Study Highlights Gap Between Views of Scientists and the Public

ZeroSerenity was one of many to write with news of a survey from the Pew Research Center which sought to find out how Americans feel about science and contrast that with the opinions of actual scientists. The study showed that "nearly 9 in 10 scientists accept the idea of evolution by natural selection, but just a third of the public does. And while 84% of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, less than half of the public agrees with that." 27% of the respondents said that the advances of the US in science are its greatest achievement, down from 44% ten years ago. The study is lengthy, and it contains many more interesting tidbits. For example: scientists decry the level of media coverage given to science, and they also think research funding has too much influence on study results. 32% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55% say they're Democrats and 6% say they're Republicans.

Comments

55% say they are Democrats

[BadAnalogyGuy]

We always try to keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation, but if that is so, what does the "55% of scientists are Democrats" statistic mean?

And if we also look at global warming with the same critical eye, can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation?

I'm not a global climate change denier. There is definitely something going on. Whether it is caused by humans or not, it doesn't really seem to matter. Let's focus on making this place a nice place to live. Clean air, clean water, clean land. These are things no one is going to argue with. Let's start making this a better world for you and for me.

Re:55% say they are Democrats

[drinkypoo]

And if we also look at global warming with the same critical eye, can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation?

The story is about science but English is still important. The statement in the fine summary (Way too lazy to RTFA before coffee) says that scientists believe that humans are warming the earth, it doesn't say humans are the only thing warming the earth.

I'm not a global climate change denier. There is definitely something going on. Whether it is caused by humans or not, it doesn't really seem to matter.

FAIL! Just looking at CO2 alone, humans put somewhere between twice and an order of magnitude more CO2 into the atmosphere than volcanism. Since it's easy to see using physics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we KNOW that CO2 released from volcanism is a significant heater (we can observe the localized effects intensely) then we KNOW that humans are a significant source of CO2, let alone all the other things that we make that nature never will.

Re:55% say they are Democrats

[Nasarius]

And if we also look at global warming with the same critical eye, can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation?

Oh, for fuck's sake.

1. We, humans, are pumping over 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.
2. A corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been observed.
3. The interaction of CO2 with IR radiation is well-established and well-understood by anyone with an understanding of simple chemistry.

Which point, exactly, is in dispute?

Re:55% say they are Democrats

[Biogenesis]

Clean air, clean water, clean land. These are things no one is going to argue with.

Unless cleaning up your act will cost you a lot of money, or you make a lot of money selling pollutants like oil.

At least we have the history of CFCs to look back on as an example of how to clean up effectively. It's such a shame that CO2 is a) harder to avoid producing and b) more difficult to blame than CFCs were.

Re:55% say they are Democrats

[Vellmont]

what does the "55% of scientists are Democrats" statistic mean?

From a purely scientific viewpoint, it doesn't really "mean" anything without more information. I could come up with a whole slew of theories to explain this statistic, but they'd all be extremely speculative since it's just one piece of information.

The only thing it might mean (if the sample is accurate) is that the Republican party is extremely unpopular among scientists at the moment.

can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation?

My understanding is we have a mechanism, a model, and a lot of evidence that shows global warming is caused by us. Where did you get the idea that it was ONLY a correlation?

Re:55% say they are Democrats

[bunratty]

If the world has been cooling for the last ten years, someone should tell all that Arctic ice to stop melting. Hey, get with the program Arctic ice! Cooling, I tell you! Cooling!1!

Re:55% say they are Democrats

[HertzaHaeon]

and yet the world has cooled over the last 10 years so one of your assumptions is wrong. Which one is it?

Alternatively, you're wrong. NASA's figures says you are.

I can spot more than five decades of supposed cooling during the 20th century as per you definition, but as you can clearly see the overall trend is not cooling.

Re:55% say they are Democrats

[drinkypoo]

Citation please.

First Google Result: Volcanic Gases and Their Effects. Quotation follows: Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002) Hope that helps... lazy asshole.

Re:55% say they are Democrats

[psnyder]

Someone should also tell the Antarctic ice to stop growing. Just Google antarctic ice to see.

The environment is so complex that you can't just point at some melting/growing ice and say we're all doomed/saved. These kinds of arguments skirt the main issues which are:

1. How much is man influencing THIS warming trend and how much is part of the same natural cycle that has occured many times before?
   (Note: the current warming trend started well before the industrial revolution. Look at just about any data that includes 1000s of years (ice cores, Sargasso sea, etc) and you'll see it clearly. Are we increasing the natural trend already in motion? If so, by how much?)
2. Does warming help are harm the life on Earth? Can we conserve the life it harms, and prepare for the life it helps?
3. Does increased CO2 in the atmosphere help or harm life on Earth?
   The answer to that seems to be both as the biosphere has increased a great deal (plants are being fertilised) but the coral reefs are suffering due to ocean acidification.

The final concern is that the Earth will get SO hot that there will be a tipping point where there will be an effect called a "positive feedback loop" in which the heat will somehow cause the Earth to get hotter and hotter. As almost all things in nature work in negative feedback with multiple buffers coupled with the fact that the Earth has been much hotter in the past, I find this scenario to be closer to Science Fiction than anything else.


From the article:

84 percent of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity.

This is true but it's spun, worded with an agenda. Many of those same scientists believe that the amount we're adding to the natural cycle is minuscule, insignificant, or may actually help the environment.

Re:55% say they are Democrats

[psnyder]

Here's an article from 2 days earlier where the same Dr. Allison is saying that everything is stable.

It looks like the ABC Australia author took part of this article and added his own interpretation. Notice that Dr. Allison is not quoted in the crucial sentences on either article. My guess is that the scientific journalists (who are not scientists themselves) are putting words in his mouth.

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica. (emphasis mine)

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

I'm more inclined to believe this is closer to Dr. Allison's view as it encompasses long range thinking and there's a direct quote attached.

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual. (emphasis mine)

"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."

So this is where the ABC article is getting it's information. Dr. Allison is saying that these are episodic carvings but that over a long period it's stable. The ABC author is just looking at the carving going on this year and created a sentence (that is not a direct quote from Dr Allison) saying that Antarctic is losing ice. This is a myopic and misinforming view in my opinion, as it's short term and does not represent the overall situation in Antarctica.

Re:55% say they are Democrats

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Oh, for fuck's sake.

This is not a good way to start a debate when you're trying to convince someone else of your point of view.

1. We, humans, are pumping over 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.
2. A corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been observed.
3. The interaction of CO2 with IR radiation is well-established and well-understood by anyone with an understanding of simple chemistry.

Which point, exactly, is in dispute?

A number of things. For example, you choose to focus on CO2. While CO2 is associated with warming, there are an almost limitless number of other factors that also can contribute to warming (or cooling, for that matter). For example (taken from Wikipedia):

In order, Earth's most abundant greenhouse gases are:

        * water vapor
        * carbon dioxide
        * methane
        * nitrous oxide
        * ozone
        * CFCs

When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:

        * water vapor, which contributes 36â"72%
        * carbon dioxide, which contributes 9â"26%
        * methane, which contributes 4â"9%
        * ozone, which contributes 3â"7%

So right there, even if you take the worst-case scenario for CO2 (26%), it's still far, far less of an effect than the best case for water vapor (36%). Shouldn't we be trying to reduce water vapor instead of CO2? Note that's a rhetorical question. I'm just trying to point out where your argument -- and insistence -- on CO2 fails to account for what may be the largest driver in climate change. CO2 just seems to be a popular whipping boy these days because it appeals to environmentalists who've always been against fossil fuels, anti-capitalists who are against Big Oil, and anti-Westerners who would be happy to see the Western powers (i.e. the U.S.) come to economic harm while they can handily skirt any emissions controls on their own industry (see Kyoto protocols).

It also doesn't help that global warming proponents tend to be shrill absolutists who, instead of trying to convince people of their argument, are merely content to shout them down or denounce them as imbeciles. You may recall my first comment on your post. Your opener falls into such a category. It's not a way to win people over to your side even if you were to have all the facts (which you don't). Note this isn't a knock against you personally or the science of climatology; nobody has all the facts, because nobody fully understands all the variables (or even most of the variables) associated with our climate. We have theories and models that require constant tweaking, modifying, and massaging, and even then they fail to accurately predict both past and present weather trends. The disclosure that several high-profile warming proponents admitting to actually cooking their data (aka cherry picking) also doesn't help your cause, as it shows these people had political, economic, or ideological biases which drove them to commit scientific fraud.

If you care to respond to this, try to make it reasoned and tactful. Have all your facts, and admit that the totality of our knowledge about what's going on with the climate is anything but 100% sure. Claiming you've got it all nailed down with unassailable data is the surest sign that you've turned into a zealot. Nobody listens to zealots, even if they are sometimes right.

Unscientific?

[Bob9113]

32% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55% say they're Democrats and 6% say they're Republicans.

Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me. I've probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my life, but it seems to me that the scientific approach is to study the evidence and select a candidate based on his record, stated positions, etc.

Frankly, lately, it strikes me that the most scientific approach might be to vote against the incumbent regardless of party. Incumbency seems to strongly correlate with making decisions based on things other than evidence. Incumbents seem inclined -- increasingly over duration of incumbency -- to base their decisions on favors they owe and promises of future favors they can collect rather than on evidence and deep, objective consideration.

Education Gap

[Myji Humoz]

Being a scientist is linked very closely to being educated at graduate level or higher. These views (acceptance of evolution, belief in human caused global warming, etc) are linked to the replacement of a prior belief (whatever the Bible implies) with a belief in a complicated theory that often doesn't make sense without serious study. A casual textbook explanation of evolution leads to questions of how complicated mechanisms such as sexual reproduction came into being, which leaves serious doubts about the validity of "scientific theories" in the minds of individuals with high school education.

Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories? Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be? So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in, the layman who doesn't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of "experts", or take faith in the "word of God, as brought to you by $Preacher.)

Re:Education Gap

[Bob9113]

Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories? Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be?

I think it may explain being socially liberal -- recognizing that moral decisions are inherently difficult to make objectively. I am skeptical, however, that analytical skills correlate (or at least should correlate) strongly with being fiscally liberal. There seems to be decent evidence that being fiscally liberal, particularly in a society in economic decline, is hazardous.

Then again, I guess there is ample evidence that neither Republicans nor Democrats are fiscally conservative.

Re:Education Gap

[Rob the Bold]

Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories? Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be? So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in, the layman who doesn't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of "experts", or take faith in the "word of God, as brought to you by $Preacher.)

My father-in-law is a pretty good example of this. He didn't finish college at the traditional age and has gone on to be hyper-conservative, unquestioningly accepting religious teachings on non-religious subjects, including science and the physical world. E.g. I put on a pair of latex gloves before attempting to fix a poop-and-hair clog in the automatic litter box -- a reasonable precaution, I thought. He told me: "you know, viruses and bacteria go right through latex."

I figured this finding would be rather important for the medical community to know so I checked it out. It seems that Christian fundamentalists teach that latex is germ-permeable so that they can say that condoms are useless to prevent STDs, so the only sure-fire way to avoid disease is total abstinence prior to lifelong marriage to another abstainer.

I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t. the physical/natural world.

Re:Education Gap

[anagama]

Advanced education (or advanced knowledge) in a specific subject, tends to be accompanied by an accurate sense of just how much one does not know. People with a rudimentary understanding of something often have a much higher sense of certainty than people with deep knowledge. The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

With respect to the Republican/Democrat/Independent split, I find it interesting that a third identify as independents. I think that for at least the last couple decades, the Republicans have taken on so much of an "America Fuck Yeah" religiousity, that people who understand that the world is not simple because they have discovered in their own area, how much others misunderstand the topic and the findings and how much more there is to learn, are easily disillusioned by the Readers Digest platitudes that seem sufficient for the vast majority of people. As a result, those who actually know how little they know, can see how they are underinformed outside their area of expertise and are much more likely to accept that they may be wrong in any of their beliefs. Given the Republican party's penchant for unthinking dogmatism, it is easy to see why people who have become very expert in a specialized area would be hesitant to be associated with the Republican party. By the same token, Democrats can be just as bad, but there is some logic in going with the lesser evil (although I personally have decided against that path), and because the Democrats on average aren't such thundering bible-bangers, it seems natural enough to go that route.

Re:Education Gap

[dcollins]

I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t. the physical/natural world.

Bone to pick: Religion is equally worthless in discussing philosophical subjects.

I know that it's a popular rhetorical device to try and "fence in" religion to a limited domain of non-scientific topics such as ethics (as published most widely by Stephen J. Gould). But as someone who has degrees in both philosophy and mathematics, I've got to say this: belief in fictional, mythological spirits can only be damaging to serious discussions about any subject area.

Re:Education Gap

[MaskedSlacker]

Catholicism is radically different from American Protestantism w/ regards to science. In Catholicism it is just short of heresy to claim that scripture contradicts evolution (as of 1996--this does not mean that evolution is religious doctrine, merely that Catholics believe scripture is mute on the subject). They do teach a sort of 'theistic evolution,' but this amounts to 'God chose natural selection and evolution as the tool by which He would create the various species,' and not any meaningful deviation from the prevailing modern evolutionary synthesis.

American protestants on the other hand, especially the Calvinist and pseudo-Calvinist branches, object rather vehemently to the very possibility of entertaining such an idea.

Only 9 in 10 accept evolution?

[PieSquared]

Hrm... I'd like to see exactly how they arrived at *that* number...

They're not counting engineers as scientists, are they?

Re:flat

[fractic]

This is just plain wrong. Even the ancient greeks knew that the earth was spherical. This has been the dominant scientific position for a long time. The wikipedia article on it is quite good flat earth.

Re:Depressing...

[drinkypoo]

The problem here is that Americans are derisive of intelligence and scientists in particular. Calling someone an "Einstein" or an "Egghead" is not purely a compliment even among geeks and nerds... in fact, aside from the word "scientist" the words themselves used to describe them are shown to have their own negative connotations via etymology. When I want help pumping shit, I call a plumber. If I have a problem with my house wiring that I can't handle, I call an electrician. When I want help understanding the fundamental nature of the universe, I look for a scientist.

Unfortunately, there is a major conflict between science and certain religions bent on control. You might notice that certain religions don't actually conflict with science, because they don't make ridiculous claims, because they're not trying to control people for their own ends. They only seek to make the world a better place. It's clear that Christianity (the best example for our nation) is intended only to benefit Christians -- if you aren't one, you can just go to hell.

Science is the quest for that which is. Religion is the quest to explain that which is not. Paths may be varied, but there is only one set of facts. When the two contradict, it's clear that falling back on religion is a failure. Those cultures which have most successfully embraced science have always been most successful, a trend which will only continue.

The revealing statistic

[jgeada]

I found it very revealing to see the statistics about what the public thought the scientific consensus is. Paraphrasing from the original article:
- Public thinks 60% of scientists agree that evolution occurred, but actually 97% of scientists support evolution.
- Public thinks 56% of scientists agree that global warming is human caused, but actually 84% of scientists support the theory that human activity has and is causing global warming.

This nearly 50/50 split in the public's view leads me to think: what is the primary source of science news for most of the public? The press. And most of the time, particularly on controversial issues, the press just presents two talking heads with opposing views as the current state of affairs. If you didn't know better from other sources you'd have to assume that the scientific consensus was split 50/50.

These stories are stupid

[MikeBabcock]

The research for these types of stories is horrible.

What do I care if 84% of scientists believe the earth is getting warmer from human activity? My father's a scientist who studies product safety. His opinion on global warming is no more educated than the rest of the public's but he's a "scientist." A marine biologist might observe changes in habitat and deserve an opinion, but a chemist at a drug research lab probably doesn't rank above my own knowledge of global warming.

Polling groups of people with a similar job title in totally different fields is misleading at best.

Re:Depressing...

[ScrewMaster]

It's clear that Christianity (the best example for our nation) is intended only to benefit Christians -- if you aren't one, you can just go to hell.

More correctly, if you aren't one, you are going to Hell.

Realistically speaking, however, if you look at the root of all religions (going back to the pantheons of the ancient Greek, Roman and even earlier civilizations) you will note that they are attempts to explain that which was, at the time, unexplainable or simply unacceptable (i.e., death.) The problem is that we've advanced way, way beyond the need for such primitive descriptions of how the Universe works. To this day, far too many people are simply unwilling or, in many cases, constitutionally unable, to accept that and move on.

Where we have not succeeded is in eliminating the need for the social control that organized religion provides. By and large, people are animals when you get right down to it, and civilization doesn't function well (or at all) if everyone is just doing what's best for him or herself, no matter the cost to anyone else. Fear of God (or Zeus, or any other external deity) has kept millions of people more-or-less in line for centuries. Consequently, one can't say that everything organized religion has done is bad, but unfortunately we're at the point where their antiscience bent is causing a severe cultural rift, and is in fact causing a lot of damage.

Re:reality is librul

[geegel]

I assure you that there is a difference between what you perceive as an American reality and a global one. I live in Europe and the difference between the elite and ordinary people, although sizable, is much less radical. P.S. I never quite understood why "liberal" has such different meanings over the two sides of the Atlantic. A liberal party here is actually right wing as it promotes deregulation and basically more trust in the market's self-regulation mechanisms.

Who?

[damn_registrars]

Pew used the AACS membership list to generate their list of "scientists" to poll

I looked to find this "aacs" you refer to. I came up with several organizations:

• American Association of Christian Schools
• American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
• American Association of Cosmetology Schools
• Advanced Access Content System
• Annapolis Area Christian School
• Ashtabula Area City Schools

None of those organizations seem particularly scientific to me. Perhaps you meant the AAAS - American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. And if we look at their membership requirements for the US we'll see that only students can sign up for full membership at $99 per year. A K-12 teacher would pay $146, the same as the professional rate, though they do have a low-frills option at $99.

The stated goals of AACS essentially define it as a left-leaning organization

Not sure where you got their goals from, but we'll read their website:

The American Association for the Advancement of Science,
"Triple A-S" (AAAS), is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. In addition to organizing membership activities, AAAS publishes the journal Science, as well as many scientific newsletters, books and reports, and spearheads programs that raise the bar of understanding for science worldwide.

The same page continues on with some broad goals:

AAAS Mission
AAAS seeks to "advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all people." To fulfill this mission, the AAAS Board has set these broad goals:

* Enhance communication among scientists, engineers, and the public;
* Promote and defend the integrity of science and its use;
* Strengthen support for the science and technology enterprise;
* Provide a voice for science on societal issues;
* Promote the responsible use of science in public policy;
* Strengthen and diversify the science and technology workforce;
* Foster education in science and technology for everyone;
* Increase public engagement with science and technology; and
* Advance international cooperation in science.

That doesn't really seem particularly liberal or conservative from a political standpoint, unless conservatives have a decidedly anti-science-education standpoint.

Yep

[Sycraft-fu]

I work at a university and so work with PhDs all the time. There are a good many of them who think they know everything, but in reality have extremely limited knowledge outside of their narrow field. They'll be happy to tell you how you should of all sorts of thing, but if you investigate, you discover they know fuck all about what they are talking about. That they have a PhD means they are highly educated in a very specific field. It doesn't mean they are masters of everything. Some understand that, others do not.

As an example we have a massive amount of wireless APs on our campus, hundreds per building. The idea is to provide total coverage. This necessitates they be placed all over, and not just in wiring closets and such. There are some in offices. We have a few professors that demanded the APs be moved, or who placed shields over them to "protect" themselves from the radiation. These are engineering professors, by the way, not art professors. So while this is even in their general domain, they still don't know about it and are as subjected to the same pseudo-science BS as the general public.

While it might be a comforting idea to think scientists are all very smart, reasonable people, that just isn't the case. They are human like the rest of us, and there are plenty of them who don't know what they are talking about save for a small area, and even some who don't know what they are talking about in their area. Science works not because scientists are superhuman, but because the process of strong inference allows us to test and refine our knowledge. The process of science is what is amazing, not necessarily the people who work in it.

Feynman's biography has some great commentary on this and the dangers of "averaging" opinions with people. That just because you ask a lot of people, doesn't mean that you got the right answer.

As an example, suppose around the 1950s you asked 100 scientists about an atomic theory and 90% thought it was right, 10% thought it was wrong. Must be right huh? Now what if I told you the 10 that thought it was wrong were Bohr, Einstein, Feynman, Teller, Oppenheimer, Bethe, and so on. Maybe then you aren't so sure. Just because 90 random scientists think something, doesn't mean they are right and the people who actually developed the technology are wrong.

Science is not a democracy, you don't vote on what the right answer is.

So I'm with you, I really hate these stories of "Well X% of profession Y believe this!" That is marketing bullshit. "4 out of 5 dentists agree this is the toothpaste for you!" Ok well so what? Maybe 4 out of 5 dentists are just mediocre and the top 20% know that it is bunk. Any time I hear something telling me what percentage of peopel like something or believe something, I feel like I'm being sold something, not being informed.

Re:reality is librul

[gEvil (beta)]

...and undersampled people who use scientific method in their work, such as farmers.

So because I use a computer, I'm now considered a Computer Scientist? Good to know. I need to update my CV.

Re:reality is librul

[Dr_Ken]

"32% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55% say they're Democrats and 6% say they're Republicans."

Dem politicos tend to favor more funding for the public employee unionized academic types at public colleges and universities. The Repubs like to fund private outfits like think-tanks and independent contractors. The "scientists" are smart enough to not bite the hand that feeds them. (Until they get tenure, that is.) And so that is the way they vote.

Re:reality is librul

[coaxial]

That's just Horwitz crap. If you look at political affiliations throughout university departments in the US, you'll find many more republicans in areas like business and economics. The real problem with scientists and the gop is that the gop has for the last 20 years engaged in an antiscience crusade. They're the party that tries to teach creationism. They're the party that denies the overwhelming evidence of man made global warming. They're the party that band the creation of useful stem cell lines for research. Why? Because they're for the status quo. There's simply no reason why anyone who even has a passing interest in the advancement of science should vote republican.

Re:reality is librul

[Solandri]

The real problem with scientists and the gop is that the gop has for the last 20 years engaged in an antiscience crusade. They're the party that tries to teach creationism. They're the party that denies the overwhelming evidence of man made global warming. They're the party that band the creation of useful stem cell lines for research. Why? Because they're for the status quo. There's simply no reason why anyone who even has a passing interest in the advancement of science should vote republican.

I think there's a lot of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that. The recent Bush administration increased federal spending on scientific R&D to its highest levels in 30+ years. The President who decreased it to its lowest level was actually Clinton. But most people (including I suspect most scientists) probably think the opposite because that's what they expect from the preconceived bias you just outlined.

Re:reality is librul

[bzipitidoo]

You think money alone shows support and respect for science? Wrong! The Republican regard for science is very backhanded. They don't hesitate to cook evidence to fit the conclusions they think they want, and, you know, that costs money. Remember Iraq? No WMDs! Remember that lying idiot who dared to censor Hansen's research to take out anything that might show there is global warming, and while he was at it, also censored it of all suggestions that Evolution was accepted science? There are dozens of skewed studies that supposedly show there is no global warming, tobacco isn't addictive, our food isn't unhealthy, pollution isn't causing cancer or birth defects or other health problems, or anything else some industry thinks they want. The religious wackos have embraced these techniques wholeheartedly, to push their own agendas such as the "controversy" over Evolution vs Creationism. It's an entirely manufactured controversy. And they do this without seeming to understand that what they're really doing is lying. The Republican party has become an unholy alliance between liars for industry and liars for God. As has been said, they make facts based on decisions, not decisions based on facts.

Republicans at least see the respect people have for science, or they wouldn't bother faking it. What they don't get is that faked science is worthless. They really seem to have a hard time understanding that crucial point. It's really amazing how they can puke out some rubbish anecdotes and think that's on par with evidence collected in a professional, disinterested manner. They also don't hesitate to try a snow job, that is, "doubt is our product".