Why Scientists Are Seldom Republicans
.
From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
Why scientists are seldom Republicans
By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without
scientists?
Ask the Republican Party.
It lives in such a world.
Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party
anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there
won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a
kitchen table.
It is no wonder the Republican throngs showing up to disrupt town hall
meetings on health care reform are so gullible, willing to believe
absurd claims like the coming of "death panels."
Their party is nearly devoid of neuroscientists, astrophysicists,
marine biologists or any other scientific professional who would
insist on intellectual rigor, objective evidence and sound reasoning
as the basis for public policy development.
The people left don't have that kind of discipline and don't expect it
from their leaders.
They are willing to believe anything some right-wing demagogue with a
cable show or pulpit tells them, no matter how outlandish.
Since the Sonia Sotomayor nomination we've been hearing about the
GOP's Hispanic deficit.
Only 26 percent of Latino registered voters now say they identify with
or lean toward the Republican Party.
But that's a full house compared with scientists.
Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew
Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
Democratic.
We shouldn't be surprised that people who are open to evidence-based
thinking have abandoned the Republican Party.
The GOP has proudly adopted the mantle of the "Terri Schiavo, global
warming shwarming" party with the Bush administration helping cement
the image by persistently subverting science to serve a religious
agenda or corporate greed.
But what worries me is not the shrunken relevancy of the GOP, a party
in which 56 percent of its members oppose funding of embryonic stem
cell research, 39 percent believe humans have always existed on Earth
in their present form, and in which only 30 percent say human activity
is warming the planet.
It is that this nation's future depends upon people who don't think
that way and the Republican Party is closing the door to them.
Every hope we have to invent our way out of this economic malaise and
create enough Information Age jobs to maintain a stable and prosperous
middle class sits on the shoulders of people who understand and
practice the scientific method.
Every hope we have of advancing human understanding of the physical
universe and bettering our lives in it, is tied to professionals now
represented by only one of our nation's two major political parties ?
while the other party attempts to obstruct them.
Global warming is a prime example.
Earth is under siege by CO2 emissions to a point that the Pentagon is
warning that our national security is at risk if climate change is not
arrested.
All Americans and politicians should be united for collective action.
Yet George Bush spent essentially his entire presidency ignoring and
suppressing scientific concerns.
Even today, with the effects of global warming evident, Republicans in
Congress are trying to bury the cap-and-trade energy bill, the
nation's first attempt (albeit not strong enough) to limit greenhouse
gas emissions.
Their alternative is to offer nothing.
Why are they so blind to the looming crisis?
Because to embrace what scientists are saying about global warming
would give political liberals a win, something the GOP leadership is
not wont to do.
Republicans build their political careers disdaining "elitists" with a
good education, complex charts and empirical data.
They see it to their political advantage to rally people to distrust
science.
That means our nation is only likely to advance to meet the heady
scientific challenges of the future, on health and the environment ?
advancements that translate directly into economic progress and rising
living standards ? if the Democrats remain in power with substantial
majorities.
But if the nation's economic situation doesn't turn around soon, a GOP
resurgence could very well come.
Then scientists will once again be on the defensive against a
Republican Party that left them behind in favor of the Tea Party
crowd, the birthers, and the people who shout at town halls that
government better keep its hands off their Medicare.
Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to
describe it.
Peter Webb
>
> Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew
> Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
> fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
> Democratic.
>
Most scientists are poorly paid public servants. This group typically votes
Democrat as they have a vested interest in increased public spending.
Of course, anybody with the slightest scientific training would have
corrected for these variables, and instead compared the voting habits of
scientists with the voting habits of other people with the same
demographics.
Obviously the author is not a scientist, and has no clue about the
scientific method, control groups, isolating causal relationships, etc.
Which makes me wonder why he writes about a subject he is apparently
completely ignorant of.
This ignorance of the scientific method means that the conclusions are
meaningless and the argument crap.
The "Pew Research Centre" would appear to have as much credibility as the
"Pond's Institute" when it comes to scientific analysis.
Roger Coppock
ENwhiten
"." <Entwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.24f12c705...@news.x-privat.org...
Marxism appeals to intellectuals (many of whom are Jews and other
foreigners). They fancy themselves directing society much better than
markets can. This is a delusion which borders on insanity, another trait
associated with intellectuals.
--
ENwhiten
Enlightened white nationalism
Become ENwhitened!
Bret Cahill
> > Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
> > fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
> > Democratic.
> Most scientists are poorly paid public servants.
Scientists at private universities and who aren't receiving any
funding are even less likely to be Repugliars.
Face reality: No one except bottom fishing GOP strategists want to be
associated with creationists, nutters, birthers, GOP "market"
economists, and other wing a dings.
nbzoo
> http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
> Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
> fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
> Democratic.
Aha, that explains why so many "scientists" (preachers actually) nowadays
are pushing the global warming scam!
They most probably succumbed to the intense socialist indoctrination present
in many universities.
The 12% Republican scientists are most probably the true scientists who
retain the scepticism so necessary to properly practice science!
This explains much of the recent crescendo of global warming scaremongering
in the lead-up to that alarmist conference in Copenhagen!
Thank you for elucidating.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
nbzoo
> http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
> Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
> fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
> Democratic.
Aha, that explains why so many "scientists" (preachers actually) nowadays
nbzoo
Aha, that explains why so many "scientists" (preachers actually) nowadays
are pushing the global warming scam!
They most probably succumbed to the intense socialist indoctrination present
in many universities.
The 12% Republican scientists are most probably the true scientists who
retain the scepticism so necessary to properly practice science!
This explains much of the recent crescendo of global warming scaremongering
in the lead-up to that alarmist conference in Copenhagen!
Thank you for elucidating.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
======================================
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:f31265b8-dad9-40e8...@j21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
nbzoo
Aha, that explains why so many "scientists" (preachers actually) nowadays
are pushing the global warming scam!
They most probably succumbed to the intense socialist indoctrination present
in many universities.
The 12% Republican scientists are most probably the true scientists who
retain the scepticism so necessary to properly practice science!
This explains much of the recent crescendo of global warming scaremongering
in the lead-up to that alarmist conference in Copenhagen!
Thank you for elucidating.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
======================================
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:f31265b8-dad9-40e8...@j21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
penny
>
>"." <Entwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.24f12c705...@news.x-privat.org...
>>
>> From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:
>> http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>> Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew
>> Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
>> fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
>> Democratic.
>
>
>
>Aha, that explains why so many "scientists" (preachers actually) nowadays
>are pushing the global warming scam!
They're the same scientists who push the scientific theories that gave
us air-conditioning systems, heating systems, TV's, cars, etc. etc.
etc. etc.
>
>They most probably succumbed to the intense socialist indoctrination present
>in many universities.
They succumbed to the rigors of the scientific method which is unknown
to holy rollers.
>
>The 12% Republican scientists are most probably the true scientists who
>retain the scepticism so necessary to properly practice science!
You mean like "Intelligent Design" junk science which leads to nothing
of substance . !
Penny
I M @ good guy
<rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
>Good post!
>
>Also please see:
>
>http://www.amazon.com/Republican-War-Science-Revised-Updated/dp/B001OQOIPM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1250389036&sr=8-2
>
>
>
>On Aug 15, 6:35 pm, . <Entwistl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
>[snip the BS]
What is going on, now anybody who is not an
atheist scientist is supposed to bad, AGW is no longer
the issue, it is free enterprise that is bad?
Excuse me, I just watched a program on the
plight of Jews from Poland being mistreated in the
clothing "sweat shops" of NYC in the 1950s, another
program about young Cuban boys in a boxing camp,
and one where two old men discuss the virtues
of farmer's markets over Walmart in front of an
audience.
Did the spirit of freedom and private business
just die, Global Warming takes a back seat, now
the republicans are the cause of everything bad?
And I thought Scott Nutts was the nut.
I M @ good guy
>
>
>"." <Entwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.24f12c705...@news.x-privat.org...
>>
>> From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:
>> http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>>
>>
>> Why scientists are seldom Republicans
>>
>>
>> By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
>[SNIP]
>> Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to
>> describe it.
>
>Marxism appeals to intellectuals (many of whom are Jews and other
>foreigners). They fancy themselves directing society much better than
>markets can. This is a delusion which borders on insanity, another trait
>associated with intellectuals.
Don't you mean "associated with egotist idiots"?
softsofa
>Global warming is a prime example.
New NASA study: environmentalists are a major cause of global warming:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/arctic_aerosols_goddard_institute/
[]softsofa[]
Ramon F Herrera
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew
> > Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
> > fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
> > Democratic.
>
> Most scientists are poorly paid public servants.
I stopped reading right there.
What a load of crap.
No scientists in the private sector! I wonder how the USA could have
possibly reached its leadership position in the world!
Go to whatever crappy community college gave you a diploma and ask for
a refund.
-Ramon
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Wait till Hansen hears about that.
Peter Webb
"penny" <gor...@sentex.net > wrote in message
news:4g8f85tof6n3vm8ck...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:49:15 +1000, "nbzoo" <a...@t.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"." <Entwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.24f12c705...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>
>>> From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:
>>> http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>>> Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew
>>> Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
>>> fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
>>> Democratic.
>>
>>
>>
>>Aha, that explains why so many "scientists" (preachers actually) nowadays
>>are pushing the global warming scam!
>
>
> They're the same scientists who push the scientific theories that gave
> us air-conditioning systems, heating systems, TV's, cars, etc. etc.
> etc. etc.
>
No, that's not true, none of the scientists behind the invention of
air-conditioning, heating systems, TVs or cars are AGW supporters.
You seem to be inventing scientific support for AGW where none exists.
Tim Elliot
>
> No, that's not true, none of the scientists behind the invention of
> air-conditioning, heating systems, TVs or cars are AGW supporters.
>
> You seem to be inventing scientific support for AGW where none exists.
>
Speaking of inventing scientific support, can you cite a legitimate source
that says "none of the scientists behind the invention of air-conditioning,
heating systems, TVs or cars are AGW supporters"?
Scottish inventor, John Logie Baird, the father of television, first publicly
demonstrated television on 26 January 1926. I'm sure that he didn't know
about global warming.
Henry Ford? Who cares? He didn't invent the internal combustion engine.
And what would he know about global warming anyway?
The first person to experiment with an internal-combustion engine was the
Dutch physicist Christian Huygens, about 1680.
Air Conditioning? A 19th century invention.
Tim Elliot
> They're the same scientists who push the scientific theories that gave
> us air-conditioning systems, heating systems, TV's, cars, etc. etc.
> etc. etc.
>
They didn't give us those inventions, those were invented well before our
time.
However, science is rarely government supported these days. NASA was an
exception, so is "The Military Industrial Complex" (I love Eisenhower's 1961
speech)
Mostly, science is done through the academic world. Funded from private
donations, some tax payer contributions, and almost entirely done at
Universities.
More pharmaceutical research is done at universities than by Pfizer (#1,
European), Johnson & Johnson (#2, American), GlaxoSmithKline (#3, United
Kingdom), Bayer (#4, European), Hoffmann?La Roche (#5, European) combined.
And so much for the claim that the Americans are the ones who are big in the
Pharmaceutical game, they only have 1 in the top 5 world wide.
Tim Elliot
The donations to universites are also largely from the likes of the top 20
pharma corporations.
That's where drugs come from.
Now, if you want to talk about climate change, there really isn't a "big
bucks" outfit that supports that research, it's tax payer funded.
But if you want "The alternative view", there are many so-called "scientific
groups" who go unrecognized because they don't submit papers for peer review,
they just say things. They get funding from the likes of Exxon and even
Royal Dutch Shell.
Of course, if I was selling my urine and had $millions at my disposal, I could
find people who would say that drinking my urine was fine and dandy.
That's how things go.
Catoni
>"The first person to experiment with an internal-combustion engine was the
>Dutch physicist Christian Huygens, about 1680."
Reply:
In 1673, Huygens carried out experiments with internal
combustion. Although he designed a basic form of internal combustion
engine, fueled by black gunpowder, he never successfully built one.
John Q public
Wrong, fully independent universities that take no government money are
perdominantly conservative. Most universities whether state run or not
accept government funding in one way or another, there are really only
a handful such as Hillsdale college in MI, highly conservative
institution
SaPeIsMa
>
>>
>>"." <Entwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.24f12c705...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>
>>> From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:
>>> http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>>> Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew
>>> Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
>>> fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
>>> Democratic.
>>
>>
>>
>>Aha, that explains why so many "scientists" (preachers actually) nowadays
>>are pushing the global warming scam!
>
>
> They're the same scientists who push the scientific theories that gave
> us air-conditioning systems, heating systems, TV's, cars, etc. etc.
> etc. etc.
>
Nope
Typically the actual application of science to create technology is done by
engineers.
AS to the scientific method, which is the philosophical basis of modern
science, it is in and of itself a CONSERVATIVE mode of thinking where one is
supposed to question all new claims and theories, and reproduce
independantly the research exxperiments
THis is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what we have seen on "Human-Caused Global
Warming" bandwagon. where the theory was approved by a committee which is
composed of a rag-tag collection of "scientists" from every country whose
actual individual knowledge of global weather can be held in a smal plastic
bag.
>>
>>They most probably succumbed to the intense socialist indoctrination
>>present
>>in many universities.
>
>
> They succumbed to the rigors of the scientific method which is unknown
> to holy rollers.
>
Which again demonstrates the lack of "rigor" in YOUR (ahem) "thinking",
where you presume that conservative equates with "holly roller"
>>
>>The 12% Republican scientists are most probably the true scientists who
>>retain the skepticism so necessary to properly practice science!
>
>
> You mean like "Intelligent Design" junk science which leads to nothing
> of substance . !
>
> Penny
>
How would you know penny ?
You have never been able to work your way out of a paper bag open at both
ends
And let's not forget the summum of your logical thinking
"Guns can't be used to peel potatoes"
With such examples of mental performance, you are not one to pass judgment
on issues like "Intelligent Design".
Even your pet guppy is more qualified.
bringyagrogalong
I thought it was because scientists, by and large, are decent, moral,
human beings.
Which would preclude them from being attracted to a Party of
hypocrites and perverts.
doctordave
Comsat
Naw! Thats all a big lie. Rush told us 2 years-ago that NASA were
liars because they said that global warming was real and supported it
with the fact that they have Space Shuttle accients. Rush knows
things. That's why he tells us stuff.
If you can't trust Rush, who can you trust?
Comsat
> "penny" <gora...@sentex.net > wrote in message
>
> news:4g8f85tof6n3vm8ck...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:49:15 +1000, "nbzoo" <a...@t.com> wrote:
>
> >>news:MPG.24f12c705...@news.x-privat.org...
>
> >>> From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:
> >>>http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
> >>> Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew
> >>> Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
> >>> fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
> >>> Democratic.
>
> >>Aha, that explains why so many "scientists" (preachers actually) nowadays
> >>are pushing the global warming scam!
>
> > They're the same scientists who push the scientific theories that gave
> > us air-conditioning systems, heating systems, TV's, cars, etc. etc.
> > etc. etc.
>
> Nope
> Typically the actual application of science to create technology is done by
> engineers.
> AS to the scientific method, which is the philosophical basis of modern
> science, it is in and of itself a CONSERVATIVE mode of thinking where one is
> supposed to question all new claims and theories, and reproduce
> independantly the research exxperiments
> THis is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what we have seen on "Human-Caused Global
> Warming" bandwagon. where the theory was approved by a committee which is
> composed of a rag-tag collection of "scientists" from every country whose
> actual individual knowledge of global weather can be held in a smal plastic
> bag.
My Goodness! You are so out of touch.
Your post is a clear nominee for "most bullshit spouted" for sure.
It's not even worth answering.
Do you really think that it's up to a "big debate"? When it was
scientifically verified over 10 years-ago, before you morons even knew
that there was such a thing?
Go home Jethro. You are why this thread is titled "Why Scientists
Are Seldom Republicans".
You are (and this isn't the first time I've noticed) a twat. A
brainless twat.
Say? Are you still sleeping with a hand gun under your pillow, and
bragging about it in newsgroups as if it will impress people?
How about those barbeques where all your friends show up packing heat?
That must make you feel safe!
I've heard your stories.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Let me point out something else that should be obvious, but obviously isn't.
Scientists discover
Engineers invent
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
alanm...@yahoo.com
>
>
> By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
>
> Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without
> scientists?
>
> Ask the Republican Party.
>
> It lives in such a world.
>
> Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party
> anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there
> won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a
> kitchen table.
>
>
Where is this study showing most scientists are Democrats? Does
it give a breakdown of
public sector vs private sector scientists and engineers? I suspect
those working in the public sector are more apt to be Democrats,
asking for more public handouts, a majority in the private sector,
working in the mining or chemical industry, or for private engineering
firms, are apt to be Republican.
As to automotive engineers, I suspect that in the forseeabe
future, those working for Chrysler and GM will be more apt to be
Democrats, those working for Ford, or the foreign automakers will be
more apt to be Republican- A. McIntire
penny
wrote:
>penny wrote
>> They're the same scientists who push the scientific theories that gave
>> us air-conditioning systems, heating systems, TV's, cars, etc. etc.
>> etc. etc.
>>
>
>They didn't give us those inventions, those were invented well before our
>time.
It was the engineers who gave us the inventions, but it was the
scientists who pushed the scientific theories that spawned so many
engineering inventions over time. .
Notice my use of etc, etc. etc. which brings us down through history.
>However, science is rarely government supported these days.
> NASA was an
>exception, so is "The Military Industrial Complex" (I love Eisenhower's 1961
>speech)
Under Bush NASA took a beating in research funding.
http://www.physorg.com/news63374578.html
Penny
>
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:36:24 -0400, Tim Elliot <tell...@rogers.com>
> wrote:
>
>> penny wrote
>>> They're the same scientists who push the scientific theories that gave
>>> us air-conditioning systems, heating systems, TV's, cars, etc. etc.
>>> etc. etc.
>>>
>> They didn't give us those inventions, those were invented well before our
>> time.
>
>
> It was the engineers who gave us the inventions, but it was the
> scientists who pushed the scientific theories that spawned so many
> engineering inventions over time. .
In general this is not true.
Quite often inventions precede scientific theory.
Steam engines were invented long before thermodynamics.
Light bulbs worked before quantum theory explained their emission
characteristics. High temperature superconductors were discovered years
before any theoretical explanations existed.
penny
They must be since 84% of scientists believe global warming is
anthropogenic. Check out the fourth paragraph:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/09/climate-change-debate-human-activity
You seem to have disregarded my etc,etc. etc. etc. , which covers all
engiineering inventions from scientific theories in the last hundred
years, whatever...
>
>You seem to be inventing scientific support for AGW where none exists.
I'm not in the "inventing" game. It's truth all the way for me.
Penny
>
Bruce Richmond
Nothing that he is willing to attach his name to.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Thing is, science is not democracy.
AGW is not "proved" which is why there is a 16% dissent. It just seems
that according to the available information this is the likely major
cause. That might change. However, so many politicians, plus the entire
Green movement, have tied their credibility to AGW that it will take a
*lot* of counter evidence to overthrow what has become a political
consensus. If AGW were to be disproved a lot of very influential people
and careers would go down the drain.
Bret Cahill
> >>> Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
> >>> fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
> >>> Democratic.
>
> >> Most scientists are poorly paid public servants.
>
> > Scientists at private universities and who aren't receiving any
> > funding are even less likely to be Repugliars.
>
> > Face reality: No one except bottom fishing GOP strategists want to be
> > associated with creationists, nutters, birthers, GOP "market"
> > economists, and other wing a dings.
>
> >www.bretcahill.com
>
> Wrong, fully independent universities that take no government money are
> perdominantly conservative.
Liberty U. ain't got no scientists.
Bret Cahill
penny
<dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>penny wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:36:24 -0400, Tim Elliot <tell...@rogers.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> penny wrote
>>>> They're the same scientists who push the scientific theories that gave
>>>> us air-conditioning systems, heating systems, TV's, cars, etc. etc.
>>>> etc. etc.
>>>>
>>> They didn't give us those inventions, those were invented well before our
>>> time.
>>
>>
>> It was the engineers who gave us the inventions, but it was the
>> scientists who pushed the scientific theories that spawned so many
>> engineering inventions over time. .
>
>In general this is not true.
I thought it was the reverse but I am not scientist nor am I an
engineer.
>Quite often inventions precede scientific theory.
>Steam engines were invented long before thermodynamics.
>Light bulbs worked before quantum theory explained their emission
>characteristics. High temperature superconductors were discovered years
>before any theoretical explanations existed.
I bow to your expertise. However, I'm sure there must be thousands of
inventions out there which were spawned by these theories that maybe
you may have missed.
Would you mind making a small list of some inventions that came after
the theory. What has been invented from the Quantum theory,etc. and
what has been invented out of the thermodynamic theory since it came
into existence..
Thanks, in eager anticipation of improving upon my knowledge. .
Penny
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Probably, but they are likely to be relatively modern.
> Would you mind making a small list of some inventions that came after
> the theory. What has been invented from the Quantum theory,etc. and
> what has been invented out of the thermodynamic theory since it came
> into existence..
Typically these theories have been used to improve the efficiency of
existing devices. I suppose that the transistor might be claimed as an
invention following on from quantum theory, but I am not entirely sure
since the first patent was in 1925, some years before QM was fully
worked out at that level of detail.
Offhand, I cannot think of any major invention apart from radio that
derived from a theory with no pure-invention precursor. Maybe some
others here can find an example or two. The area to examine would likely
be new sensors.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Laser, Maser and non-linear optics
Bret Cahill
> just die
Write yer outspoken "market" economists and find out.
Casey
> penny wrote:
>
> > Would you mind making a small list of some inventions that came after
> > the theory. What has been invented from the Quantum theory,etc. and
> > what has been invented out of the thermodynamic theory since it came
> > into existence..
>
> Typically these theories have been used to improve the efficiency of
> existing devices. I suppose that the transistor might be claimed as an
> invention following on from quantum theory, but I am not entirely sure
> since the first patent was in 1925, some years before QM was fully
> worked out at that level of detail.
>
> Offhand, I cannot think of any major invention apart from radio that
> derived from a theory with no pure-invention precursor. Maybe some
> others here can find an example or two. The area to examine would likely
> be new sensors.
I sometimes dream of the enormous wealth that I would have earned if
only I had patented the idea of Usenet blowhard and Loudmouth, and
earned a royalty of 5 cents for every one I see.
Bill Ward
Wouldn't gunpowder qualify as an "alternative fuel"?
penny
wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:21:56 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
><rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
>>Good post!
>>
>>Also please see:
>>
>>http://www.amazon.com/Republican-War-Science-Revised-Updated/dp/B001OQOIPM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1250389036&sr=8-2
>>
>>
>>
>>On Aug 15, 6:35�pm, . <Entwistl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>>
>>[snip the BS]
>
>
> What is going on, now anybody who is not an
>atheist scientist is supposed to bad, AGW is no longer
>the issue, it is free enterprise that is bad?
Free enterprise is only bad when there is no accountability for the
entrepreneurs because they become such massively powerful mega
corporations in their global trade across borders. .
Global or Transnational corporations have become so powerful they
influence governments to the point that many governments throughout
the world are going right wing.-- Republican. .
Since these massive corporations own and control the mainstream media
the mainstream media has also gone to the right .
Consequently workers' rights, human rights, social rights, and
environmental protection have been violated and are more and more
unprotected because in Republican right wingdom this is what you get.
The majority of Transnational corporations or any corporations do not
have in-built morality meters that demand workers' rights,etc ,
They have found that when they violate these rights they get bigger
and better profits. Why should they care if a worker works in an
unsafe environment or has to work for unpaid overtime,etc. .
Corporate profit is the strongest of strong motivators to dump all
that dumb stuff like rights, unions, pensions, etc. etc. etc.
Say, thank god, for Obama who is a very moral man, a man who fights
for the common good , but will also try to balance the relationship
among entrepreneurs, government and employees.
He'll do you proud if you can keep those rabid beasts of the field
Republicans chewing their baccy, playing with their guns, and anything
to stop them thinking and banging their drums. .
We all know that thinking when there's no knowledge upstairs in the
Republican noodle, can lead only to chaos, disaster and the end of
America if they keep pushing it.
Don't say I didn't warn you , Bud ! ;-)
Scientists are very seldom Republicans.
Republicans still live in the Dark Ages and respond with knee-jerk
reactions rather than rational ones. .
Penny
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Al Bedo
> From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:
> http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
>
Politics, being inherently irrational,
are not a scientific domain regardless
of affiliation.
Jim Austin
> From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
> Why scientists are seldom Republicans
>
> By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
<Snip> Never mind the article.
When a political faction claims the sanction of science, the
validity of such claims can be evaluated by that faction's attitude
toward science per se. Thus when liberals invoke science to support
their positions, consider the following:
Liberals are pragmatists. Philosophically pragmatists are among the
first to challenge the validity of scientific conclusions. Pragmatists
deny cause and effect in principle and condemn as simplistic anybody
asserting any cause as having any effect. They hold that certainty,
including scientific certainty, is impossible to us lowly mortals.
Indeed, liberals towards post modernism whereby truth itself is ethnic
based, and that the conclusions of western science are no more valid
than the lunatic ravings of a primitive tribal witchdoctor.
Liberals do not distinguish between serious scientists, those who
engage in scientific research, and pop scientists who write popular
literature and/or create documentaries for public TV. They generally
quote the latter and ignore the former. Given their pragmatism, one is
just as good as the other and the latter is generally easier to
understand.
Liberals believe in "political correctness" whereby scientific
conclusions can be evaluated by their conformance to a political
ideology.
Since the time of Rousseau, left wing political thought has held
that science is bad, that technology is bad, that industrialization is
bad, that affluence and prosperity are bad and that innocence is to be
found in primitive existence.
This view often gets expressed in movies like "Jurassic Park" where
the character played by Jeff Goldblum refers to scientific discovery
as the "rape of the natural world."
The environmental movement is the current expression of this view.
Indeed, they've decided that humanity itself is bad for the planet.
"The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted
with a hearty 'Good riddance!", said environmentalist Paul Taylor in
"Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics."
Yes. From a scientific standpoint, much of the views espoused by
Republicans is embarrassing. However, there is little comfort to be
gained from liberal attitudes towards science.
Tom P
The Diesel engine.
T.
SaPeIsMa
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7eqnneF...@mid.individual.net...
NASA just came out with a pin to make another hole in the AGW idea
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/arctic_aerosols_goddard_institute/
NASA: Clean-air regs, not CO2, are melting the ice cap
SaPeIsMa
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:N76dndXt28i6qhXX...@giganews.com...
If would drive the greenies batty since it's 1/3 carbon and 1/3 sulfur..
Catoni
>"In general this is not true.
>Quite often inventions precede scientific theory.
>Steam engines were invented long before thermodynamics.
>Light bulbs worked before quantum theory explained their emission
>characteristics. High temperature superconductors were discovered years
>before any theoretical explanations existed. "
>--
>Dirk
Reply:
And a man-made object broke the sound barrier quite
often thousands years before jets or guns existed.
Peter Webb
"Tim Elliot" <tell...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.24f19875...@News.Individual.NET...
> Peter Webb wrote
>>
>> No, that's not true, none of the scientists behind the invention of
>> air-conditioning, heating systems, TVs or cars are AGW supporters.
>>
>>
>
> air-conditioning,
> heating systems, TVs or cars are AGW supporters"?
>
I would, except you kindly do it for me in the next couple of paragraphs.
> Scottish inventor, John Logie Baird, the father of television, first
> publicly
> demonstrated television on 26 January 1926. I'm sure that he didn't know
> about global warming.
>
> Henry Ford? Who cares? He didn't invent the internal combustion engine.
> And what would he know about global warming anyway?
>
> The first person to experiment with an internal-combustion engine was the
> Dutch physicist Christian Huygens, about 1680.
>
> Air Conditioning? A 19th century invention.
>
See?
Not one of them could possibly have supported the AGW hypothesis; they were
all dead before it was invented.
As I said, the poster seems to be inventing scientific support for AGW where
none exists.
Peter Webb
OK, just for the record, who are the "scientists behind the invention of
air-conditioning, heating systems, TVs or cars" who have come out in favour
of the AGW hypothesis?
I am figuring Diesel for cars, Baird for TV, Carnot for air-conditioning ...
but none of these appear to be AGW supporters. Maybe you have some other
inventors in mind ...
Occidental
wrote:
> penny wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:08:52 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> > <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> penny wrote:
Nuclear Weapons
Artificial Neural Networks
Satellites
The area to examine would likely
> be new sensors.
>
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5- Our podcasts on weird stuff
SaPeIsMa
"Catoni" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:53325af9-8c5d-495a...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
And that was ?
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
SaPeIsMa
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "Catoni" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:53325af9-8c5d-495a...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>
>>>> "In general this is not true.
>>>> Quite often inventions precede scientific theory.
>>>> Steam engines were invented long before thermodynamics.
>>>> Light bulbs worked before quantum theory explained their emission
>>>> characteristics. High temperature superconductors were discovered years
>>>> before any theoretical explanations existed. "
>>>> --
>>>> Dirk
>>>
>>>
>>> Reply:
>>> And a man-made object broke the sound barrier quite
>>> often thousands years before jets or guns existed.
>>
>> And that was ?
>>
> The tip of a whip
>
Dang.
Didn't think of that..
It's been a long time since High School Physics (sigh)
(Thank you Mr. Dick (RIP), for being a great Physics teacher, who
created interesting demos and experiments to bring home the lessons.)
Catoni
> "And a man-made object broke the sound barrier quite
> often thousands years before jets or guns existed. "
Question by SaPelsMa:
> "And that was ?"
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax replied:
>"The tip of a whip "
--
Dirk
Reply by Catoni:
Yep! Correct !! The "crack" noise of the tip of a
whip when properly snap whipped very quickly is the end of the whip
creating a small sonic boom as it breaks the sound barrier.
I even used to do it with a wet towel rolled up from a corner. The
"crack" noise can be actually quite loud in a room. But the pressure
waves from it traveling at that speed and breaking the sound barrier
soon shreads the corner of the towel. :LOL
- Catoni
I M @ good guy
<dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Tim Elliot wrote:
>> Peter Webb wrote
>>> No, that's not true, none of the scientists behind the invention of
>>> air-conditioning, heating systems, TVs or cars are AGW supporters.
>>>
>>> You seem to be inventing scientific support for AGW where none exists.
>>>
>>
>> Speaking of inventing scientific support, can you cite a legitimate source
>> that says "none of the scientists behind the invention of air-conditioning,
>> heating systems, TVs or cars are AGW supporters"?
>>
>> Scottish inventor, John Logie Baird, the father of television, first publicly
>> demonstrated television on 26 January 1926. I'm sure that he didn't know
>> about global warming.
>>
>> Henry Ford? Who cares? He didn't invent the internal combustion engine.
>> And what would he know about global warming anyway?
>>
>> The first person to experiment with an internal-combustion engine was the
>> Dutch physicist Christian Huygens, about 1680.
>>
>> Air Conditioning? A 19th century invention.
>
>Let me point out something else that should be obvious, but obviously isn't.
>
>Scientists discover
>Engineers invent
Don't you know what engineers are trained to do,
just learn the technology, get hardware catalogs and
select which components to assemble.
Anybody can invent, and the role of a "scientist"
isn't all that well defined.
Einstein was co-inventor of one of the absorption
dual working fluid refrigeration systems.
Why would you think scientists don't invent,
even a chemical formula can be patented, the
role of a scientist includes obtaining patents,
industry can not pay a scientist to tinker unless
they get patents.
Unfortunately the US patent fees are so high
now, only big companies can afford to patent,
30 years ago an individual could file a patent
for $65.
Writing papers is really not where its at,
far too many are being written just from library
research, although original work can sometimes
be developed that way, library research is a
method of seeing what has been done so
that new and original work can be identified.
Whomever named this thread is a political
screwball.
I M @ good guy
<dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>penny wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:51:31 +1000, "Peter Webb"
>> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> "penny" <gor...@sentex.net > wrote in message
>>> news:4g8f85tof6n3vm8ck...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:49:15 +1000, "nbzoo" <a...@t.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "." <Entwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:MPG.24f12c705...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>>> From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:
>>>>>> http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>>>>>> Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew
>>>>>> Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
>>>>>> fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
>>>>>> Democratic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Aha, that explains why so many "scientists" (preachers actually) nowadays
>>>>> are pushing the global warming scam!
>>>>
>>>> They're the same scientists who push the scientific theories that gave
>>>> us air-conditioning systems, heating systems, TV's, cars, etc. etc.
>>>> etc. etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, that's not true, none of the scientists behind the invention of
>>> air-conditioning, heating systems, TVs or cars are AGW supporters.
>>
>>
>>
>> They must be since 84% of scientists believe global warming is
>> anthropogenic. Check out the fourth paragraph:
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/09/climate-change-debate-human-activity
>>
>> You seem to have disregarded my etc,etc. etc. etc. , which covers all
>> engiineering inventions from scientific theories in the last hundred
>> years, whatever...
>>
>>> You seem to be inventing scientific support for AGW where none exists.
>>
>> I'm not in the "inventing" game. It's truth all the way for me.
>
>Thing is, science is not democracy.
>AGW is not "proved" which is why there is a 16% dissent. It just seems
>that according to the available information this is the likely major
>cause. That might change. However, so many politicians, plus the entire
>Green movement, have tied their credibility to AGW that it will take a
>*lot* of counter evidence to overthrow what has become a political
>consensus. If AGW were to be disproved a lot of very influential people
>and careers would go down the drain.
AGW is disproved until it warms and keeps warming.
If AGW is valid, there needs to be a big spike when
sunspots, El Nino, and other climate factors all peak at
the same time.
But even AGW theory itself does not necessarily predict
places that are hot now will get any warmer, isn't it the polar
regions that are supposed to warm the most?
So future tellers need to calculate the thermal energy
needed to melt the ice before thinking about warming, the
melting ice cools the thing that is melting it, air conditioners
and refrigeration units are rated according to how much
ice would have to melt to equal the output.
I M @ good guy
They would probably just cite past history, and
provide stats with a lot of nines after the decimal point.
I M @ good guy
No, the charcoal combusts, becoming CO2.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/historyofchemistry/a/gunpowder.htm
I M @ good guy
Stop showing your idiotic politics, the idea of "pensions"
is flawed to begin with, every company that has offered any
pensions at all have either gone bankrupt or had to scale
down the promises.
You need to go into business and learn just how
difficult it is to actually earn a dollar from manufacturing
a product.
The US government is burdened with the pensions
of the railroads that failed, and the black lung benefits of
the coal mines.
Some companies actually were dumb enough to
agree to pensions after 20 years of work, anybody that
can add should be able to figure out that can't work for
very long, in 40 years a pension of half the wage would
require the company to double the profit margin before
pensions, causing them to price their product or service
out of the market.
There was a time when organized labor was needed
to separate employment from slavery, but those days in
the USA are long gone.
Freedom itself depends on individuals being able
to enter into contracts which are beneficial to all.
Bruce Richmond
>
> - Show quoted text -
Depends on your definition of "alternative fuel".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_fuel
"any materials or substances that can be used as fuels, other than
conventional fuels."
By that definition gunpowder should qualify. The fact that it
produces CO2 certainly doesn't rule it out. Nobody would question
that biodiesel is an alternative fuel. The charcoal in gunpowder can
be made from wood if that matters to you.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
I remember that fact because I found it so surprising
I M @ good guy
You are correct, charcoal is carbon neutral, now
the price of reloading my shells will go up.
Roger Coppock
wrote:
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
> > Why scientists are seldom Republicans
>
> > By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
[ . . . ]
> Where is this study showing most scientists are Democrats?
The survey this article is based on:
Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
> Since the time of Rousseau, left wing political thought has held
> that science is bad, that technology is bad, that industrialization is
> bad, that affluence and prosperity are bad and that innocence is to be
> found in primitive existence.
Now, prove to us you're a scientist by
supporting these sweeping generalizations
of yours with some facts.
erschro...@gmail.com
> "." <Entwistl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.24f12c705...@news.x-privat.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:
> >http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>
> > Why scientists are seldom Republicans
>
> > By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
>
> > scientists?
>
> > Ask the Republican Party.
>
> > It lives in such a world.
>
> > Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party
> > anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there
> > won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a
> > kitchen table.
>
> > It is no wonder the Republican throngs showing up to disrupt town hall
> > meetings on health care reform are so gullible, willing to believe
> > absurd claims like the coming of "death panels."
>
> > Their party is nearly devoid of neuroscientists, astrophysicists,
> > marine biologists or any other scientific professional who would
> > insist on intellectual rigor, objective evidence and sound reasoning
> > as the basis for public policy development.
>
> > The people left don't have that kind of discipline and don't expect it
> > from their leaders.
>
> > They are willing to believe anything some right-wing demagogue with a
> > cable show or pulpit tells them, no matter how outlandish.
>
> > Since the Sonia Sotomayor nomination we've been hearing about the
> > GOP's Hispanic deficit.
>
> > Only 26 percent of Latino registered voters now say they identify with
> > or lean toward the Republican Party.
>
> > But that's a full house compared with scientists.
>
> > Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew
> > Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
> > fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
> > Democratic.
>
> > thinking have abandoned the Republican Party.
>
> > The GOP has proudly adopted the mantle of the "Terri Schiavo, global
> > warming shwarming" party with the Bush administration helping cement
> > the image by persistently subverting science to serve a religious
> > agenda or corporate greed.
>
> > But what worries me is not the shrunken relevancy of the GOP, a party
> > in which 56 percent of its members oppose funding of embryonic stem
> > cell research, 39 percent believe humans have always existed on Earth
> > in their present form, and in which only 30 percent say human activity
> > is warming the planet.
>
> > It is that this nation's future depends upon people who don't think
> > that way and the Republican Party is closing the door to them.
>
> > Every hope we have to invent our way out of this economic malaise and
> > create enough Information Age jobs to maintain a stable and prosperous
> > middle class sits on the shoulders of people who understand and
> > practice the scientific method.
>
> > Every hope we have of advancing human understanding of the physical
> > universe and bettering our lives in it, is tied to professionals now
> > represented by only one of our nation's two major political parties ?
> > while the other party attempts to obstruct them.
>
> > Global warming is a prime example.
>
> > Earth is under siege by CO2 emissions to a point that the Pentagon is
> > warning that our national security is at risk if climate change is not
> > arrested.
>
> > All Americans and politicians should be united for collective action.
>
> > Yet George Bush spent essentially his entire presidency ignoring and
> > suppressing scientific concerns.
>
> > Even today, with the effects of global warming evident, Republicans in
> > Congress are trying to bury the cap-and-trade energy bill, the
> > nation's first attempt (albeit not strong enough) to limit greenhouse
> > gas emissions.
>
> > Their alternative is to offer nothing.
>
> > Why are they so blind to the looming crisis?
>
> > Because to embrace what scientists are saying about global warming
> > would give political liberals a win, something the GOP leadership is
> > not wont to do.
>
> > Republicans build their political careers disdaining "elitists" with a
> > good education, complex charts and empirical data.
>
> > They see it to their political advantage to rally people to distrust
> > science.
>
> > That means our nation is only likely to advance to meet the heady
> > scientific challenges of the future, on health and the environment ?
> > advancements that translate directly into economic progress and rising
> > living standards ? if the Democrats remain in power with substantial
> > majorities.
>
> > But if the nation's economic situation doesn't turn around soon, a GOP
> > resurgence could very well come.
>
> > Then scientists will once again be on the defensive against a
> > Republican Party that left them behind in favor of the Tea Party
> > crowd, the birthers, and the people who shout at town halls that
> > government better keep its hands off their Medicare.
>
> > Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to
> > describe it.
>
> Marxism appeals to intellectuals (many of whom are Jews and other
> foreigners). They fancy themselves directing society much better than
> markets can. This is a delusion which borders on insanity, another trait
> associated with intellectuals.
>
> --
> ENwhiten
> Enlightened white nationalism
>
> http://www.enwhiten.com
>
> Become ENwhitened!
And this also explains why most scientists aren't conservatives --
your poster child here.
erschro...@gmail.com
> On 2009-08-16 00:15:12 -0400, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> said:
>
> >>> Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew
> >>> Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
> >>> fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
> >>> Democratic.
>
>
> > Scientists at private universities and who aren't receiving any
> > funding are even less likely to be Repugliars.
>
> > Face reality: No one except bottom fishing GOP strategists want to be
> > associated with creationists, nutters, birthers, GOP "market"
> > economists, and other wing a dings.
>
> >www.bretcahill.com
>
> Wrong, fully independent universities that take no government money are
Only one I know is Bob Jones. Do you really want that as your poster
boy?
> perdominantly conservative. Most universities whether state run or not
> accept government funding in one way or another, there are really only
> a handful such as Hillsdale college in MI, highly conservative
> institution
erschro...@gmail.com
wrote:
> penny wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:51:31 +1000, "Peter Webb"
>
> >> "penny" <gora...@sentex.net > wrote in message
> >>news:4g8f85tof6n3vm8ck...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:49:15 +1000, "nbzoo" <a...@t.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> "." <Entwistl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:MPG.24f12c705...@news.x-privat.org...
> >>>>> From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:
> >>>>>http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
> >>>>> Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
> >>>>> fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
> >>>>> Democratic.
>
> >>>> are pushing the global warming scam!
>
> >>> They're the same scientists who push the scientific theories that gave
> >>> us air-conditioning systems, heating systems, TV's, cars, etc. etc.
> >>> etc. etc.
>
> >> No, that's not true, none of the scientists behind the invention of
> >> air-conditioning, heating systems, TVs or cars are AGW supporters.
>
> > They must be since 84% of scientists believe global warming is
> > anthropogenic. Check out the fourth paragraph:
>
>
> > You seem to have disregarded my etc,etc. etc. etc. , which covers all
> > engiineering inventions from scientific theories in the last hundred
> > years, whatever...
>
> >> You seem to be inventing scientific support for AGW where none exists.
>
> > I'm not in the "inventing" game. It's truth all the way for me.
>
> Thing is, science is not democracy.
> AGW is not "proved" which is why there is a 16% dissent.
No theory is proved. Not gravity, not relativity. However, the
phenomena themselves are facts -- gravity, relativity, and yes, AGW.
>It just seems
> that according to the available information this is the likely major
> cause. That might change.
Sure, and we might discover gravity is really "intelligent falling
down" per an Onion story.
>However, so many politicians, plus the entire
> Green movement, have tied their credibility to AGW that it will take a
> *lot* of counter evidence to overthrow what has become a political
> consensus. If AGW were to be disproved a lot of very influential people
> and careers would go down the drain.
Same as if, say, gravity were to be disproved?
>
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5- Our podcasts on weird stuff
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Aug 15, 6:35 pm, . <Entwistl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
>
>
> When a political faction claims the sanction of science, the
> validity of such claims can be evaluated by that faction's attitude
> toward science per se. Thus when liberals invoke science to support
> their positions, consider the following:
>
> Liberals are pragmatists. Philosophically pragmatists are among the
> first to challenge the validity of scientific conclusions. Pragmatists
> deny cause and effect in principle and condemn as simplistic anybody
> asserting any cause as having any effect. They hold that certainty,
> including scientific certainty, is impossible to us lowly mortals.
> Indeed, liberals towards post modernism whereby truth itself is ethnic
> based, and that the conclusions of western science are no more valid
> than the lunatic ravings of a primitive tribal witchdoctor.
You are a fool.
>
> Liberals do not distinguish between serious scientists, those who
> engage in scientific research, and pop scientists who write popular
> literature and/or create documentaries for public TV. They generally
> quote the latter and ignore the former. Given their pragmatism, one is
> just as good as the other and the latter is generally easier to
> understand.
Who has no understanding of liberals or scientists.
>
> Liberals believe in "political correctness" whereby scientific
> conclusions can be evaluated by their conformance to a political
> ideology.
Oh BS. We believe in not insulting people or attacking them for their
race or religion or ethnicity. Apparently you disagree with this.
>
> Since the time of Rousseau, left wing political thought has held
> that science is bad, that technology is bad, that industrialization is
> bad, that affluence and prosperity are bad and that innocence is to be
> found in primitive existence.
Total bull.
>
> This view often gets expressed in movies like "Jurassic Park" where
> the character played by Jeff Goldblum refers to scientific discovery
> as the "rape of the natural world."
So you also believe Crichton about recreating dinosaurs?
>
> The environmental movement is the current expression of this view.
> Indeed, they've decided that humanity itself is bad for the planet.
You are a liar.
> "The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted
> with a hearty 'Good riddance!", said environmentalist Paul Taylor in
> "Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics."
One person. Hardly "environmentalists."
>
> Yes. From a scientific standpoint, much of the views espoused by
> Republicans is embarrassing. However, there is little comfort to be
> gained from liberal attitudes towards science.
Spoken like someone with a totally superficial knowledge of liberals
and science.
az willie
240d47...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
==============
I fail to see why the fact most scientists are Democrats would be
considered news or a big deal.
Scientists are intelligent. They have higher IQ's than the general
population. Which isn't saying much since the average American IQ is only
100.
Being intelligent people they are capable of assimilating and sorting
facts and coming to logical conclusions for themselves. They don't listen
to radio talk shows ( from either side ) to form opinions. They can even
read books!!!
Having these mysterious and marvelous powers enables them to see for
themselves which political party is most truthful and which one has
policies which benefit the greatest number of people.
Hands down that honor goes to the Democrats.
--
If you don't believe in Freedom of Speech for people you despise ... you
don't believe in it at all.
I M @ good guy
>Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in news:599aadcd-3756-46df-94af-
>240d47...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Aug 16, 7:35!m, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Aug 15, 6:350m, . <Entwistl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09:
>>
>> http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
>>
>>>
>>> > Why scientists are seldom Republicans
>>>
>>> > By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
>> [ . . . ]
>>> here is this study showing most scientists are Democrats?
>>
>> The survey this article is based on:
>>
>> http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1276/science-survey
>>
>>
>
>==============
>I fail to see why the fact most scientists are Democrats would be
>considered news or a big deal.
>
>Scientists are intelligent. They have higher IQ's than the general
>population. Which isn't saying much since the average American IQ is only
>100.
Nonsense, the only real striking fact about people
that are scientists is the higher percentage that preach
atheism.
>Being intelligent people they are capable of assimilating and sorting
>facts and coming to logical conclusions for themselves. They don't listen
>to radio talk shows ( from either side ) to form opinions. They can even
>read books!!!
>
>Having these mysterious and marvelous powers enables them to see for
>themselves which political party is most truthful and which one has
>policies which benefit the greatest number of people.
>
>Hands down that honor goes to the Democrats.
You seem to ignore the fact that it is easier for
kids of the rich have an easier time going to school
and graduating, and the big democrat claim is that
the republicans are rich.
az willie
news:ovmj859mgrobvqp2t...@4ax.com:
============
Which is just one more proof they are more intelligent than the general
population.
===========
>
>
>>Being intelligent people they are capable of assimilating and sorting
>>facts and coming to logical conclusions for themselves. They don't
>>listen to radio talk shows ( from either side ) to form opinions. They
>>can even read books!!!
>>
>>Having these mysterious and marvelous powers enables them to see for
>>themselves which political party is most truthful and which one has
>>policies which benefit the greatest number of people.
>>
>>Hands down that honor goes to the Democrats.
>
> You seem to ignore the fact that it is easier for
> kids of the rich have an easier time going to school
> and graduating, and the big democrat claim is that
> the republicans are rich.
>
>
>
>
>
>
============
No, sadly not all Republicans are rich. Many are relatively poor and
lower class misguided individuals who are Republican because they
associate Republicans with being against abortion and they can't see any
further than that one issue.
Most Republican leaders are rich ... but much of their base is actually
their prey and just too dumb to realize it.
Hope for the Heartless
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:48:49 -0500, az willie <scl...@npole.com> wrote:
> >Scientists are intelligent. They have higher IQ's than the general
> >population. Which isn't saying much since the average American IQ is only
> >100.
>
> Nonsense, the only real striking fact about people
> that are scientists is the higher percentage that preach
> atheism.
Says the guy who kept failing his math and science classes...
... because his standard of evidence was whether or not a thing
is stated in the bible, rather than logic and REPEATABLE evidence.
>
> You seem to ignore the fact that it is easier for
> kids of the rich have an easier time going to school
> and graduating, and the big democrat claim is that
> the republicans are rich.
That's not actually the claim. Some rich people are liberals and
Democrats. Some are Republicans and conservatives.
The *correct* claim is that Republican policies serve to conserve the
power and wealth of rich people at the expense of everybody else.
Due to the propaganda efforts of the GOP machine, most of the supporters
of those policies are among the people most in need of Liberal policies.
That's why Republicans try so hard to make Democrat and Liberal into
dirty words.
I M @ good guy
<h.hea...@bitbucket.gov> wrote:
>In article <ovmj859mgrobvqp2t...@4ax.com>,
> "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:48:49 -0500, az willie <scl...@npole.com> wrote:
>> >Scientists are intelligent. They have higher IQ's than the general
>> >population. Which isn't saying much since the average American IQ is only
>> >100.
>>
>> Nonsense, the only real striking fact about people
>> that are scientists is the higher percentage that preach
>> atheism.
>
>Says the guy who kept failing his math and science classes...
Wrong as usual, lefty.
>... because his standard of evidence was whether or not a thing
>is stated in the bible, rather than logic and REPEATABLE evidence.
Oh, another atheist scientist, what's the matter,
something made you mad about religion?
>> You seem to ignore the fact that it is easier for
>> kids of the rich have an easier time going to school
>> and graduating, and the big democrat claim is that
>> the republicans are rich.
>
>That's not actually the claim. Some rich people are liberals and
>Democrats. Some are Republicans and conservatives.
Why would anybody admit to being a liberal democrat?
>The *correct* claim is that Republican policies serve to conserve the
>power and wealth of rich people at the expense of everybody else.
Like all the energy credits, either tax credits, or given
only to people who can afford a new car?
>Due to the propaganda efforts of the GOP machine, most of the supporters
>of those policies are among the people most in need of Liberal policies.
Not even close to reality, the problem is foolish investors
and wild speculation helped along by a few madeoff with the
money people.
>That's why Republicans try so hard to make Democrat and Liberal into
>dirty words.
I drive in the right lane.
erschro...@gmail.com
> "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote innews:ovmj859mgrobvqp2t...@4ax.com:> >>Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in
> >>news:599aadcd-3756-46df-94af-
> >>240d47c0e...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
And gay marriage; don't forget that. And guns.
alanm...@yahoo.com
The story didn't say anything about the party affiliation of
scientists. The only mention of party
was in the following paragraph:
"Moreover, large percentages think that government investments in
basic scientific research (73%) and engineering and technology (74%)
pay off in the long run. Notably, the partisan differences in these
views are fairly modest, with 80% of Democrats and 68% of Republicans
saying that government investments in basic science pay off in the
long run. Comparable percentages of Democrats and Republicans say the
same about government investments in engineering and technology."
- A. McIntire
Bret Cahill
> >> just die
>
> >Write yer outspoken "market" economists and find out.
>
> >www.bretcahill.com
>
> They would probably just cite past history, and
> provide stats with a lot of nines after the decimal point.
Every time anyone forces them to dodge The Question it undermines the
GOP despotism.
Bret Cahill
E.A.
> Good post!
>
> Also please see:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Republican-War-Science-Revised-Updated/dp/B001O...
Indeed an excellent book by Chris Mooney, co-author of "Unscientific
America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future." Both books
should be required reading for students entering college. There are
too many shallow business majors and money-grubbers in America. They
leech off science when it delivers gadgets and life-saving medicine,
but snub its warnings about personal restraint, e.g. AGW-denial. We
have become a nation of superficially-wealthy, ungrateful parasites on
nature.
Excerpt from Scientific American's review of "The Republican War on
Science" (via Amazon.com):
"Thomas Jefferson would be appalled. More than two centuries after he
helped to shape a government based on the idea that reason and
technological advancement would propel the new United States into a
glorious future, the political party that now controls that government
has largely turned its back on science. Even as the country and the
planet face both scientifically complex threats and remarkable
technological opportunities, many Republican officeholders reject the
most reliable sources of information and analysis available to guide
the nation. As inconceivable as it would have been to Jefferson--and
as dismaying as it is to growing legions of today's scientists--large
swaths of the government in Washington are now in the hands of people
who don't know what science is. More ominously, some of those in power
may grasp how research works but nonetheless are willing to subvert
science's knowledge and expert opinion for short-term political and
economic gains..."
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Genesis 1:28 update: Go forth and overpopulate and pillage the Earth,
and call it economic growth.
Dr. Brian
Though I haven't read it, I heard an interview with a guy who wrote a
book called "Physics for Future Presidents"
It's by Richard Muller and from what he said, it made a lot of sense.
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Future-Presidents-Science-Headlines/dp/0393066274
On the other hand, when Obama designated his "Czar of Science", a lot
of (mostly right wing) detractors said that a brilliant Nobel Laurete
wasn't the right choice, they should have been more like Bush and
hired an "adminstrator".
They cooked up stuff like how John Holdren was into baby killing,
abortions and the prerequsite "death panels" and so.
Of course, next to cooking up road kill possum for supper, reading
World Net Daily and watching NASCAR, that's all that seems on their
mind these days.
E.A.
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew
> > Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
> > fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
> > Democratic.
>
> Most Scientists are poorly paid public servants. This group typically votes
> Democrat as they have a vested interest in increased public spending.
List their salaries, then. Most aren't as rich as Republican money-
conjurers, but "poorly paid" is something you pulled out of a hat.
> Of course, anybody with the slightest scientific training would have corrected for these variables, and instead compared the
> voting habits of scientists with the voting habits of other people with the same demographics.
The main "variable" left out by the author was that most Republicans
believe in things like Noah's Ark and The Rapture, both highly
unscientific concepts.
> Obviously the author is not a scientist, and has no clue about the
> scientific method, control groups, isolating causal relationships, etc.
> Which makes me wonder why he writes about a subject he is apparently
> completely ignorant of.
>
> This ignorance of the scientific method means that the conclusions are
> meaningless and the argument crap.
>
> The "Pew Research Centre" would appear to have as much credibility as the
> "Pond's Institute" when it comes to scientific analysis.
Are you a Creatard by any chance? The odds are very high if you're a
Republican. Creatards tend to downplay their bias when trying to look
scientific.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Abortion is bad. Overpopulation is worse.
E.A.
> "." <Entwistl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.24f12c705...@news.x-privat.org...
>
>
>
> >http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece
> > Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
> > fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
> > Democratic.
>
> are pushing the global warming scam!
Wrong. Evidence is not a scam just because it cramps your style.
> They most probably succumbed to the intense socialist indoctrination present
> in many universities.
If, by "socialist," you mean the need to control the greedy side of
humanity, the conclusions of science often work out that way. A world
without greed-control would be a much bleaker place. Don't wish too
hard for it.
> The 12% Republican Scientists Are most probably the true scientists who
> retain the scepticism so necessary to properly practice science!
Bonzo, are you a Creationist? Just answer YES or NO if you happen to
read this.
Don't try to change the subject, just a simple YES or NO will do. If
you're a Creationist, please stop your pretense of scientific
objectivity on global warming.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Faith is hope without evidence.
Peter Webb
"E.A." <enough_...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:f5b16445-1616-444e...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew
> > Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
> > fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
> > Democratic.
>
> Most Scientists are poorly paid public servants. This group typically
> votes
> Democrat as they have a vested interest in increased public spending.
List their salaries, then. Most aren't as rich as Republican money-
conjurers, but "poorly paid" is something you pulled out of a hat.
***************************
Here is a better or more pertinent statistic. Both Canberra and Washington
DC always return left wing candidates (Labor/Democrat), which is almost
universally recognised as deriving from the much higher percentage of public
servants in those cities. The link betwen being a government employee and
being more likely to vote Left wing is pretty much universally accepted.
> Of course, anybody with the slightest scientific training would have
> corrected for these variables, and instead compared the
> voting habits of scientists with the voting habits of other people with
> the same demographics.
The main "variable" left out by the author was that most Republicans
believe in things like Noah's Ark and The Rapture, both highly
unscientific concepts.
*****************************
Lets substitute the words "American" for "Republican". Most Americans
believe a lot of stupid things, but that doesn't mean that American
scientists as a whole should be denigrated. You see that your argument does
not follow?
> Obviously the author is not a scientist, and has no clue about the
> scientific method, control groups, isolating causal relationships, etc.
> Which makes me wonder why he writes about a subject he is apparently
> completely ignorant of.
>
> This ignorance of the scientific method means that the conclusions are
> meaningless and the argument crap.
>
> The "Pew Research Centre" would appear to have as much credibility as the
> "Pond's Institute" when it comes to scientific analysis.
Are you a Creatard by any chance? The odds are very high if you're a
Republican. Creatards tend to downplay their bias when trying to look
scientific.
****************************
I personally am absolutely and totally convinced about the truth of the
theory of evolution. OTOH, there are a lot of Southern Democrat voting
Baptsis who are convinced otherwise, but hey Americans have lots of funny
ideas (this evolution debate really only exists in the US) but that doesn't
mean their scientists are all neccesarily stupid.
Earl Evleth
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Most scientists are poorly paid public servants.
Full Professor salary at Harvard is $192,600 (for 9 months)
Average Ph.D. salary of a chemist runs about $100,000.
Earl Evleth
d303569d-83f6-422d...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, "Bret
Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> Face reality: No one except bottom fishing GOP strategists want to be
> associated with creationists, nutters, birthers, GOP "market"
> economists, and other wing a dings.
The problem is that 60% of the Republicans are nuts as seen below.
The idea that humans were created 10,000 yrs ago by God is a nutty
idea.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.a
spx
"There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin
of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in
their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only
40% of independents and 38% of Democrats."
Bill Ward
An interesting comment from someone who can't explain in his own words
the mechanism, or show the direct evidence, supporting his faith in his
beliefs. All he can do is post links to material he doesn't understand,
and wave his arms. Watch:
John Carter
Subject: Re: Why Scientists Are Seldom Republicans
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.politics.republicans,alt.global-
warming,alt.politics.liberalism,aus.politics
References: <MPG.24f12c705...@news.x-privat.org> <4a878fc8$1
@dnews.tpgi.com.au> <d7c63774-6519-4a60-a207-
1191bf...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <1padnSOZxsgurjzX...@giganews.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:35:15 -0500
Lines: 51
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-
bgucplGZDVuq4iINOsZeQoWJHts3eE5VvsGYl3iLLPU29fyHIHG1CSDuFALFPBn71pSAm8FWJQH2szw!
lR2S1PDSNsYAcBZNLcJNbYEA83vQpMqE6a/IcyiEgPgq+pas5rEVKZuaATjvurknzieZSj/GrQ==
X-Complaints-To: ab...@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
"Bill Ward" A known liar and a seditious troll.
Everybody knows "Bill Ward" He uses Pan/0.132
Like all the other trolls. Has he ever had another job?
I wonder how much Bozo pays him?
Bill Ward
AGWer desperation is getting almost funny.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Personal attacks are against Usenet rules.
last_t...@yahoo.com
> Personal attacks are against Usenet rules.
>
>
You are all three of the following:
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1-The 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 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 terrorists,
anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
serial killers, 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.