Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 150

Thread: Science knowledge has no effect on Republican beliefs

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default Science knowledge has no effect on Republican beliefs

    "Politicians don’t normally have a handle on the latest science at the best of times, whether they are on the left or the right of the spectrum. However, it’s difficult to argue against the notion that the Republican Party these days are the de facto political organization for anti-scientific rhetoric.

    The President of the United States is skeptical of vaccine safety. He isn’t sure about climate change being real either, and neither is most of his cabinet – including the person responsible for keeping an eye on it. Heck, Trump’s not even sure what wind actually is, or what its intentions are.

    So what of Republican voters? Is the average GOP voter a very different creature? Do Democrats have a better grasp on science than the Republican part of American society? Well, according to a recent set of surveys from Pew Research, political belief strongly influences scientific acceptance for both Democrats and Republicans – but in two very different ways."

    ...
    "In fact, there was no correlation between scientific consensus acceptance and scientific literacy – partisanship seemed to make scientific literacy irrelevant. Those with almost no background in science responded in much the same way to questions as those with a high degree of scientific comprehension.

    For example, only 27 percent of GOPers with a “high” scientific literacy agreed that the phenomenon caused rising sea levels, and only 19 percent agreed that storms are more severe because of it.

    So, if you’re a Democrat, you are much more likely to accept scientific facts the more educated you are on the subject. If you’re a Republican, the chances are you won’t give a damn about what any scientist says – with some exceptions."

    http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...ing-to-survey/

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Micawber For This Post:

    Phantasmal (03-29-2017), Rune (03-28-2017)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    State of Bliss
    Posts
    31,007
    Thanks
    7,095
    Thanked 5,196 Times in 3,829 Posts
    Groans
    433
    Groaned 261 Times in 257 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    There's facts and then there's alternative facts...
    "There is no question former President Trump bears moral responsibility. His supporters stormed the Capitol because of the unhinged falsehoods he shouted into the world’s largest megaphone," McConnell wrote. "His behavior during and after the chaos was also unconscionable, from attacking Vice President Mike Pence during the riot to praising the criminals after it ended."



  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I might be movin to Montana
    Posts
    24,947
    Thanks
    7,072
    Thanked 10,611 Times in 7,328 Posts
    Groans
    68
    Groaned 1,966 Times in 1,782 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    "Politicians don’t normally have a handle on the latest science at the best of times, whether they are on the left or the right of the spectrum. However, it’s difficult to argue against the notion that the Republican Party these days are the de facto political organization for anti-scientific rhetoric.

    The President of the United States is skeptical of vaccine safety. He isn’t sure about climate change being real either, and neither is most of his cabinet – including the person responsible for keeping an eye on it. Heck, Trump’s not even sure what wind actually is, or what its intentions are.

    So what of Republican voters? Is the average GOP voter a very different creature? Do Democrats have a better grasp on science than the Republican part of American society? Well, according to a recent set of surveys from Pew Research, political belief strongly influences scientific acceptance for both Democrats and Republicans – but in two very different ways."

    ...
    "In fact, there was no correlation between scientific consensus acceptance and scientific literacy – partisanship seemed to make scientific literacy irrelevant. Those with almost no background in science responded in much the same way to questions as those with a high degree of scientific comprehension.

    For example, only 27 percent of GOPers with a “high” scientific literacy agreed that the phenomenon caused rising sea levels, and only 19 percent agreed that storms are more severe because of it.

    So, if you’re a Democrat, you are much more likely to accept scientific facts the more educated you are on the subject. If you’re a Republican, the chances are you won’t give a damn about what any scientist says – with some exceptions."

    http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...ing-to-survey/
    Trumpkins are actually proud of their lack of "book learnin"!
    What kind of country have we become?

    One in which federal prosecutors can take “evidence” before a “grand jury,”

    and that grand jury can “vote to indict” a former president for 91 alleged “crimes”?

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    36,465
    Thanks
    16,662
    Thanked 20,736 Times in 14,331 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,387 Times in 1,305 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    So, if you’re a Democrat, you are much more likely to accept scientific facts the more educated you are on the subject. If you’re a Republican, the chances are you won’t give a damn about what any scientist says – with some exceptions."

    http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...ing-to-survey/
    Because it's not about the truth. Republicans weigh profits against everything. See the new anti environment, pro coal EOs aimed at bolstering an obsolete energy source.

    Say nothing of toxic. They pretend to not believe in the unquestionable truths. They just parrot talking points about 'unproven' blah blah blah, and cash the lobbyists' checks.
    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Althea For This Post:

    Bill (03-29-2017)

  7. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    28,688
    Thanks
    26,423
    Thanked 14,245 Times in 9,790 Posts
    Groans
    563
    Groaned 606 Times in 573 Posts

    Default

    In Liberal lala land, only the rich can afford to pollute. As far as the libs are concerned, the poor can go fuck themselves to death if they want cheap energy.
    Last edited by Bigdog; 03-28-2017 at 05:29 PM.
    "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
    — Joe Biden on Obama.

    Socialism is just the modern word for monarchy.

    D.C. has become a Guild System with an hierarchy and line of accession much like the Royal Court or priestly classes.

    Private citizens are perfectly able of doing a better job without "apprenticing".

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Bigdog For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (03-28-2017)

  9. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    19,400
    Thanks
    1,745
    Thanked 6,394 Times in 5,099 Posts
    Groans
    1,397
    Groaned 908 Times in 849 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZappasGuitar View Post
    Trumpkins are actually proud of their lack of "book learnin"!
    More petty personal attacks.

  10. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZappasGuitar View Post
    Trumpkins are actually proud of their lack of "book learnin"!
    So what level of education do you have Zippy? I asked you his before but you've declined to answer. Same story with Rune.

    Sent from Lenovo K6 Note

  11. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdog View Post
    In Liberal lala land, only the rich can afford to pollute. As far as the libs are concerned, the poor can go fuck themselves them to death if they want cheap energy.
    Yes that is especially true in Africa.

    Sent from Lenovo K6 Note

  12. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdog View Post
    In Liberal lala land, only the rich can afford to pollute. As far as the libs are concerned, the poor can go fuck themselves them to death if they want cheap energy.
    Yes that is especially true in Africa.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yaya View Post
    More petty personal attacks.
    Zappa refuses to reveal his educational record, ask yourself why.

    Sent from Lenovo K6 Note

  13. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    New scientific paper suggests that CO2 residence time in atmosphere is only four years.


    "We present a carbon cycle with an uptake proportional to the CO2 concentration.

    Temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates are considered.

    The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is found to be 4 years.

    Paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate are well reproduced.

    Human emissions only contribute 15 % to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era.

    Abstract

    Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years."


    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...21818116304787

    Sent from Lenovo K6 Note

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    Bigdog (03-28-2017)

  15. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milagro View Post
    So what level of education do you have Zippy? I asked you his before but you've declined to answer. Same story with Rune.

    Sent from Lenovo K6 Note
    If the OP study is valid, both likely have advanced degrees in nuclear engineering, space mathematics from Cal Tech and roman antiquities from the Sorbonne, and you eat paste at the chucky cheese institute of applied nose picking.

  16. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill View Post
    What did you do on holiday?
    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    If the OP study is valid, both likely have advanced degrees in nuclear engineering, space mathematics from Cal Tech and roman antiquities from the Sorbonne, and you eat paste at the chucky cheese institute of applied nose picking.
    No mate, I have an honours degree in chemistry, Zippy has a masters in burgerology and Rune has a PhD in bashing metal and bullshitology.

    Come to that what are your scientific credentials, I am guessing none? Not many ambulance chasers are scientifically literate.

    Sent from Lenovo K6 Note
    Last edited by cancel2 2022; 03-28-2017 at 06:08 PM.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    Cancel 2018.2 (03-28-2017), Darth Omar (03-29-2017)

  18. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Yes it's true, climate models are not in the least bit trustworthy.

    Climate models fail on the test stand

    By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
    [German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

    20 years ago climate models were celebrated as a huge breakthrough. Finally we were able to reproduce reality in the computer, which had been becoming ever more powerful and faster. Everyone believed that only minor adjustments were necessary, and the target would be reached. But when the computer-crunched results were finally compared to reality, huge unexplained discrepancies appeared.

    In parallel, paleo-climatologists produced increasingly robust reconstructions of the real climate development, which served to make the computer problems even more glaring. Month after month new papers appeared exposing the major problems of the climate modelers. Model tests were preferably started in the middle of the Little Ice Age, around 1800, because the warming seemed to fit well with the rise in CO2 emissions.

    But if one goes back 1000 years, the model technology falls apart.

    In March 2016 Fabius Maximus pointed out the obvious: The models have to be more strictly tested and calibrated before they can be approved for modeling the future.

    We can end the climate policy wars: demand a test of the models
    […] The policy debate turns on the reliability of the predictions of climate models. These can be tested to give “good enough” answers for policy decision-makers so that they can either proceed or require more research. I proposed one way to do this in Climate scientists can restart the climate change debate & win: test the models!— with includes a long list of cites (with links) to the literature about this topic. This post shows that such a test is in accord with both the norms of science and the work of climate scientists. […] Models should be tested vs. out of sample observations to prevent “tuning” the model to match known data (even inadvertently), for the same reason that scientists run double-blind experiments). The future is the ideal out of sample data, since model designers cannot tune their models to it. Unfortunately…

    “…if we had observations of the future, we obviously would trust them more than models, but unfortunately observations of the future are not available at this time.”
    — Thomas R. Knutson and Robert E. Tuleya,*note in Journal of Climate, December 2005.

    There is a solution. The models from the first four IPCC assessment reports can be run with observations made after their design (from their future, our past) — a special kind of hindcast.”

    - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/24/r....Kn0A1UhJ.dpuf
    http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/24/r...e-models-are-m
    ostly-black-box-fudging-not-real-science/#sthash.u4R7mNo1.Kn0A1UhJ.dpbs

    Sent from Lenovo K6 Note
    Last edited by cancel2 2022; 03-28-2017 at 06:13 PM.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    Bigdog (03-28-2017)

  20. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milagro View Post
    http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/24/r...e-models-are-m
    ostly-black-box-fudging-not-real-science/#sthash.u4R7mNo1.Kn0A1UhJ.dpbs

    Sent from Lenovo K6 Note
    Nothing wrong with climate skeptics publishing their science. Let me know when they break the 10% barrier of those in agreement with them. But your comments have nada to do with the sociological / poly sci study that finds only tribal loyalty dictates the beliefs of Republicans, not science. It makes intuitive sense that conservatives would be. They are rigid, inflexible and grumpy. They have little else to do all day aside from taking Bill O'Reilly memoranda to heart and preventing people from leaving dog poop on their front lawns. Surely you know they type.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Micawber For This Post:

    ZappasGuitar (03-29-2017)

  22. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    Nothing wrong with climate skeptics publishing their science. Let me know when they break the 10% barrier of those in agreement with them. But your comments have nada to do with the sociological / poly sci study that finds only tribal loyalty dictates the beliefs of Republicans, not science. It makes intuitive sense that conservatives would be. They are rigid, inflexible and grumpy. They have little else to do all day aside from taking Bill O'Reilly memoranda to heart and preventing people from leaving dog poop on their front lawns. Surely you know they type.
    Einstein was once told that 100 scientists disagreed with him on relativity, he replied that if he was wrong then one would be sufficient!

    Sent from Lenovo K6 Note

  23. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    Bigdog (03-28-2017), Cancel 2018.2 (03-28-2017), Darth Omar (03-29-2017)

Similar Threads

  1. Rubio another wacko Republican Science idiot..
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 11-21-2012, 06:34 PM
  2. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-08-2012, 05:36 AM
  3. republican contempt for science effecting whitehouse race
    By Don Quixote in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-02-2012, 07:08 AM
  4. Republican Science....
    By Cypress in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 06-21-2007, 09:30 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •