XPost: talk.politics.crypto, alt.politics.howard-dean, alt.flame.rednecks   
   XPost: alt.bullshit   
   From: WellDone@WellHoned.com   
      
   On 8 Dec 2010 04:12:27 +0100, "The Killer©"    
   wrote:   
   >ConservaTainer Messiah Beck 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   
   >support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on   
   >Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific   
   >prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below   
   >that of the convinced researchers.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)