199fc335   
   XPost: uk.politics.misc, alt.flame.rednecks   
   From: tdcomeau@gmail.com   
      
   On Jun 12, 7:11 pm, AlleyCat  wrote:   
   > Rightists World Wide Demand A Return To The Dark Ages As Their   
   > Tiny Little Brains Can't Process Change and New Ideas - Science   
   > Is Now Officially Their Enemy As They Embrace The Religious   
   > Cult of Right Wing Extremist Ideology.   
   >   
   > 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.   
   >   
   > --------------------------------------------------------   
   > There is no "Climategate". It's a bunch of crap   
   > made up by deniers.   
   >   
   > Arguments made by deniers and the facts countering   
   > them:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm   
   >   
   > Facts about the CRU hack (as opposed to the   
   > fantasies being spread by the Coulter hack):http://www.realcli   
   ate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-   
   > ha   
   > ck/   
   >   
   > The Earth IS still warming:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3348275   
   /ns/us_news-environment/   
   >   
   > No, the data wasn't "destroyed":http://www.eenews.net/public/G   
   eenwire/2009/10/14/3   
   >   
   > What the stolen e-mails actually reveal:http://www.nature.com/   
   ature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.ht   
   > m   
   > l   
   >   
   > Another response to the over-hyped puffery of   
   > "Climategate":http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-   
   > resp   
   > ond-to-clim ategate-controversy   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)