/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4150964]

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
> Slightly more than half of scientists (52%) describe their own political views as liberal, including 14% who describe themselves as very liberal.
> Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP.

If this is true, and scientists are mostly liberals, then why should we believe what they say?

Also, how do we fix this?

[Anonymous No.4150999]

More like only people with scientific knowledge, or people with doctorates in any field (not people with 4 year lolbuznss and artzz degrees), should be allowed to vote.

[Anonymous No.4150994]

aren't these guys, like 80% of them, in soft sciences?

[Anonymous No.4151004]

Old news, and it wasn't true even then.

Liberals are mostly college students who don't have any experience yet. The actual scientists who get shit done are apolitical, independents, or conservative.

[Anonymous No.4151007]

Scientists is to broad a term, psychologists, biologists and such are probably included in the term as well as people without and graduate education. I'd be more interested in how Ph. D. holding physicists or chemists define themselves.

[Anonymous No.4151010]

It's only the social science fucks that are liberals.
The real scientists are conservative.

[Anonymous No.4151021]

>>4150994 aren't these guys, like 80% of them, in soft sciences?
Yes. And besides, it's the Engineers and Entrepreneurs who actually get shit done in this world. Instead of asking some Biology professor what 0bama's dick tastes like, ask some dude who dropped out of college to start his own business what that crap sandwich the Feds keep forcing down his throat tastes like, or as the Engineer who is trying to design a new bridge or Chemical plant expansion what dealing with all the red tape and bullshit the government keeps throwing in his way like. OH NO, AN ENDANGERED SLIME MOLD! YOU CAN'T BUILD THAT THERE!!!

[Anonymous No.4151026]

>>4151010
My sources disagree with you.

[Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB No.4151037]

Republican politicians are generally anti-science (Gingrich and Huntsman being exceptions). As such, even conservative scientists are inclined to support the Democrats under many circumstances. After supporting the Democrats for many years, they naturally label themselves as 'liberal' for convenience, rather than expounding upon their nuanced position whenever they're asked about politics.

We can "fix" it by expelling the anti-intellectuals from the Right's establishment.

[Anonymous No.4151041]

>>4151004
no

[Anonymous No.4151047]

>>4151026
Still including the social scientists and biologists and psychologists and all the other chucklefucks that call themselves "scientists" when really they're just a bunch of snake oil salesmen.

Face it, the scientists who actually get shit done are conservatives, libertarians, and independents. Liberals just sit around asking for a free handout.

[Anonymous No.4151053]

>>4151037 Republican politicians are generally anti-science
Yeah, no, that's utterly and completely false.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk

[Anonymous No.4151059]

>>4151037
> Republican politicians are generally anti-science

Right, and the liberals who are slaves to the envirofags aren't? The envirofags are by far the biggest opponents of science in existence, they do nothing but try to stop every advancement that they can. At least the conservatives have decent reasons for what they do, but the envirofags are just hypocritical scum beyond belief.

[Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB No.4151070]

>>4151053
Tyson conveniently ignores Leon Kass' manipulating Bush like a marionette and savaging the field of regenerative medicine to the point where the damage is still felt today. Simply examining the amount of raw funding is insufficient to determine much of anything.

[Anonymous No.4151074]

>>4151053

Tyson is a little bit mistaken. It is possible to increase funding to certain parts of science (e.g. pharmaceuticals, genetic engineering, petroleum engineering, shit that makes certain interests money), while still attacking other parts of science. Republicans will also refuse to enact policy based on science if the science is contrary to their ideology.

Think about how much the GOP has done to obstruct public knowledge of evolution, stem cell research, or global warming. These campaigns against science are a matter of public record and cannot be denied.

For more on the history of GOP anti-science, I recommend reading Oreskes and Conway's book, Merchants of Doubt. It's good shit.

[Anonymous No.4151078]

>>4151047
Face it, the scientists who actually get shit done are conservatives, libertarians, and independents.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.4151079]

>>4151074
> global warming
> implying that there is anything scientific about global warming

Funny how you accuse Bush of letting ideology get in the way of science, and then turn around and start spouting that bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4151082]

>>4151059
Most liberals aren't like that. Nice strawman though.

[Anonymous No.4151083]

>>4151037

>We can "fix" it by expelling the anti-intellectuals from the Right's establishment.

Good luck with that.

I'm not being facetious, 100% serious here. It would be wonderful if half of US politics did not try to obstruct science every time it contradicted some extremist political position. Unfortunately, it seems like the madmen have control of the asylum.

[Anonymous No.4151084]

>>4151070
>>4151074
Who wanted to send men back to the Moon to set up a base camp for an eventual Mars shot?

Who then killed NASA?

[Anonymous No.4151087]

>>4151079

Are you fucking shitting me?

Or are you one of those retards who thinks the best way to measure solar irradiance is by observing Neptune?

[Anonymous No.4151089]

sage

[Anonymous No.4151091]

>>4151074 Democrats will also refuse to enact policy based on science if the science is contrary to their ideology.
ftfy

[Anonymous No.4151101]

>>4151087 implying Neptune doesn't receive solar radiation
also
>graphs are bullshit, lrn2EastAngliaCRU

[Anonymous No.4151103]

>>4151091
>Democraps will also refuse to enact policy based on science if the science is contrary to their ideology.
fixed that ftfy for you

[Anonymous No.4151104]

> Feynman, Sagan, Einstein. All "liberals."

> Undergrad physics majors on a message asserting "real" scientists aren't liberals.

[Anonymous No.4151102]

>>4151091

Except for fear of nuclear energy and GMOs, which is shared by Republicans and Independents as well, Democrats generally do not attempt to deny science. The Obama administration has recently blocked the move by the FDA to approve Plan B for over-the-counter medication, but this is toeing the Republican line more than anything else.

[Anonymous No.4151108]

>>4151101

How about measuring solar irradiance FROM THE SUN? Fuck, these deniers get stupider by the day.

>graphs are bullshit, lrn2EastAngliaCRU

Apparently you either did not read the filename, or you are unable to tell the difference between two different organizations or countries.

[Anonymous No.4151114]

>>4151084

When it comes to space exploration, politics is a cesspool of ignorance no matter where you look.

Bush had a good goal with Constellation, but completely fucked up execution.

Obama has a retarded goal (or no goal at all, just talking), but he supports commercial space.

Congress cares only about money and jobs flowing into their respective states.

[Anonymous No.4151115]

>>4151104

Don't forget Bill Nye

[Anonymous No.4151117]

>>4151102 The Obama administration has recently destroyed the Space Shuttle along with it's replacement and gutted NASA to a degree that it may never recover
Nice achievements in science there, Liberals!

[Anonymous No.4151127]

>>4151117

>implying space shuttle and its replacement were not technically and economically bad designs.

[Anonymous No.4151131]

[Anonymous No.4151135]

>>4151108
So explain to me how global warming is occuring on Mars.

Oh wait, never mind. Bush kept sending scientific landers there, he was so evil he even fucked THAT planet over!

You're right. The man was an absolute fucking monster.

[Anonymous No.4151139]

>>4151117

The wisdom of the space shuttle program has been questioned for a long time now:

http://www.idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm

Also, whatever happened to that fiscal responsibility you republitards cared about so much? An unmanned space probe can do anything cheaper and safer than a space shuttle can, and they can reach further.

[Anonymous No.4151140]

>>4151117
> 2011
> Thinking obama is a liberal.

[Anonymous No.4151152]

>>4151139 fiscal responsibility
Because space exploration =! welfare payments to baby farmers.
Know why we have cordless drills? Maned space exploration. Something that fucking simple was brought about by NASA. We need to have men in space. We don't need to send money to Uganda.

[Anonymous No.4151155]

>>4151135

If you persist in your stupidity, you will give me no choice but to metaphorically destroy you.

Let's start with the most obvious. Prove that Mars is warming, then explain what are the balance of forcings that explain the warming. Please use citations from peer-reviewed scientific sources or websites belonging to authoritative scientific bodies. Do not cite blogs or political websites.

Next, please explain why NASA scientists, who allegedly proved that global warming is fake because Mars is warming, claim the opposite and instead tell us that global warming is happening on Earth and driven primarily by man.

[Anonymous No.4151172]

This board is so easy to troll...

[Anonymous No.4151173]

>>4151152

Those are value judgments and immaterial to the argument. Another anon and myself have already pointed out to you that the Space Shuttle is aging, deficient, and unsafe; and that there are cheaper and no less effective options for space exploration.

[Anonymous No.4151181]

>>4151155
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
NatGeo is obviously not peer reviewed, but it does point at the research.

Oh wait, that's right, National Geographic is in on the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.4151198]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.4151211]

>>4151181

Who the fuck is Abdussamatov?

Also it's pretty clear you didn't actually read the article.

>Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

No Greenhouse

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

[Anonymous No.4151219]

>>4151181

Good god... just give up.

[Anonymous No.4151225]

>>4151211

You also conveniently ignored this:

>then explain what are the balance of forcings that explain the warming.

and

>Next, please explain why NASA scientists, who allegedly proved that global warming is fake because Mars is warming, claim the opposite and instead tell us that global warming is happening on Earth and driven primarily by man.

If Jupiter was cooling, would that prove that global warming was caused by man? Of course not. So why would you argue the opposite and say that warming on Mars proves global warming is NOT caused by man? Why not actually look at the fucking Sun and measure the TSI, sunspots, etc. directly?