XPost: sci.environment, alt.flame.rednecks, alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives   
   From: kingkongg@iglou.com   
      
   "Sheldon Scott"  wrote in message   
   news:Xns9E80BC1FA3A3Cfdsa@195.67.212.194   
   > Well Done wrote   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > Lazy, Uemployed Rightists Troll Newsgroups Spreading Stupidity All   
   > Day. Too Stupid To Learn The Difference Between Climate And Weather.   
   >   
   > In rightist circles, ignorance, racism and stupidity are badges of   
   > honor. Basic science is beyond their comprehension while learning is   
   > virtually impossible.   
   >   
   >   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)