XPost: alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, alt.christnet.second   
   coming.real-soon-now   
   From: nospam@nospam.none   
      
   There is no concensus in real science. its a political tool .   
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   "James"  wrote in message   
   news:Xns9E2D503AB9BCCgbczxbgfdz@94.75.214.39...   
   > My fellow shit eaters, the time has come to chow down and celebrate!   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > In real science the burden of proof is always   
   > on the proposer, never on myself because I never   
   > provide evidence, just my insane opinions based   
   > on my abject ignorance, senility and stupidity.   
   > So far the scientists of the world have failed   
   > to convince me, a senile old science illiterate   
   > with no education and nothing to do all day but   
   > spout incoherent gibberish to satisfy my attention   
   > starved inferiority complex.   I've never studied   
   > science, I never graduated high school.  I'm simply   
   > a mentally ill, mentally dificient know nothing and   
   > a kook who eats my own shit because I can't afford   
   > food on my government pension.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > -----   
   >   
   > There are three types of people that you can not talk into behaving well.   
   > The stupid, the rightist religious fanatic, and the evil rightist.   
   >   
   > 1-The right wing stupid aren't smart enough to follow the logic of what   
   > you say. You have to tell them what is right in very simple terms. If they   
   > don't agree, then you'll never be able to change their mind.   
   >   
   > 2- the right wing religious fanatic If what you say goes against their   
   > religious belief, they will cling to that religious belief even if it   
   > means their death."   
   >   
   > 3- There is no way to reform evil  Not in a million years. There is no way   
   > to convince the right wing terrorists, anti-science anthropogenic global   
   > warming deniers, serial killers, right wing paedophiles, and predators to   
   > change their evil ways. They knew what they were doing was wrong, but that   
   > knowledge didn't stop them. It only made them more careful in how they   
   > went about performing their evil acts.   
   >   
   >   
   > Drooling, Ape-Like Rightist Stooges Not Intelligent Enough To Grasp   
   > Science.   Rightists worship politicians who are beholden to big oil and   
   > big coal and will even kiss Muslim ass by fighting sustainable   
   > alternatives.   
   >   
   >   
   > Insane, anti-science radical right wing foaming at the mouth bozos erupt   
   > in spastic frenzy's as they claim that science is not really science, but   
   > religion and that "real" science should eminate from the minds of right   
   > wing politicians, unqualified charlatans, energy industry shills and   
   > former tobacco industry PR men.   Most of the deniers are pin heads who   
   > don't understand basic science.  They frequently confuse weather with   
   > climate and constantly repeat lies, no matter how many times they have   
   > been debunked with facts refuting them.   
   >   
   > Few of the deniers have jobs, they sit around all day at their computers   
   > jibber jabbering with each other on Usenet swapping the same insane lies.   
   >   
   > That's what happens when all you're qualified to do is push broom like all   
   > the other "right wing bloggers who claim to be climate experts". They were   
   > probably a 9/11 conspiracy kooks or one of those idiots who think that the   
   > lunar landings were a lie, vaccinations are a government experiment, there   
   > were WMD's in Iraq and tobacco has no link to cancer!   
   >   
   > Most right wing retards believe that it's a big socialist cabal under Al   
   > Gore.  And when you point out that most major corporations are endeavoring   
   > to reduce their GHG emissions or the insurance industry (who most deniers   
   > strongly endorse in US health care) they start yammering on about how   
   > they're in on the great conspiracy as well.   
   >   
   > Then they continue to cite fabrications from dubious, amateur websites   
   > like "c3headlines", anonymous uncredentialed bloggers, crackpots, right   
   > wing think tanks and retired scientists turned fossil fuel industry shills   
   > for their "facts".   
   >   
   > Even more hilarious, the majority of the scientists they cite never worked   
   > in the field of climatology in the first place, so it's like citing the   
   > opinion of your dentist for a heart condition.   
   >   
   > Most of these idiots don't even go outside because they're so mentally   
   > unstable.   
   >   
   > Most Rightists aren't intelligent enough to be scientists, making them   
   > gullible and easily duped by snake oil salesmen.   
   >   
   > Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll   
   >   
   > A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is   
   > alienating scientists to a startling degree.   
   >   
   > Only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as   
   > Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. By   
   > comparison, 23 percent of the overall public considers itself   
   > Republican, while 35 percent say they're Democrats.   
   >   
   > The ideological discrepancies were similar. Nine percent of scientists   
   > said they were "conservative" while 52 percent described themselves as   
   > "liberal," and 14 percent "very liberal." The corresponding figures   
   > for the general public were 37, 20 and 5 percent.   
   >   
   > Among the general public, moderates and independents ranked higher   
   > than any party or ideology. But among scientists, there were   
   > considerably more Democrats (55%) than independents (32%) and   
   > Republicans (6%) put together. There were also more liberals (52%)   
   > than moderates (35%) and conservatives (9%) combined.   
   >   
   > "These results were not a complete surprise," said Scott Keeter,   
   > Director of Survey Research at Pew, in an interview with the   
   > Huffington Post. He said they can be mostly attributed to "the   
   > difference between Democratic and Republican parties with respect to   
   > issues."   
   >   
   > The wide ideological and partisan gap among scientists may have been   
   > exacerbated by the Bush administration, which often disputed broad   
   > scientific consensus on topics such as evolution and climate change.   
   >   
   > Keeter acknowledged this factor, but said that "many of these disputes   
   > probably predate the Bush administration," noting that scientists have   
   > favored liberal views in numerous past studies.   
   >   
   > Religion also plays a role. Republicans tend to promote the centrality   
   > of religion more often than Democrats, and while 95 percent of the   
   > public said they believe in "God" or "a higher power," only 51 percent   
   > of scientists claimed either.   
   >   
   > "Many Republicans, especially the Evangelical wing of the party, are   
   > skeptical of evolution, and have argued for the teaching of   
   > creationism and intelligent design in school," said Keeter.   
   >   
   > The results could merely be a reflection of how scientists see the   
   > world, rather than of partisan loyalties. In a series of questions   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)