XPost: alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, alt.christnet.second   
   coming.real-soon-now   
   From: alfredstomacker@gmail.com   
      
   On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:53:45 +0000 (UTC), "Bush's Approval Rating Now   
   Higher than Obummah's"  wrote:   
      
   >>Drooling, SubHuman Rightist Apes Are 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.   
   >>   
   >>Rightists fail to possess the gene that allows humans citical analysis and   
   >>like good slaves, simply do as they are told and parrot what they are   
   >>ordered to parrot.   
   >>   
   >>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   
   >>posed, the study found that the answers of scientists were   
   >>consistently more in line with liberal viewpoints than those of the   
   >>general public.   
   >>   
   >>"The Republican Party has a number of leaders within it who have   
   >>challenged the accuracy of scientific findings on issues such as   
   >>climate change, evolution and stem cell research," Keeter told the   
   >>Huffington Post.   
   >>   
   >>"It suggests that scientists who are Republicans might feel some   
   >>dissonance from the party's position on some things that are important   
   >>to them. And while there are Republicans in the scientist sample,   
   >>there are really not that many," he said.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>----   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>Expert credibility in climate change   
   >>   
   >>   1. William R. L. Anderegga,1,   
   >>   2. James W. Prallb,   
   >>   3. Jacob Haroldc, and   
   >>   4. Stephen H. Schneidera,d,1   
   >>   
   >>Abstract   
   >>   
   >>Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert   
   >>surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets   
   >>of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses   
   >>substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of   
   >>scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate   
   >>scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting   
   >>researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement   
   >>among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future   
   >>ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate   
   >>researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)   
   >>97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)