Pew Poll: 6% of Scientists are Republicans

[Meister]

nevermind, i found it myself

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

and a lot claim to be independent as well

Why doesn't this surprise me?
The majority of independents lean to the left. But, they are starting to move from the Obama camp

Dream on.

Though his overall approval rating remains sturdy, President Obama is losing support among independents, particularly in swing states, polls show. “This is a huge sea change that is playing itself out in American politics,” says a Democratic pollster. Obama fell 6 points last week from the week before among independents, Gallup finds; Quinnipiac University cited a 5-point drop between June and early July, Politico notes.

A plurality of 48% of Ohio independents disapproved of Obama’s job performance in a Quinnipiac poll, while his overall approval rating among Ohioans fell 8 points over two months. “Independents who had become effectively operational Democrats in 2006 and 2008 are now up for grabs and are trending Republican,” says the pollster. But an Obama adviser noted that the president’s numbers were historically strong, citing a 59% approval rating in June among independents, according to Gallup.

Obama's Independent Support Wanes - Politics News Briefs | Newser
Old Rocks....you always prove what an idiot you are.

 

[Oddball]

I'm not saying they are a majority of the party or nowhere near. However, even the not so far right are a good chunk of the base.

I mean back in 1992 (the numbers would probably be much more higher now), Pat Robertson got over 1 million votes. There really has been no candidate to determine how much of the Republican party is FAR right since then.

Once again, you're defining "far right" as people who use classic coercion tactics of the left.

The context is irrelevant to the employment of the proactive use of aggression.

Ah yes, those evil "Lib bu rals". They think that just because they won an election they get to pass legislation. And they go out and get people to exercise their rights as citizens of this nation to vote. How Evil!

And then these horrible scientists, just because they are more intelligent than average, are mostly Liberal. Should be against the law, right? I mean coercing people to vote liberal by using logic. What a terrible thing to do. Give 'em God, Guns, and Gays, that is all that is needed!

Hey Dude, we are going to win again in 2010. Thank you, Sarah, and boys.

Sorry, my dingbat disgronifier is broken.

Anyone out there have any idea what this yo-yo is talking about??

 

[Meister]

Once again, you're defining "far right" as people who use classic coercion tactics of the left.

The context is irrelevant to the employment of the proactive use of aggression.

Ah yes, those evil "Lib bu rals". They think that just because they won an election they get to pass legislation. And they go out and get people to exercise their rights as citizens of this nation to vote. How Evil!

And then these horrible scientists, just because they are more intelligent than average, are mostly Liberal. Should be against the law, right? I mean coercing people to vote liberal by using logic. What a terrible thing to do. Give 'em God, Guns, and Gays, that is all that is needed!

Hey Dude, we are going to win again in 2010. Thank you, Sarah, and boys.

Sorry, my dingbat disgronifier is broken.

Anyone out there have any idea what this yo-yo is talking about??

I think he's trying to say..."we won, you lost, get over it." Either that, or he's saying he's gay, I dunno though, Old Rocks is a moron.

 

[Cecilie1200]

nevermind, i found it myself

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

and a lot claim to be independent as well

I know this is going to disappoint all the leftists gleefully dancing around right now, but I want to know their methodology. How did they define "scientist"? How did they go about finding these results? I'm going to assume they didn't talk to every single solitary person employed in a scientific capacity in the United States, so who DID they talk to? What exactly were the questions they asked? I didn't see any of this mentioned in the story.

I also find myself extremely skeptical of the "97% of scientists think the Bush Administration suppressed findings" result. All that entire section told ME is that scientists are like every other person in America: obsessed with their own importance, and hanging around with people similarly obsessed for the same reasons. Is it surprising that scientists hang out with each other and talk about how "persecuted" they are, versus non-scientists not caring enough to exchange conspiracy theories on the subject?

 

[Cecilie1200]

nevermind, i found it myself

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

and a lot claim to be independent as well

They are certainly more Liberal overall in the grand scheme of things. Again, how unsurprising. I think the #s for the for the Military question is interesting.

and thats to be expected
why?
because they know which side their bread is buttered on

And, like academics (who are also disproportionately leftist), they live their lives with a certain amount of insulation from reality.

 

[Meister]

They are certainly more Liberal overall in the grand scheme of things. Again, how unsurprising. I think the #s for the for the Military question is interesting.

and thats to be expected
why?
because they know which side their bread is buttered on

And, like academics (who are also disproportionately leftist), they live their lives with a certain amount of insulation from reality.

Exactly, they see life and studies as black and white, with no shades of gray. The real world is full of shades of gray, it's called intangibles.

 

[Cecilie1200]

and thats to be expected
why?
because they know which side their bread is buttered on

And, like academics (who are also disproportionately leftist), they live their lives with a certain amount of insulation from reality.

Exactly, they see life and studies as black and white, with no shades of gray. The real world is full of shades of gray, it's called intangibles.

It's amazing how life, the universe, and human nature flatly refuse to behave like the computer models, isn't it?

 

[DiveCon]

And, like academics (who are also disproportionately leftist), they live their lives with a certain amount of insulation from reality.

Exactly, they see life and studies as black and white, with no shades of gray. The real world is full of shades of gray, it's called intangibles.

It's amazing how life, the universe, and human nature flatly refuse to behave like the computer models, isn't it?

that tends to happen mostly because they enter in faulty data to begin with

 

[Old Rocks]

As a public high school teacher I have witnessed first hand the dumbing down of America. If libs continue this course of destruction only 6 percent of our scientists will consider themselves "American"

Given what you have posted, I would have to say the you are instrumental in the process of the dumbing down of America.

 

[Old Rocks]

God this board is awash in narrow minded assholes.

Well, yes. After all, Consevatives are legally allowed to express their 'thoughts'. It's written into the Constitution, your know.

 

[Old Rocks]

God this board is awash in narrow minded assholes.

Most Republicans are small business people and people who work with their hands. Most scientists are first of all acedemics, and know from where their bread is buttered as they depend on grants and academia for their funds.

What percentage of engineers are democrat vs republican? I would estimate that the preponderance are republican, because, in part they depend on for their work and associate mostly with business type people for their living.

Given the fact that I constantly work with engineers, I have not that high opinion of their competance. And a millwright does work with his hands. Most I know are moderately liberal, or extremely conservative. Doesn't seem to be much in between.

 

[Old Rocks]

.....

How high of an IQ must one have to be a carpenter?

A carpenter or a carpenter's helper? There is a huge difference in appearances; carpenter's helpers are seen to be just another carpenter. To rise in the ranks of carpenter's more intelligence is needed than you might suppose.
.

Silly asses. I am a Millwright, not a carpenter. Although I have a very high respect for competant carpenters. It is a differant set of skills and mindset.

 

[Old Rocks]

nevermind, i found it myself

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

and a lot claim to be independent as well

I know this is going to disappoint all the leftists gleefully dancing around right now, but I want to know their methodology. How did they define "scientist"? How did they go about finding these results? I'm going to assume they didn't talk to every single solitary person employed in a scientific capacity in the United States, so who DID they talk to? What exactly were the questions they asked? I didn't see any of this mentioned in the story.

I also find myself extremely skeptical of the "97% of scientists think the Bush Administration suppressed findings" result. All that entire section told ME is that scientists are like every other person in America: obsessed with their own importance, and hanging around with people similarly obsessed for the same reasons. Is it surprising that scientists hang out with each other and talk about how "persecuted" they are, versus non-scientists not caring enough to exchange conspiracy theories on the subject?

US scientists fight political meddling
Colin Macilwain & Geoff Brumfiel

Top of pageAbstractNobel laureate attacks government's suppression of research findings.

The rift between US scientists and the administration of President George W. Bush widened last weekend, as Nobel-prizewinning biologist David Baltimore used the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)in St Louis to denounce government suppression of scientific findings.


Access : US scientists fight political meddling : Nature

 

[Old Rocks]

Science under attack
Top of pageAbstractResearchers are increasingly upset with the Bush administration, not for its tactics but for its entire operational philosophy.

The highlight of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) last week was an impassioned session in which scientific leaders, including molecular biologist David Baltimore, made clear their views on the fraught relationship between science and the Bush administration.

The discussion was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists in the wake of revelations about how the administration's political appointees have sought to control the messages communicated by scientists to the public, including attempts by the NASA press office to muzzle climate scientist James Hansen (see page 896).

And judging from the response at a packed and emotional hall in St Louis, a great many US scientists now believe that the Bush administration is prepared not only to ignore scientific facts in making policy decisions, but also to suppress findings that conflict with its own priorities.

For Baltimore — Nobel laureate, outgoing president of the California Institute of Technology, president-elect of the AAAS, and arguably the most eminent voice in all of American science — events have reached a tipping point. He suggested that the Bush administration's approach to science stems from its adherence to a particular philosophy of government, that of a 'unitary executive'. Instead of resignedly shrugging their shoulders whenever such a case of scientific manipulation arises, Baltimore argued, scientists need to recognize the potency of the threat that this governmental philosophy represents to the long-cherished independence of US science.
Science under attack: Nature

 

[Old Rocks]

DAVID B. RESNIK

Freedom of Speech in Government Science

Since the early 1990s, researchers, scholars, journalists, and professional organizations have published hundreds of articles, books, and reports on the ethical problems related to industry-funded science, addressing such concerns as conflicts of interest, suppression of data and results, ghost authorship, and abuse of intellectual property laws. Although the investigative spotlight has focused on privatized science in the past 15 years, government science has received relatively little attention until recently. Three important publications—the Union of Concerned Scientists’ report Scientific Integrity in Policy Making, Chris Mooney’s book The Republican War on Science, and Seth Shulman’s book Undermining Science— have highlighted some of the ethical problems, such as limitations on free speech, politicization of scientific advisory panels, conflicts of interest, and bias, that can occur in government science.

According to Mooney, President George W. Bush’s administration has attempted to prevent government scientists from expressing their views about global climate change. James E. Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), said that public affairs staff members were reviewing his upcoming lectures, papers, media interviews, and Web postings. Hansen accused NASA administrators of trying to censor information that he planned to share with the public. NASA officials denied this accusation, claiming that Hansen’s public statements were not given special scrutiny and that all NASA scientists must have their media interviews reviewed by public affairs staff members to ensure coordination with the administration’s policy statements. Hansen countered that the administration was trying to intimidate him and that it had taken similar actions to prevent other researchers from communicating with the public about global warming.
Issues in Science and Technology, Winter 2008, Perspectives: Freedom of Speech in Government Science

 

[American Horse]

God this board is awash in narrow minded assholes.

Most Republicans are small business people and people who work with their hands. Most scientists are first of all acedemics, and know from where their bread is buttered as they depend on grants and academia for their funds.

What percentage of engineers are democrat vs republican? I would estimate that the preponderance are republican, because, in part they depend on for their work and associate mostly with business type people for their living.

Given the fact that I constantly work with engineers, I have not that high opinion of their competance. And a millwright does work with his hands. Most I know are moderately liberal, or extremely conservative. Doesn't seem to be much in between.

Rocks, I too have worked with engineers over a period of 35 years. Always the guys who did the physical work complained about the competence of the engineers, and architects. I just put it down as "penis envy". My experience was that they provided very accurate data to work from. Once a 3" error in a short road cut cost me about $3,000 to correct. I could've complained about "incompetence" after that, but it would've been based on that one incident, not many.

 

[xsited1]

6% of Scientists are Republicans.

...

As a scientist, I can vouch for that statistic. Most scientists have to rely on grants from public agencies to get paid. They're not stupid. If the money dries up, they lose their job. Think of it this way: if you were a government employee, who would you vote for? Would you vote for politicians who want to increase or decrease the size of government? It's a no-brainer.

Something else this study implies: many scientists have a liberal bias. Of course, this is to be expected since most get their funding from public grants and they certainly don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. There are a few (like myself) in private industry that would be more inclined to vote for smaller government, but most know who pays their salary. This is another reason why government employees should be kept to a minimum. Most will vote for politicians that will keep government programs alive so they can keep their jobs, even if those government programs are wasteful and unnecessary. And once the money runs out, the country goes bankrupt. Game over.

 

[bk1983]

God this board is awash in narrow minded assholes.

Most Republicans are small business people and people who work with their hands. Most scientists are first of all acedemics, and know from where their bread is buttered as they depend on grants and academia for their funds.

What percentage of engineers are democrat vs republican? I would estimate that the preponderance are republican, because, in part they depend on for their work and associate mostly with business type people for their living.

Only 10% of industry scientists aka private sector identify themselves as Republican. So whether they depend on Government funding or not scientist are overwhelmingly Democrats.

 

[American Horse]

God this board is awash in narrow minded assholes.

Most Republicans are small business people and people who work with their hands. Most scientists are first of all acedemics, and know from where their bread is buttered as they depend on grants and academia for their funds.

What percentage of engineers are democrat vs republican? I would estimate that the preponderance are republican, because, in part they depend on for their work and associate mostly with business type people for their living.

Only 10% of industry scientists aka private sector identify themselves as Republican. So whether they depend on Government funding or not scientist are overwhelmingly Democrats.

What a testament to the influence of the educational system during their formative college years and how far up they have their heads in the clouds rather than to giving a lot whole of thought to the 'down to Earth' problems facing Americans. And again I bring up Engineers as a comparably educated class; what about them?

 

[bk1983]

Most Republicans are small business people and people who work with their hands. Most scientists are first of all acedemics, and know from where their bread is buttered as they depend on grants and academia for their funds.

What percentage of engineers are democrat vs republican? I would estimate that the preponderance are republican, because, in part they depend on for their work and associate mostly with business type people for their living.

Only 10% of industry scientists aka private sector identify themselves as Republican. So whether they depend on Government funding or not scientist are overwhelmingly Democrats.

What a testament to the influence of the educational system during their formative college years and how far up they have their heads in the clouds rather than to giving a lot whole of thought to the 'down to Earth' problems facing Americans. And again I bring up Engineers as a comparably educated class; what about them?

I don't know if there is a poll for Engineers, but I wouldn't be surprised if the findings were similar to this poll on scientists.