Slashdot Mirror

Here are some statistics but only for 2002 to 2004 http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=796

Good idea. Stand out from that 40% majority! (see page 23 of the report)

From a perspective of having an informed populace, this is probably a good thing. A major aspect of local TV is local TV news which is just awful. Full of emotional strings, whether fear over the latest thing kids are doing, or heartwarming stories about a local cat, they have nothing substantial. And it shows. See for example this study http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/319.pdf which shows that people in the US who get their news regularly from local TV are less informed than any other group of people excepting the people who have no regular news source.

Notice that they're meteorologists. In other words, they study short term trends and don't have PhD-level understanding of ensemble averages and other techniques necessary to analyze long term trends. (Heck, they're TV personalities. They might not know more than how to wave their hands around a green screen.)

But sqrt(2) is right to say that most scientists agree that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a dangerous temperature increase. The percentage of scientists who agree with this statement increases with increasing relevance of the scientist's field.

Thanks for that comment. It inspired me to post a snippet of a similar conversation I had months ago, with your links and some others added:

Is it right, however, to lump together those who are skeptical of evolution with those who are skeptical of AGW, particularly CO2-driven AGW ?

Creationists confuse religious faith with falsifiable science. Among the general public, climate-change contrarians (and your average Greenpeace/PETA loony) confuse political affiliation with falsifiable science. In both cases, scientists are much less likely to agree with either claim, and that likelihood decreases with increasing relevance of the scientist's field. That's probably why both groups tend to accuse the scientific community of conspiracy and/or widespread incompetence.

At my blog, the following statement is both legible and has popup titles describing why that link was chosen. Here it is without the links first: "And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational levels."

And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational lev els.

Yes, a very reasonable analogy. Let's reminisce:

... Apparently you think *I* am an idiot. Try reading the goddamned thread. ... If you really don't want to be perceived as a "brainwashed idiot", maybe you could bother to figure out what the argument is about before you put in your irrelevant 2 cents. ... As for the rest, you are one of those lazy asses I mentioned. ... But you are too damned lazy to look any of them up? ... And yes, that to me means "brainwashed idiot". ... get off your lazy ass and LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!!! ... since you insist on being spoon-fed ... There are many more, very easily found, but I am not going to do your homework for you. Now go away. You disgust me. ... [Jane Q. Public]

... There's really no need to be so uncivilized. I'm just saying that all your posts on this subject clearly imply that scientists are either so stupid that they overlook trivially obvious "problems" with their own research, or are willing members in a global conspiracy. Based on your (mistaken) assumption that I haven't read this thread, I don't have to guess which of these alternatives you've chosen in my case. Pity. I bet conspirators get jetpacks!

And I most certainly do not think you're an idiot. At worst, I think you're making mistakes while talking about a highly advanced subject that lies far outside of your own professional experience. Everyone does that. It'd be a different story if I was saying that you were pathetically wrong about your own life's work... the subject that you've studied since childhood with the passionate intensity of a monk. I'd never insult you like that; at most I'd simply ask polite questions to try to understand your subject of expertise better. ... [Khayman80]

... I am not citing some "conspiracy theory", though I will admit that it may seem that way. Having a political agenda is not necessarily a "conspiracy". It is quite possible for groups of quite well-meaning people, given similar agendas, to appear to be conspiring when in fact they are not. On the other hand, some people might indeed be conspiring, or at least deviously planning: the companies Al Gore set up stand to make a grand fortune in trading carbon credits if caps are legislated. Some of those deals were in the works before he made his movie. ... [Jane Q. Public]

... Notice that I wasn't attempting to use my research to support any particular cause of climate change. I aimed that statement squarely at your conspiracy theory. You might be able to convince nonscientists that there's a massive conspiracy (unintentional or not) among scientists, and ironically any reference I produce to show that ~84% of scientists oppose your position would probably just solidify your belief in an evil conspiracy. My personal anecdote was only intended to show you that I've personally verified glacier melt through its effect on time-variable gravity above the glaciers in Greenland and Alaska. Because of this first-hand experience, I'm very skeptical that there's any large-scale incompetence or data manipulation in the scientific community. ... [Khayman80]

You're mis-stating the dynamics here.

First, it is very wrong to characterize the media by citing Fox. Overwhelmingly, the media (broadcast and print) has been sensitive to the issues of climate change and, quite pointedly, affirms the theories of AGW. In the U.S., I would cite CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, USA Today, and many others as all having editorial stances that are not simply sitting on the fence, but in fact, favoring IPCC findings. I regret that the dominant convention of "balanced reporting" does, as you indicate, give presence to poorly supported opposing positions. But in so doing, they've spared you an even worse fate: presenting more nuanced and well-supported counter positions instead of the poor ones as they do.

It is a fool who declares with certainty that warming is not occurring. And it is similarly a fool who declares with certainty that human born CO2 is not affecting climate. And yet, these are the "skeptics" that news organizations parade before us. Yes. Stupid "deniers". Perhaps if the news media presented the intelligent skeptics and the much narrower arguments that they are advancing, you would more readily acknowledge that the issues of global climate, particularly with respect to public policy and action, are not empirically deduced.

Second, per this Pew survey, only 33% of Americans believe global warming isn't happening. 57% state definitively that they believe it is. And, yes, only 41% believe with certainty that the warming is anthropogenic. Overall, I'd say that's not a bad cheering section for such a complex issue.

All that said, the focus on the deniers is a focus on the fools, and will not help you to understand why ground is being lost. It's being lost because the IPCC, many scientists, many politicians, governments, the news media (and you) are mixing science with politics, inferring public policy, and intimating that all this falls empirically from the tree of SCIENCE. Who is kidding whom? One need only read the IPCC's Summary for Policy Makers to witness this despicable breach of the borders of science. Imagine if an author of a study describing a clinical trial of the efficacy of a cholesterol-lowering drug published in his findings that people should take the drug. That would be absurd. The job of the scientist would be to report his methodology and results, perhaps showing a statistical correlation of mortality with the use of the drug. That's it. The scientist's job is done (and his integrity stands on the shoulders of the scientific method itself). Thereafter, it would be the job of pharmaceutical marketeers to use that information to get people to take the drug. The IPCC mixes the research with the marketing, and demonstrably blurs the lines between the two.

As a lifelong consumer of good science, and as a tireless advocate of the application of empiricism and rational thinking, I teach people that the IPCC is only partially related to the doings of science. I teach them to look skeptically upon its guidance just as they should look skeptically upon the guidance of a pharmaceutical advertisement. I teach them how to spot the differences between deduction and inference. And I use the IPCC's own work products to demonstrate where empiricism ends and uncertainty (and falsely certain statements) begins. I teach them to look for the measurements, to assess provenance, to demand the well-established traditions of discipline in methodology. I explain to them the limitations of simulation and the challenges of establishing causation.

Yes, you can swallow the conclusions of alleged experts. But that's dogma, and it's a poor substitute for looking behind the curtain, for there and only there is where you get to see and feel the true authority of science.

I find the theory of anthropogenic global warming to be very compelling. Having spent some time examining its basis, I am not feeling significant inclination to doubt its u

To those who modded this Flamebait: Ten media conglomerates control over 75% of the media in the U.S.A., and over 50% of the media in the world. But Fox "News" viewers are some of the worst-informed Americans. Who do we blame but the CEO? And why would we believe different standards would apply to any other media under his control?

As an aside, I was asked to download comment.pl the first time I clicked reply. Then I got a reset connection. Finally, I got a reply form. Coincidence? :)

You can throw out a statement like that and get modded "Insightful" but let's see if you can back it up with anything like reality.

Citation: Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions. Scroll down to the table "Knowledge Levels by News Source". It pretty clearly shows that CNN viewers are less informed than those of the Daily Show and Colbert Report.

P.S. We discussed this issue previously on slashdot. Oh, snap!

here.

I suppose you missed this study from 2007.

Of course, there's always the case of causation vs. correlation to consider. It's possible that it just happens that well informed people are the people most interested in watching the Daily Show, in fact, it might even be probably since if you don't know anything you probably won't get many of the jokes. Personally, I think it's a little of both.

The self righteous sanctimony and distain you have of what is CLEARLY more people than ABC/NBC/CBS and probably CNN combined is interesting ...

Someone already pointed out that this is an argumentum ad populum type of logical fallacy and so I will skip right to this:

I'd love to compare the literacy of say those that watch what is on those channels to that of what is on Fox News.

If by "literacy" you mean "knowledge about the current affairs", then ask and you shall receive.

From there: the 2nd least informed and most confused (about basic geographic, geopolitical and other everyday facts) class of viewers: Fox News Viewers. Beaten only by the Network Morning Shows, of the "How to make Cookies with Martha Stewart and 3 other bimbo celebrities" variety, firmly holding the rather dubious honour of being the dumbest audience ever.

Conversely, most informed audience: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Oops.

Somehow I do not think this is what you were looking for.

And the rest of the drivel you posted goes down hill from here, to the point that it is not even worth responding to.

According to a recent survey, about 10% of scientists believe that the current warming is natural, 4% believe there is no warming, and 84% believe the current warming is caused by humans. So, yeah, some scientists are skeptical of global warming.

But stop trying to count heads on each side of the debate. As I've repeatedly stressed in that last link, science isn't democratic. It's about evidence. When I see some convincing evidence against the existence of abrupt climate change, then I'll be interested.

And of course the IPCC doesn't conduct original research. They compile previously peer-reviewed research into reports that summarize the best scientific evidence available.

Many environmentalists do oppose nuclear power, but they're also knocking over AM radio towers because of the scary radiation. But it's not true that many scientists oppose nuclear power. From a recent survey:

... About half (51%) of Americans favor building more nuclear power plants to generate electricity, while 42% oppose this. ... More college graduates (59%) favor building nuclear power plants than do those with a high school education or less (46%). ... Seven-in-ten scientists favor building more nuclear power plants to generate electricity, while 27% are opposed. Among scientists, majorities in every specialty favor building more nuclear power plants, but support is particularly widespread among physicists and astronomers (88% favor). ... -- Pew Research Center

So it isn't true that many scientists oppose nuclear power. A minority of scientists oppose nuclear power, just like a minority thinks abrupt climate change isn't happening. Also, strangely enough, the scientists most likely to understand nuclear power are the ones most in favor of it.

I don't see how you correlate *many* environmentalists opposing nuclear power to *many* of them knocking over radio towers. Perhaps only when it fits your views?

There is a lot of, "people are stupid, they don't understand", but you think that 51% in favor are the smart ones? That certainly isn't an insignificant number. What does this mean, that many stupid people are in favor of nuclear power? If they don't understand it, then why should we care what they think?

Ah, college graduates... How does this correlate to the claims of decline of advanced degrees, especially in "science".

Seven-in-ten... Do they say what their sample size was? Was it ten? Was it ten from "scientists" working at a nuclear facility already?

Ah, physicists... they often deal more in theory than in reality. By reality I mean, making something work. Ask the engineers (civil, mechanical, electrical, and nuclear) how they feel about it since they are the ones who would be actually putting this thing together to work in the real world.

I am not saying I disagree with the possibility that nuclear could be the silver bullet of power (remember kids, there's no such thing as a silver bullet), but your rationale isn't convincing at all.

That is NOWHERE near a scientific consensus.

I only mentioned that survey because the article's claim was blatantly wrong. I've recently driven myself insane trying to explain to climate change "skeptics" that searching for a scientific consensus isn't the way to approach scientific topics because science isn't democratic. It's about evidence. Look into the advancements in technology over the last decades and examine the science yourself. Reprocessing dramatically reduces the volume of nuclear waste, while breeder reactors can generate new fuel. New reactor designs eliminate proliferation concerns by not generating plutonium. Pebble bed reactors eliminate the dependence on active safety systems by creating a nuclear pile out of spherical fuel "pebbles" that automatically react to higher temperatures by lowering their reaction rates. Uranium can be mined from seawater. Thorium can be used instead of uranium. Etc.

Try to understand why 88% of physicists think we should build modern nuclear power plants, rather than trying to count the scientists on each side. That's a topic that gets scientists bored very quickly. Focus on the science, it's much more interesting! But, since you seem fixated on counting heads, I'll answer your other question...

WHICH alleged scientists were polled in this survey? Maybe they polled a bunch of computer scientists instead of nuclear engineers.

The link you're looking for was on that page, off to the right: "About the survey." Here's an excerpt:

Results for the scientist survey are based on 2,533 online interviews conducted from May 1 to June 14, 2009 with members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A sample of 9,998 members was drawn from the AAAS membership list excluding those who were not based in the United States or whose membership type identified them as primary or secondary-level educators.

As you say, medical and biological scientists wouldn't know anything about nuclear power. And they polled 5x as many of those than physicists. But they specifically said that majorities in all specialties support nuclear power, while 88% of physicists and astronomers support it. They didn't poll any engineers because this was a survey aimed at scientists.

Yes, I agree: the fear surrounding Three Mile Island is based more on Hollywood than physics. The article makes at least one other mistake:

Many scientists and environmentalists still distrust nuclear power in any form, arguing that it can never escape its cost, safety and waste problems.

Many environmentalists do oppose nuclear power, but they're also knocking over AM radio towers because of the scary radiation. But it's not true that many scientists oppose nuclear power. From a recent survey:

... About half (51%) of Americans favor building more nuclear power plants to generate electricity, while 42% oppose this. ... More college graduates (59%) favor building nuclear power plants than do those with a high school education or less (46%). ... Seven-in-ten scientists favor building more nuclear power plants to generate electricity, while 27% are opposed. Among scientists, majorities in every specialty favor building more nuclear power plants, but support is particularly widespread among physicists and astronomers (88% favor). ... -- Pew Research Center

So it isn't true that many scientists oppose nuclear power. A minority of scientists oppose nuclear power, just like a minority thinks abrupt climate change isn't happening. Also, strangely enough, the scientists most likely to understand nuclear power are the ones most in favor of it.

I find it unnerving that you would dismiss creditable dissension to a closely held theory as something to do with democracy. Folks like Monsieur Allegre raise valid points that should be addressed and not swept under the carpet.

You're implying that science is democratic-- that it depends on the number of people who support a theory-- by continually emphasizing that there are "too many creditable people who argue against your point of view." But as I've argued over and over again, science is about evidence, preferably in peer-reviewed journal articles. I humored you by opening that non-peer-reviewed article, and didn't see any compelling evidence. All he mentions is Kilimanjaro's glacier, which I've already discussed in the article, and Antarctic ice mass, which is well known in the climatology community to be losing mass in the west and gaining it in the east.

It's wrong to consider science democratic, but if you really want to play that silly numbers game, consider that ~84% of scientists agree that abrupt climate change is happening, and that it's being caused by humans. Again, science isn't democratic! It's about evidence!

When it comes to the general public, this subject is quite similar to evolution or the reality of the moon landings.

The questioning of the moon landings comes from NO ONE with any credible scientific background, yet LOTS of credible (and credentialed) folks are questioning the work being done on global warming. Yet those good folks are being put in the same category as the loons who question the moon landings...incredible.

Notice that I said "when it comes to the general public." All you have to do is click on the article and notice how juvenile and repetitive all these arguments are. Then consider that I've tried to edit their responses so they look less crazy. For instance, compare my version of Stormcrow309's objections to the Slashdot original. I've seen exactly the same bizarre attitude in my conversations with creationists.

And again, your repeated emphasis on "LOTS" continues to imply that you think science is democratic. I've tried to convince you that science is actually about evidence. If you can find convincing evidence that these people have published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, then I'll read it. But please make sure that I haven't already addressed these issues in the article. So many people on this thread are rehashing issues that I've repeatedly debunked that I'm starting to wonder how Carl Sagan managed to talk to nonscientists without pulling all his hair out. Maybe that's why he died so early?

The Pew Research Center has little to do with reality.
How they choose to define "scientist" is relevant. That is, the population being sampled is one of the factors in what the results are. I'm guessing they oversampled university employees and people who receive government grants, who tend to be democrats, and undersampled people who use scientific method in their work, such as farmers.

According to the linked study, they used a sample of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and excluded those who resided outside the USA or whose membership was based on being primary or secondary level educators. Roughly half were in biological or medical fields, with the remainder in physical or earth sciences. http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1554

Given the poor quality of the questions in that poll, almost any results are possible.

On the subject of poor quality questions, one of the the questions to test the public's knowledge of science was

Electrons are smaller than atoms. (True/False)

46% of the general public said true and, at first, I was thinking that for more than half of the general public to not understand about atoms and electrons was a pretty poor showing.

But then I got to thinking about whether an electron is, in fact, smaller than an atom. Sure, the rest mass of an electron is much smaller than the rest mass of an atom. Maybe that's what the question was trying to ask. But the way the question is worded seems to imply a spatial size. When you're dealing with objects as light as electrons, the whole notion of size is non-intuitive (probability distributions described by wave functions).

Maybe they had their reasons for not simply asking whether an electron was more massive than an atom - or maybe whoever put the survey together some gaps in their own science education.

~20%, and if you look at demographics, people who self-identify as republicans are slightly less likely to have a college education, and much more likely to be rural, religious, conservative, and southern.

Besides, liberals (generally) don't mock the GOP - as distinct from conservatives - for having different views, we mock them for saying crazy things like "useless government spending on volcano monitoring," and "the solution to the financial crisis is less regulation of the financial markets." Reasonable people can disagree about the optimal size of government, but reasonable people don't shout that the solution to everything is tax cuts and less regulation.

Besides, your political party is redoubling efforts to woo the base, and that's how you guys lost the last election.

If you're a republican and more highly educated than me, that nearly guarantees you're a member of a shrinking demographic (white, male, and probably a boomer). It also means your concerns are not in line with the majority concerns, since, for example, you've probably had health insurance your entire life, and, what's more, you might even be about to enter the US's socialized medicine system (medicare). If I'm way off, you're an outlier, and outliers don't get anyone elected.

  FWIW I'd love to see a competent opposition party, but as long as your party decides that purity is more important than dialogue, and making noise about how Snowe and Collins should join Specter, the closer they come to becoming merely a regional party. I'm not short sighted enough to declare a permanent majority, but the writing is on the wall, the GOP needs to (a) find an issue that resonates (hint: not immigration, not tax breaks for rich white men), (b) find a rational leader (Steele wouldn't even be that bad if he'd stop apologizing to the likes of Limbaugh), and (c) stop pretending the culture wars are going to get republicans elected nation-wide (you finally beat that horse to death in 2004). Unless that happens the new opposition party might end up being the blue dog party.

creationism is very much a minority opinion amongst christians (in fact I've only ever met one who thought like that, and I've met a lot of christians over the years). The belief in a literal 7 days is something that historically would have been laughed at long before darwin. A few noisy fundies in the US don't get to choose what christianity is, no matter what you might want to think.

I'm sorry but what possible evidence other than the one anecdotal occurrence can you offer? I have statistics that show that creationism combined with 'god guiding evolution' is a shared belief by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Even if you remove 'god guiding evolution' from the equation the numbers believing in strict creationism are close to half of Americans believing in it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-07-evolution-debate_N.htm
Two-thirds in the poll said creationism, the idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years, is definitely or probably true.

http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=118
Surveys are also fairly consistent in their estimates of how many Americans believe in evolution or creationism. Approximately 40%-50% of the public accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life, while comparable numbers accept the idea that humans evolved over time. (But keep in mind that many people who believe in evolution in the U.S. think that god was making humans evolve).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspxGallupPollincreationismandevolutiontrendsfrom1982to2008.
Breakdown of creationism and evolution views between Bush and Kerry voters in 2008.

Looks like both daily news comedies have more knowledgeable audiences than anyone else.

Now, go back to watching the creepy dude cry. Fox News! When the facts don't match your ideology, we'll help you cope... with more misconceptions.

According to Pew 35% of National journalists self desribe themselves as liberal, 7% as conservative.

And thats just their admitted bias but in studies of voting patterns, of which there have also been many, journalist has consistently voted Democrat even when the vast majority of the populace has voted Republican, upwards of 80%. I'm running to a movie so here is a link referencing the other studies.

The 80% number is also pretty consistent with donation patterns among journalists as well as journalism professors.

And just to get back to the point, of all media sources the New York Times was the one rated as the most liberal by the journalists themselves, even those who refuse to admit their liberal ideology while only voting for the most liberal candidates.

So basically this just fits in nicely with all the studies that find that liberals have a harder time identifying liberal bias either externally or their own; some of which are linked above.

If it walks like a duck...

Sorry too much cutting and pasting on the way out of the office.

I think this was the link to the Pew study from above.

BTW, when you mention Fox News as a bad site for news, I'm willing to bet that your more misinformed then anyone who has ever viewed fox news. There hasn't been any studies claiming Fox news puts out erroneous information...

How about Pew Research Study which found that people who watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report are far more informed than the people who watch Fox News?

They found that 54% of the people polled who watch The Daily Show and Colbert Report score in the high-knowledge bracket while only 35% of Fox News watchers did.

I guess you didn't think there was a study because you watch Fox News. Oh snap.

I don't think i did or i still am haha. If a book was found to be wrong or misleading many times. Is poorly translated, filled with metaphor and poorly documented to begin with. Then why after seeing 20 things i know are wrong would i blindly trust other things in the book? I would count it as an unreliable source.... just like a known liar. Though i suppose the wording was a bit harsh. And i never thought you were religious, you said you studied its history which is really unlikely for a religious person to do.
 
Oh and just for you http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=254 .... it seems 6% of evangelicals and 1/3 of other christians believe in natural selection. So i doubt the number believing in a 6000year old earth will be 'very tiny' as sad as that may seem.

Maybe because that "quite a bit of support" has translated into zero electoral success? You can't blame the media for the voters rejecting Ron Paul in small elections (read: Iowa and New Hampshire) where he had the ability to campaign on an individual and town-hall level. I know it's popular in the Ron Paul camp to blame the media for all your woes but has it ever occurred to you that the voting public rejected his philosophy?

Are you kidding?

You can keep stating that all you want, but it doesn't make it any more true.

His philosophies were not heard and the only ones rejecting it were the main stream media outlets making the decision for you. The public was never given the opportunity to reject his philosophies. For that matter, the public was never given the opportunity to reject a handful of the other candidates philosophies either.

And do you really believe that the majority of voters travel to stump speeches to make up their minds about the candidate? This isn't the 1800s anymore - the vast majority form their opinion based on what they hear from TV, radio and print.

It's popular to blame the media because THEY are the entity that uses their power to shape public opinion. And they have, almost 100% of the time since day 1 of campaign coverage, excluded Ron Paul when listing/talking about the candidates. The have, since the beginning, called him and his supporters names and stated he has no chance.

Yet you think I'm unjustified in saying that these actions don't have any impact on popular opinion?

You are naive:

• In July 2007, George Stephanopoulos began the trend of telling Ron and his supporters that he had no chance This has been repeated almost every time Ron has received mention since.
• In July of 2007, the PEW Research Center published a report on "candidates heard about in the media" and Ron hadn't been mentioned enough in the media to even register outside the 4% Other cantegory. Journalism.org has done numerous studies since then showing Ron has recived 0% or <0.5% of media coverage.
• In August 2007, ABC manipulates preception of numbers of Ron Paul street supporters as compared to Romney suppoters outside the GOP debate (a debate which he was almost excluded from until public outcry)
• In August 2007, Ron received 9.1% of the vote in the Iowa Ames staw poll, yet FOX broadcast the results excluding Ron and listing candidates who scored LESS. Thankfully, the New York Times got it right ... at least on the internet, where you're at least likely to find SOME poisitive (albiet buried) positive coverage. Such as the "internet only" interviews with Ron that ABC published as opposed to on broadcast television alongside their other candidate interviews
• In December 2007, MSNBC regularly listed the candidates and excluded Ron Paul. This trend continues amongst all media outlets to this day.
• In January 2008, Ron was excluded from the FOX Forum before the New Hampshire primary because "there was not enough room at the table" despite the fact that Ron had garnered THREE TIMES as many votes as Guiliani in Iowa and later went on to score more than NINE TIMES the number of votes of Fred in New Hampshire -- both of which were invited.
• Before Super Tuesday, there was literally no coverage of Ron Paul and when he did win 2nd place in Montana it was largely ignored (just like his 2nd place wins in Nevada and Louisiana)
• On February 4th, papers around the country ran a

Ok, troll, 69% can name the vice president. It's a sad number, but far higher than your proposed 11%. And you're going to claim to know where I get my news? I can easily guess where you get yours.

I also find it quite amusing how you think all these polls and stats you state are so accurate that you can claim 8% support for impeachment. You actually may be more out of touch with reality than the White House.

Found one! Read this poll on global warming opinions. I find it very interesting that 32% of Republicans feel that there is no solid evidence that the earth is getting warmer (which of course, it is). I don't think this shows traditional Republicans are dumber or less informed. I typically find the opposite to be true. I think it shows the influence of the Religious Right. But, that's just my unscientific speculation... it could be that they are simply listening to Rush and GW, and are simply mis-informed and ignorant of the fact.

The different brands of social conservatives make up about 20%; secular, anti-war liberals make up about 17%. The political landscape in both parties is actually quite diverse, but lately the Democratic party tends to foster more public debate within the party while the Republican campaign agenda has pretty much been ruled by the religious loony-tunes in the last ten years -- that "majority" is silent no more.

I've always wondered why McCain lets a bunch of red-necks in South Carolina decide the fate of the party. Nation-wide, the supply side Republicans probably out-number the values police. He just needs to get them engaged in the primaries. The backlash against the evangelical branch of the party is coming -- just look at what's happened in Kansas politics in the last couple years.

Your entire assumption is based on the flawed premise of a binary state.
A quick search came up with this where 60% of Americans were
affiliated with D/R in '03. This does not mean that the other 40% are "undecided."
Ever heard of the Green Party? Or Libertarians? What about the Prohibition Party?
(Yes they are still around) As Shakespeare put it: There are more things in heaven
and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy.

This is an interesting hypothesis, but it is not supported by the data concerning party affiliation. According to Pew Research data, there are more Democrats than Republicans in every age category except 30-49. In fact, the spread (in favor of more Democrats) increases with age.

You misread my post, and you misread my arguments.

I did *not* claim that the Democratic Party, or that CNN or the NYTimes, disagree with the American public on all 6 of the listed issues. I *did* claim that the Democratic Party, CNN, and the NYTimes take the same position on all 6 issues. I stand by that claim.

Your response was that CNN and NYTimes take the position of the majority of Americans on those issues. My response was that, no, on the issues of abortion and homosexual marriage, they do not. My response was, intentionally, limited to those two issues alone.

Somehow, you mutated my response to make it seem that I stated that CNN and NYTimes take a different position from the majority of Americans on all six issues. I did not state that and do not believe that.

Specifically, I have never said anything that would justify your blanket assertion that I have a "belief that the Democratic Party is "out of the mainstream" with America on [the issues I chose] ..." Contrary to your assumption, my belief is that the Democratic Party represents American opinion well enough to be a viable party in America. The same is true of the Republican party.

I will assume that your misreading occurred in good faith.

Now. With regard to abortion, consider this set of polls from the same Pew Research site you used, which shows that 66% of Americans want abortion to be either more restricted than it is currently, or even illegal under most or all circumstances (1nd poll on right).

With regard to homosexual marriage, the 1st poll on the right from the same site shows 56% opposition to 35% support.

The numbers are clear, and they support my claim: CNN, the NYTimes, and the Democratic Party disagree with the majority of Americans on *these two issues.* Hence, your original claim that CNN and NYTimes reflect the opinions of Americans on the listed issues is factually false.

With regard to my .sig, your understanding of the word "function" is odd. Someone with Down's syndrome is a functioning organism, as is someone with a viral infection. They don't necessarily function well ... but they function as organisms. Hence, they are human beings.

Actually, I've put a lot of careful thought into the question "What is a human being?" The .sig reflects that thought, and I would encourage you to be a little less hasty in your rejection of it.

1. Abortion: Most Americans are against abortion bans like South Dakota's. And the counterpart to your "mugged liberal" poly sci is the reality that people oppose abortion until they need one, or someone they know needs one. Then they want a legal one.
   
2. Stem cell research: The 88% of Americans who have a stemcell opinion want research 2:1 over protecting the blastocysts (even when they're called "embryos").
   
3. Homosexual rights: 51%, not really a majority within the poll's MoE, oppose gay marriage, but down from its peak in 2/2004, from 2:1 to 1:1.
   
4. Health insurance: I don't know what the "Democratic Party line" is on health insurance, but it's a safe bet that Americans want more and better, despite the past 6-12 years of insurance companies getting anything they want from the "Conservative" government.
   
5. Gun violence and gun control: Gun rights/privileges/control is too complex to reduce to a single "party line", but most Americans favor more gun control than we have today, and Democrats seems to also favor more gun control. The entire issue is totally distorted within and beyond its boundaries, and no party or population has a consistent position that people will like, let alone probably work.
   
6. Religious conservatives: again, that's not an issue, and I don't know what the "Democratic Party line" is, but I think the American opinion is "nobody can tell me what to believe, or what to do merely because of their own unproveable faith".
   

1. Abortion: Most Americans are against abortion bans like South Dakota's. And the counterpart to your "mugged liberal" poly sci is the reality that people oppose abortion until they need one, or someone they know needs one. Then they want a legal one.
   
2. Stem cell research: The 88% of Americans who have a stemcell opinion want research 2:1 over protecting the blastocysts (even when they're called "embryos").
   
3. Homosexual rights: 51%, not really a majority within the poll's MoE, oppose gay marriage, but down from its peak in 2/2004, from 2:1 to 1:1.
   
4. Health insurance: I don't know what the "Democratic Party line" is on health insurance, but it's a safe bet that Americans want more and better, despite the past 6-12 years of insurance companies getting anything they want from the "Conservative" government.
   
5. Gun violence and gun control: Gun rights/privileges/control is too complex to reduce to a single "party line", but most Americans favor more gun control than we have today, and Democrats seems to also favor more gun control. The entire issue is totally distorted within and beyond its boundaries, and no party or population has a consistent position that people will like, let alone probably work.
   
6. Religious conservatives: again, that's not an issue, and I don't know what the "Democratic Party line" is, but I think the American opinion is "nobody can tell me what to believe, or what to do merely because of their own unproveable faith".
   

1. Abortion: Most Americans are against abortion bans like South Dakota's. And the counterpart to your "mugged liberal" poly sci is the reality that people oppose abortion until they need one, or someone they know needs one. Then they want a legal one.
   
2. Stem cell research: The 88% of Americans who have a stemcell opinion want research 2:1 over protecting the blastocysts (even when they're called "embryos").
   
3. Homosexual rights: 51%, not really a majority within the poll's MoE, oppose gay marriage, but down from its peak in 2/2004, from 2:1 to 1:1.
   
4. Health insurance: I don't know what the "Democratic Party line" is on health insurance, but it's a safe bet that Americans want more and better, despite the past 6-12 years of insurance companies getting anything they want from the "Conservative" government.
   
5. Gun violence and gun control: Gun rights/privileges/control is too complex to reduce to a single "party line", but most Americans favor more gun control than we have today, and Democrats seems to also favor more gun control. The entire issue is totally distorted within and beyond its boundaries, and no party or population has a consistent position that people will like, let alone probably work.
   
6. Religious conservatives: again, that's not an issue, and I don't know what the "Democratic Party line" is, but I think the American opinion is "nobody can tell me what to believe, or what to do merely because of their own unproveable faith".
   

Yea and then you are going to push to outlaw it state by state. Don't BS anyone, you would still completely lose it on the subject if its legal any place in the U.S.

I will lobby to have it criminalized in my state. People in other states would be free to decide for themselves.

When it comes to wars the number of innocent civilians killed, women, pregnant women, children and babies is always staggering. If you really cared about "innocent" life you would be opposed to war too unless they were really about self defense and in America they seldom ever are about that.

I am opposed to the Iraq war. I was opposed to the first one too. I was also opposed to US military action in Kosovo, Somalia, and Haiti. If I had been born earlier, I would have opposed Vietnam & Korea too.

The number of instances for your scenario, where people use guns to successfully defend themselves from attack is tiny.

Only when you skew the numbers. Privately owned firearms are used as many as 2.5 million times per year to prevent crimes in the US. This number comes about when you include times when criminals are not only killed, but threatened or shot at but not killed.

Either you have your gun locked away so your kids can't get it in which case it will probably do you no good if you are suddenly attacked or attacked away from home, or you have a loaded gun under your pillow or your jacket in which case its far more likely to kill someone in your family than an imagined boogie man.

There are quick open safes that one can use that would allow quick access to a firearm while protecting children.

Me personally I think gun law in this country is fine and I really can't see why people like you froth at the mouth over it.

We're close to ideal. I think that the 1968 law was the best balance of rights and responsibilities that we are likely to formulate.

Maybe you could quote a poll or statistic showing that. This is the best unbiased polling I can find on the subject but it doesn't break out men and women. The only women who really matter on the subject are the 1 million plus who get an abortion every year and who are spared an unwanted child or the devastation of their education or career.

Stats you want, stats you get.

Unfortunately for you, every member of society gets to express their opinion on the matter.

The key thing to draw from this vast battery of polls is pro-choice outnumbers pro-life by a wide margin like 51 to 39%

From your cite.

The CBS poll indicates that 68% favor greater restrictions on the practice. 51% favor legal abortion in cases of rape/incest/save the mother's life or never.

You are in fact in an insignificant minority despite your delusions of grandeur. If people were voting based purely on abortion the Democrats would be winning hands down.

If, If, If...If you could shoot eggs out of your rear end you would be a chicken. The fact of the matter is that abortion is one of many issues that people base their votes on. For me it's an important issue. For millions of others it is equally important. We're the margin needed to put prolife candidates over the top.

Small, but passionate blocks of voters are the bread and butter of the American political process. It's often said that the squeaky wheels get the grease. That's the case here. Sure, most voters may not care much one way or the other but because passionate groups DO care someone will cater to them. Both parties are beholden to special interest voters, because without us they would lose. Why do you think that the Republican establishment worked so hard against McCain? Because they knew that a McCain victory in the primary election would have guaranteed a Democrat win in the general election. McCain is actually not too bad on my issues, but other Republican blocks would have abstained from voting.

Remember when the D

We live in a nation where 45% of eligible voters believe the world is 6000 years old
No, we live in a nation where people can make shit up and get modded insightful.

This page has a pretty good analysis of quite a few polls surrounding this issue: Reading the Polls on Evolution and Creationism. A choice quote:

Surveys are also fairly consistent in their estimates of how many Americans believe in evolution or creationism. Approximately 40%-50% of the public accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life, while comparable numbers accept the idea that humans evolved over time. The wording of survey questions generally makes little systematic difference in this division of opinion

I'll even create a URL for you because I know how incompetent you are.
Here. It's a lot of words though so you are going have to read OK? I'll pull out a quote for you.

"Liberals have the highest education level of any typology group 49% are college graduates and 26% have some postgraduate education. But the Enterprisers also include a relatively high percentage of college graduates (46%), although fewer Enterprisers than Liberals have attended graduate school (14%).

Pro-Government Conservatives stand out among Republican groups for their modest incomes. About half (49%) have annual household incomes of less than $30,000; just 13% of Enterprisers and 26% of Social Conservatives have incomes in that range. Pro-Government Conservatives' annual household incomes are comparable to those of Disadvantaged Democrats and Bystanders, and much lower than those of other GOP groups.

Huge disparities in education also divide both Democratic and Republican typology groups. Just 13% of Disdvantaged Democrats have completed college (9% college grads, 4% postgraduate), compared with nearly half of Liberals. Educational differences between Liberals and Conservative Democrats are nearly as large (49% vs. 16%).

Among Republicans, just 15% of Pro-Government Conservatives have completed college, compared with 45% of Enterprisers. There also are wide disparities in education among the three independent groups, with Upbeats (37%) far more likely to have completed college than Bystanders (13%) or Disaffecteds (11%). "

That's from the Pew research center. There are more if you want to read about it.

So you are still convinced that I am the same killjoe that is playing those games huh? Good for you. You don't let any logic enter into your brain at all. Keep your wilfull ignorance. You are going to need it when you vote.

Finally I am glad the republitard meme is catching on. The world needs less people like you and the best way to do that is to shine a light on your kind.

Liberals insist you think the way they think because they are smarter than you.

"Pluralities of suburbanites, Protestants, married people, and those from households with incomes of $30,000 or more also self-identify as Republican. This reflects the Republican party's "main street" advantage. In contrast, the Democratic party is more attractive to less wealthy and minority segments of the electorate" http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?Repor tID=124

There isn't a singluar chart to draw the comparison form, but you can see here http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/gd-index.htm the conservative vote consolidates with wealth and education. Educators may be more inclined to be liberal, but that's hardly a suprise, considering they went from living with their parents, to going to university on student loans, to going to a teaching position at the university, to tenure. Wow, straight from mom's tit to the government's tit, I'm impressed.

"and thus necessitate giving up fundamental freedoms we have never given up before) than during the Revolutionary War, Civil War, 1812, WWI, WWII, Cold War..."

From that quote alone, I can tell you bypassed the 'individual thinking' and 'higher education' you so loftily exhalt. For starters, it doesn't even make sense. (before than during???) Regardless, I tried to respond.

World Wars = Oh, your parents are japanese? You're under arrest. Whoops! Come back here Mr. Free press, you can't run that story. Almost thought you'd get away from the Office of Propaganda and Censorship didn't you? Hey you across the street, come grab a rifle and travel around the world for a war, there's even a 32% chance you'll survive!
Oh yeah, we're really sacrificing for this war because the NSA could *GASP* intercept your phone call when you talk about how much you support Hamas.

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.[NOPE]

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;[NOT EXACTLY, but arguable]

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;{DEFINATELY NOT]

(c) That of carrying arms openly;[WELL, IN SOME CASES... but telling a retarded kid to drive a truck somewhere and remotely detonating it is arguably underhanded]

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.[NOPE]

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.[NOPE]

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.[NOPE]

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.[NOPE.]

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. [NOPE, nothing spontaneous about the "insurgency"]

***"Now, as to the media leaning left, you have to be kidding me. Show me any real study and the result, coward."

Something like 90% of the Washington press corp votes Democrat, and twice as many self-identify as liberals as the general population.

Here is at least one poll of journalists that you could find for your self if you really wanted to know the answers to your questions.

And another, showing that they are way to the left of the general public on the Iraq war. Furthermore, if you don't trust the journalist themselves, the public, by a 5:3 margin perceives the media as being biased to the left. This margin handily exceeds the margin by which the public self-identifies as conservative (not to be confused with Republican).

Article

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.[NOPE]

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;[NOT EXACTLY, but arguable]

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;{DEFINATELY NOT]

(c) That of carrying arms openly;[WELL, IN SOME CASES... but telling a retarded kid to drive a truck somewhere and remotely detonating it is arguably underhanded]

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.[NOPE]

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.[NOPE]

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.[NOPE]

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.[NOPE.]

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. [NOPE, nothing spontaneous about the "insurgency"]

***"Now, as to the media leaning left, you have to be kidding me. Show me any real study and the result, coward."

Something like 90% of the Washington press corp votes Democrat, and twice as many self-identify as liberals as the general population.

Here is at least one poll of journalists that you could find for your self if you really wanted to know the answers to your questions.

And another, showing that they are way to the left of the general public on the Iraq war. Furthermore, if you don't trust the journalist themselves, the public, by a 5:3 margin perceives the media as being biased to the left. This margin handily exceeds the margin by which the public self-identifies as conservative (not to be confused with Republican).

Article

>My viewpoint is this: evolution theory is valid. But not quite to the extent that most people caught up in it think.

It's the not case that most people who believe in evolution don't believe God was involved. Here are some results from polls questioning Americans on the matter. In a recent (2004) Gallup poll listed 13% as believing in evolution without God and 38% as believing in evolution guided by God.

Evolution doesn't argue against God's existence, only against creationism, though of course most atheists will make the next step and say it means God is "less neccessary" to our world-view, I'm an atheist and I'd agree with that (though I don't think it is actually in support of God not existing).

At any rate, I don't think the submiter was attacking religious people, he was just saying that since most of his friends are both educated and atheist then he wouldn't know many people in the 39% who believe in creationism/ID (I know educated atheists that aren't totaly sure, but none who actually support creationism/ID).

How about this? Or this? Or this? Or this?

You might have read it in the article "No Joke: Daily Show Viewers Follow Presidential Race, or maybe here (in the Comedy Shows Matter section), or maybe in this transcript from a Bill Moyers interview with John Stewart.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageI D=758


A majority of the public supports an antiterrorism measure that would require all citizens to carry a national identity card at all times to show a police officer upon request. But support is lower now than in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Just over half today (56%) support the idea, while 40% oppose it. In mid-September 2001, 70% were in favor. Opinion about this issue does not break cleanly along partisan or ideological lines.

Republicans (60%) and Democrats (59%) both support the idea of a national identity card, while independents are somewhat less supportive (52%). Conservative Republicans (at 58%) are a bit less enthusiastic than moderate-to-liberal Republicans (65%); liberal Democrats (at 50%) are less supportive than conservative and moderate Democrats (63%). College graduates are split on the idea, while more than six-in-ten of those who did not go to college favor ...

It's scary, really. Basically only 26% of those polled actually believed Darwin.

To me, it seems a bit odd that you chose that statistic. Consider the original report. It says:

Life on earth has:
* Existed in it's present form from the beginning ot time: 42%
* Evolved over time: 48%
* Don't know: 10%

Granted, some people believe evolution was guided by God, but if they're Christians (and there are a lot of christians in the US), that seems like a fine way to reconcile scientific fact with thier beliefs.

What I thought was interesting was that a clear majority thought republicans were more likely to protect religious values while democrats were more likely to protect individual freedoms.... and the people who hold these views elected a republican president.

It's an interesting study, and I advise anyone interested to look at it.

Michael

Life on Earth has :

Existed in its present form since the dawn of time : 42%
Evolved over time : 48%
        Guided by a supremem being : 18%
        Guided by natural selection : 26%
        Don't know : 4%
Don't know : 10%

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?Repor tID=254

Results for this survey are based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International among a nationwide sample of 2,000 adults, 18 years of age or older, from July 7-17, 2005. For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. For results based on Form 1 (N=1,000) or Form 2 (N=1,000) only, the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

From the poll: Even many who are politically liberal and who believe in evolution favor expanding the scope of public school education to include teaching creationism....John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of American pragmatism..

So...Teach it all, and let the kids figure it out. Public School is not just a 13 year long science class.

Teach evolution as an explanation of natural selection in science class where it's appropriate. And teach creationism, ID, and other theories (including evolution) in other classes where it's appropriate. A well rounded education includes exposure to history, religion, literature and philosophy.