimed at whatever they specialize in. Doing research from the bottom up is very expensive.

The company I retired from would pay a university to do research and design needed equipment since the company supported the Automotive and Aerospace industries. Of course, the piece of equipment was hardly manufacturable. And it took a team of 9 or so to design it. Not affordable. That's where the engineers came in. To take something developed in the lab and turn it into a production ready item. I worked on one where they put a reset button under a water tank, so you had to flip the whole thing over to hit the reset. A water purity sensor was between the pump and the tank. Impossible to wire or change. And it was huge. Where it wasn't crammed together, it was super spread out. When we finished, it was serviceable, sleeker and more efficient.

Other countries support their scientists. China, Russia and so on have massive government support for their scientific community. Because they aren't ignorant and understand the value.

Fucking Republicans are so stupid, they don't know what our scientists actually do. Can you imagine if they are allowed to massively cut funding science for this country what will happen? We truly will end up a third world country. We won't be able to protect our interests or our country. Troops on the ground with guns can't fight drones or modern technology.

But when I look at voter suppression and gerrymandering anti American Republicans I wonder where we are headed anyway. How can we promote liberty to the rest of the world when they promote suppression, ignorance and racism here?

 

[Iceweasel]

I hope they sent it on soft paper so Trump can wipe his ass on it. If the science is settle why do we need to feed the cottage industry of warmers?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I hope they sent it on soft paper so Trump can wipe his ass on it. If the science is settle why do we need to feed the cottage industry of warmers?

You're too fucking dumb to realize the answer.
Research into how it will develop in the future
Strategy to adapt from the warming and sea level rise.
etc

I don't expect a anti-science n!igger from some third world reality like you to consider and think about things.

 

[ScienceRocks]

And besides even if global warming was a complete scam, climate change is still a very real concern being that there's enough water in the glaciers, ice sheets and locked up on land to raise the sea level 230 feet. It should be studied,.,,,America is powerful because we study science and invest in tech...That is why we can call the Taliban a bunch of goat fuckers and talk about how powerful we're as a nation with great pride!!! It seems to me that you don't want to pay for that but want to do it. The world doesn't work that way.

 

[Votto]

Read please don't cut our funding.......

He should double their pay to find the gene that mutates into people becoming Dims.

2 can play at this game

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I hope they sent it on soft paper so Trump can wipe his ass on it. If the science is settle why do we need to feed the cottage industry of warmers?

You're too fucking dumb to realize the answer.
Research into how it will develop in the future
Strategy to adapt from the warming and sea level rise.
etc

I don't expect a anti-science n!igger from some third world reality like you to consider and think about things.

strategy to adapt from the warming and sea level rise?
ok, here's a start. Lighter clothing and move to higher ground.
I should get grant money for that.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

"We're counting on Federal Funding to support our consensus"

This post has been peer reviewed for consensus. Where do I sign up for my grant?

 

[Old Rocks]

Read please don't cut our funding.......

He should double their pay to find the gene that mutates into people becoming Dims.

2 can play at this game

It is not a game, you fucking bastard. It is our grand children's future. Not that you would ever give a damn, in any case.

 

[Old Rocks]

"We're counting on Federal Funding to support our consensus"

This post has been peer reviewed for consensus. Where do I sign up for my grant?

And we have another poster boy for willful ignorance. Perhaps if you had more than a third grade education, you would understand some science.

The sea level is rising, the world is getting warmer, oceans acidifying, and the ice, sea ice, polar caps, and glaciers, are melting. The inevitable consequence is going to be an abrupt climate change with some major surprises.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

And we have another poster boy for willful ignorance. Perhaps if you had more than a third grade education, you would understand some science.

The sea level is rising, the world is getting warmer, oceans acidifying, and the ice, sea ice, polar caps, and glaciers, are melting. The inevitable consequence is going to be an abrupt climate change with some major surprises.

Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

One of these days, the "tipping point" will get tipped. And if it doesn't we'll break out the Bekins truck and move those goalposts again.

GIGO.

 

[MisterBeale]

Read please don't cut our funding.......

Agreed.

But no contemporary has ever shown empirically that governments need fund science—the assertion has been made only on theoretical grounds. Remarkably, the one economist who did look at the question empirically found that the evidence showed that governments need not fund science, but his claim has been for a long time ignored, because he was notoriously a libertarian—and libertarians have no traction amongst the scholars, politicians, and corporate welfarists who dominate the field. In 1776, moreover, that economist supported a revolution, so he is not only outdated but he was, presumably, subversive of the social order.

Nonetheless, if only out of antiquarian interest, let’s look at what this empiricist reported. The evidence showed, he wrote, that there were three significant sources of new industrial technology. The most important was the factory itself: “A great part of the machines made use of in manufactures … were originally the inventions of common workmen.” The second source of new industrial technology were the factories that made the machines that other factories used: “Many improvements have been made by the ingenuity of the makers of the machines.” The least important source of industrial innovation was academia: “some improvements in machinery have been made by those called philosophers [aka academics.]” But our economist noted that that flow of knowledge from academia into industry was dwarfed by the size of the opposite flow of knowledge: “The improvements which, in modern times, have been made in several different parts of philosophy, have not, the greater part of them, been made in universities [ie, they were made in industry.]” Our empiricist concluded, therefore, that governments need not fund science: the market and civil society would provide.

Arguments for the subsidy of so-called public goods, moreover, were dismissed by our libertarian economist with: “I have never known much good done by those who have affected to trade for the public good.” In particular, arguments by industrialists for subsidies were dismissed with: “people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversions, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.” And our revolutionary underminer of the social order dismissed the idea that wise investment decisions could be entrusted to politicians, even to that nice Mr Obama, because he distrusted: “that insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesman or politician.”

Our long-dead economist recognized the existence of public goods, which he described as those “of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals”, but he could not see that scientific research fell into that category.


The economist in question was, of course, Adam Smith, whose Wealth of Nations from which these quotes were drawn was published in 1776. And he is indeed long-dead. Yet the contemporary empirical evidence supports his contention that governments need not support scientific research. Consider, for example, the lack of historical evidence that government investment in research contributes to economic growth.
The Case against Public Science

What's hilarious about Republicans, science and government is their determined ignorance.

Business funds scientific research to make money. So the science they study tends to be limited. Aimed at whatever they specialize in. Doing research from the bottom up is very expensive.

The company I retired from would pay a university to do research and design needed equipment since the company supported the Automotive and Aerospace industries. Of course, the piece of equipment was hardly manufacturable. And it took a team of 9 or so to design it. Not affordable. That's where the engineers came in. To take something developed in the lab and turn it into a production ready item. I worked on one where they put a reset button under a water tank, so you had to flip the whole thing over to hit the reset. A water purity sensor was between the pump and the tank. Impossible to wire or change. And it was huge. Where it wasn't crammed together, it was super spread out. When we finished, it was serviceable, sleeker and more efficient.

Other countries support their scientists. China, Russia and so on have massive government support for their scientific community. Because they aren't ignorant and understand the value.

Fucking Republicans are so stupid, they don't know what our scientists actually do. Can you imagine if they are allowed to massively cut funding science for this country what will happen? We truly will end up a third world country. We won't be able to protect our interests or our country. Troops on the ground with guns can't fight drones or modern technology.

But when I look at voter suppression and gerrymandering anti American Republicans I wonder where we are headed anyway. How can we promote liberty to the rest of the world when they promote suppression, ignorance and racism here?

The empirical evidence does not support your hypothesis. The United States did not become the world's scientific and technological leader because of government funding of science, it became that way because of the most free and emancipated people. Sorry buddy.

 

[rdean]

Read please don't cut our funding.......

Agreed.

But no contemporary has ever shown empirically that governments need fund science—the assertion has been made only on theoretical grounds. Remarkably, the one economist who did look at the question empirically found that the evidence showed that governments need not fund science, but his claim has been for a long time ignored, because he was notoriously a libertarian—and libertarians have no traction amongst the scholars, politicians, and corporate welfarists who dominate the field. In 1776, moreover, that economist supported a revolution, so he is not only outdated but he was, presumably, subversive of the social order.

Nonetheless, if only out of antiquarian interest, let’s look at what this empiricist reported. The evidence showed, he wrote, that there were three significant sources of new industrial technology. The most important was the factory itself: “A great part of the machines made use of in manufactures … were originally the inventions of common workmen.” The second source of new industrial technology were the factories that made the machines that other factories used: “Many improvements have been made by the ingenuity of the makers of the machines.” The least important source of industrial innovation was academia: “some improvements in machinery have been made by those called philosophers [aka academics.]” But our economist noted that that flow of knowledge from academia into industry was dwarfed by the size of the opposite flow of knowledge: “The improvements which, in modern times, have been made in several different parts of philosophy, have not, the greater part of them, been made in universities [ie, they were made in industry.]” Our empiricist concluded, therefore, that governments need not fund science: the market and civil society would provide.

Arguments for the subsidy of so-called public goods, moreover, were dismissed by our libertarian economist with: “I have never known much good done by those who have affected to trade for the public good.” In particular, arguments by industrialists for subsidies were dismissed with: “people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversions, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.” And our revolutionary underminer of the social order dismissed the idea that wise investment decisions could be entrusted to politicians, even to that nice Mr Obama, because he distrusted: “that insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesman or politician.”

Our long-dead economist recognized the existence of public goods, which he described as those “of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals”, but he could not see that scientific research fell into that category.


The economist in question was, of course, Adam Smith, whose Wealth of Nations from which these quotes were drawn was published in 1776. And he is indeed long-dead. Yet the contemporary empirical evidence supports his contention that governments need not support scientific research. Consider, for example, the lack of historical evidence that government investment in research contributes to economic growth.
The Case against Public Science

What's hilarious about Republicans, science and government is their determined ignorance.

Business funds scientific research to make money. So the science they study tends to be limited. Aimed at whatever they specialize in. Doing research from the bottom up is very expensive.

The company I retired from would pay a university to do research and design needed equipment since the company supported the Automotive and Aerospace industries. Of course, the piece of equipment was hardly manufacturable. And it took a team of 9 or so to design it. Not affordable. That's where the engineers came in. To take something developed in the lab and turn it into a production ready item. I worked on one where they put a reset button under a water tank, so you had to flip the whole thing over to hit the reset. A water purity sensor was between the pump and the tank. Impossible to wire or change. And it was huge. Where it wasn't crammed together, it was super spread out. When we finished, it was serviceable, sleeker and more efficient.

Other countries support their scientists. China, Russia and so on have massive government support for their scientific community. Because they aren't ignorant and understand the value.

Fucking Republicans are so stupid, they don't know what our scientists actually do. Can you imagine if they are allowed to massively cut funding science for this country what will happen? We truly will end up a third world country. We won't be able to protect our interests or our country. Troops on the ground with guns can't fight drones or modern technology.

But when I look at voter suppression and gerrymandering anti American Republicans I wonder where we are headed anyway. How can we promote liberty to the rest of the world when they promote suppression, ignorance and racism here?

The empirical evidence does not support your hypothesis. The United States did not become the world's scientific and technological leader because of government funding of science, it became that way because of the most free and emancipated people. Sorry buddy.

Perhaps we aren't actually as "free" as you want to believe.

North Carolina Is Engaging in “Insane” Jim Crow–Style Voter Suppression, Says Federal Judge

Trump has gotten nearly $3 billion in ‘free’ advertising

Will Trump's Muslim Ban Be Included in the GOP Platform?

Why Is the Media Ignoring Ted Cruz's Embrace of 'Kill the Gays' Pastor? | The Huffington Post

Donald Trump says he'd like to punch protester 'in the face' | Daily Mail Online

 

[MisterBeale]

Read please don't cut our funding.......

Agreed.

But no contemporary has ever shown empirically that governments need fund science—the assertion has been made only on theoretical grounds. Remarkably, the one economist who did look at the question empirically found that the evidence showed that governments need not fund science, but his claim has been for a long time ignored, because he was notoriously a libertarian—and libertarians have no traction amongst the scholars, politicians, and corporate welfarists who dominate the field. In 1776, moreover, that economist supported a revolution, so he is not only outdated but he was, presumably, subversive of the social order.

Nonetheless, if only out of antiquarian interest, let’s look at what this empiricist reported. The evidence showed, he wrote, that there were three significant sources of new industrial technology. The most important was the factory itself: “A great part of the machines made use of in manufactures … were originally the inventions of common workmen.” The second source of new industrial technology were the factories that made the machines that other factories used: “Many improvements have been made by the ingenuity of the makers of the machines.” The least important source of industrial innovation was academia: “some improvements in machinery have been made by those called philosophers [aka academics.]” But our economist noted that that flow of knowledge from academia into industry was dwarfed by the size of the opposite flow of knowledge: “The improvements which, in modern times, have been made in several different parts of philosophy, have not, the greater part of them, been made in universities [ie, they were made in industry.]” Our empiricist concluded, therefore, that governments need not fund science: the market and civil society would provide.

Arguments for the subsidy of so-called public goods, moreover, were dismissed by our libertarian economist with: “I have never known much good done by those who have affected to trade for the public good.” In particular, arguments by industrialists for subsidies were dismissed with: “people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversions, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.” And our revolutionary underminer of the social order dismissed the idea that wise investment decisions could be entrusted to politicians, even to that nice Mr Obama, because he distrusted: “that insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesman or politician.”

Our long-dead economist recognized the existence of public goods, which he described as those “of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals”, but he could not see that scientific research fell into that category.


The economist in question was, of course, Adam Smith, whose Wealth of Nations from which these quotes were drawn was published in 1776. And he is indeed long-dead. Yet the contemporary empirical evidence supports his contention that governments need not support scientific research. Consider, for example, the lack of historical evidence that government investment in research contributes to economic growth.
The Case against Public Science

What's hilarious about Republicans, science and government is their determined ignorance.

Business funds scientific research to make money. So the science they study tends to be limited. Aimed at whatever they specialize in. Doing research from the bottom up is very expensive.

The company I retired from would pay a university to do research and design needed equipment since the company supported the Automotive and Aerospace industries. Of course, the piece of equipment was hardly manufacturable. And it took a team of 9 or so to design it. Not affordable. That's where the engineers came in. To take something developed in the lab and turn it into a production ready item. I worked on one where they put a reset button under a water tank, so you had to flip the whole thing over to hit the reset. A water purity sensor was between the pump and the tank. Impossible to wire or change. And it was huge. Where it wasn't crammed together, it was super spread out. When we finished, it was serviceable, sleeker and more efficient.

Other countries support their scientists. China, Russia and so on have massive government support for their scientific community. Because they aren't ignorant and understand the value.

Fucking Republicans are so stupid, they don't know what our scientists actually do. Can you imagine if they are allowed to massively cut funding science for this country what will happen? We truly will end up a third world country. We won't be able to protect our interests or our country. Troops on the ground with guns can't fight drones or modern technology.

But when I look at voter suppression and gerrymandering anti American Republicans I wonder where we are headed anyway. How can we promote liberty to the rest of the world when they promote suppression, ignorance and racism here?

The empirical evidence does not support your hypothesis. The United States did not become the world's scientific and technological leader because of government funding of science, it became that way because of the most free and emancipated people. Sorry buddy.

Perhaps we aren't actually as "free" as you want to believe.

North Carolina Is Engaging in “Insane” Jim Crow–Style Voter Suppression, Says Federal Judge

Trump has gotten nearly $3 billion in ‘free’ advertising

Will Trump's Muslim Ban Be Included in the GOP Platform?

Why Is the Media Ignoring Ted Cruz's Embrace of 'Kill the Gays' Pastor? | The Huffington Post

Donald Trump says he'd like to punch protester 'in the face' | Daily Mail Online

Nice. You've really got your nose to the MSM beat for the fear mongering hyperbola, don't you? I thought we were talking about free markets, not divide and conquer fear porn.

Do you think you would be more free in Russia, China, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.? Or do you think regulations would be less onerous in Europe? Feel free to go do your science there.