Re: Experts Find No Link Between Right Wing Thought, Ideology and Science

[Ed Chigliak]

TRUMPÄ$$© wrote

>
> Most right wing retards believe science 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.
>
> New Meta Study Proves That Rightist Rednecks Have Lower
> Intelligence.
>
> This substatiates the anti intellectualism, gullibility and
> fear of science as demonstrated by rightist peons from these
> newsgroups to Fox News and the Right Wing Propaganda non-MSM
> media. Studies show that few rightists are scientists and
> most of them think science is a socialist conspiracy.
>
> Well, well, well, boy, howdy, gosh-o-golly and gee whiz, what
> a shock! A new meta study of more than 20,000 young adults
> shows that people who identify as liberal score well above
> average on IQ tests - 106 - while their conservadolt maroon
> counterparts score well below average - 95. Who'da thunk it!
>
> A similar split in IQ was seen between those who identify as
> atheists - averaging 103 - and those who identify as ignorant
> superstitious imbeciles, er, sorry, very religious, who
> average only 97.
>
> And before you rightarded boobs start whining about some
> imaginary "librul bise," this study came from the anything
> but liberal London School of Economics and Political Science
> and was conducted by libertarian Satoshi Kanazawa.
>
> These results confirm earlier research. This latest study
> corroborates the results of earlier studies that have shown
> strong correlation between liberalism and intelligence as
> well as conservadoltism and stupidity. Last year a long term
> meta study tracking children to adulthood showed the higher a
> child scored on standardized tests, the more likely that
> child would grow up to be liberal. The inverse - the lower
> the score the more likely to end up a conservadolt - was also
> found to be true.
>
> So, there you have it, folks. Liberals really are a lot
> smarter than their conservadolt counterparts. Liberals, of
> course, have been well aware of this for some time.
> Conservadolts, OTOH, populate the risible depths of those who
> are simply not smart enough to know they simply are not smart
> enough.
>
> Then again, from the continual conservadolt rightard angst
> over my sig file, which doesn't even differentiate based on
> political identity, they must at least suspect that they're
> just not very smart. And right they are, in a world where
> right means stupid...
>
>
>

This is good too
>
>
> 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.
>

[Ed Chigliak]