ScaupHunter wrote:Who said they are all liberal? Not I. Might want to read that post again.
dudejcb wrote:Interesting that the Pew Research article aboout scientists and politics revealed that the number of scientists that consider themselves liberal pretty much reflects the split on voter turnout in recent elections: slightly more than half.
"The scientists’ belief that the scientific community is politically liberal is largely accurate. Slightly more than half of scientists (52%) describe their own political views as liberal, including 14% who describe themselves as very liberal. Among the general public, 20% describe themselves as liberal, with just 5% calling themselves very liberal."
This contravenes Scaup's contention that all scientists are liberal.
Not surprising. Even with Al Gore's initiative at your fingertips, you still can't look up simple phrases.dudejcb wrote:Sorry Spinner. You lost me at "hard science."
Any of the natural or physical sciences wherein facts or truths are derived from empirical investigations or experiments based on scientific method.
Any of the specialized disciplines based on qualitative analysis or scientific investigations for which strictly measurable criteria may be difficult to establish.
So here are the questions that Hayes should have asked and didn't: Should we invade China to prevent it from heating the planet? Should we send troops into Saudi Arabia to seize the oil fields? Should we recolonialize Africa to keep its nations from exploiting their energy assets? It may not be conceivable that any nation will deliberately impoverish itself for the sake of the world -- but it might invade another country and shatter its economy for the same purpose.
I’d say the answer is obviously not. But if we are not willing to do that, then we will need to find some way to persuade people to leave it in the ground -- hopefully, by making it cheaper to get energy some other way. Or we will need to figure out some geoengineering solution that will let us take the carbon back out of the atmosphere faster than we put it in. What is not helpful is to focus on the enemies we’d like to have, rather than the complexities we actually face. If you want to talk about expropriation, that is whom you need to target -- and understand that the cost must be counted, not on corporate balance sheets, but in human lives.
dudejcb wrote:ScaupHunter wrote:Who said they are all liberal? Not I. Might want to read that post again.
Oh. Sorry, I thought you wrote this: "... Most colleges are very liberal in views and leanings. Just exactly where do our scientists get trained? If you want to succeed and get ahead you often have to write, research, and work to meet the expectations of the Doctorate supervising your work.
With that many liberals running around in science circles you still don't think there is a bias?"
Apparently I mistakenly took that to mean you thought most scientists were liberal.
ScaupHunter wrote:THE SKY IS FALLING. THE SKY IS FALLING! Someone needs to sit these idiots down and show them Chicken Little ( the movie ). I am going to laugh my azz off when the next Little Ice Age sets in over the Midwest and the summers turn it into a dust bowl. Lets hears the global warmers explain that one!
Sorry midwesterners, but in this model you are going to take a beating.
Don't apologize to us... We will be the only ones that can handle it.
Now drink your Starbucks mocha vanilla late thingy...
By the way. I was chatting with a buddy from Ohio today. We were having fun talking about 92 degrees in May in Western Washington and 55 degrees at night in Ohio. Role reversals anyone?