If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   House Republicans declare war on science   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 231
    More: Dumbass, House Republicans, humans, Dana Rohrabacher, group object, Mount St. Helens, Jim Sensenbrenner, Competitive Enterprise Institute, climate policy  
•       •       •

10003 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Sep 2013 at 5:05 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-13 04:52:02 PM
img.fark.net
 
2013-09-13 04:54:25 PM
Did the Sad tag beat the Obvious tag to death?
 
2013-09-13 04:58:22 PM
So up until now it was an undeclared war then?

/dnctfl
 
2013-09-13 05:02:38 PM
Again?
 
2013-09-13 05:07:07 PM
FTA:  House leadership pulled the bill from the schedule. It's now expected to go back to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology for a debate.

Oh right. You mean that committee with the chairman who's a climate change denier? This should be productive.
 
2013-09-13 05:07:26 PM
Higher education leads to liberalism so I don't think you could expect anything different from them.
 
2013-09-13 05:07:50 PM

nmrsnr: Did the Sad tag beat the Obvious tag to death?


Sad, obvious, dumbass, asinine, fail...they all would have worked I think. I went with dumbass because that's what declaring a war on science will turn America into: a bunch of dumbasses.

/subby
 
2013-09-13 05:07:58 PM
Science laureate?  Is that like a poetry laureate?  Why not a scientist laureate?
 
2013-09-13 05:10:27 PM
So the previous 100 years has just been what, a skirmish?
 
2013-09-13 05:11:21 PM
"There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?
 
2013-09-13 05:12:39 PM
Just wait until the next Republican president selects the science laureate to spread their message across the land. Then you'll know this was a good idea.
 
2013-09-13 05:12:42 PM

dookdookdook: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?


I think they've launched themselves much further into "Thar Be Dragons" territory than the Taliban could ever hope to reach.
 
2013-09-13 05:14:00 PM

jigger: Just wait until the next Republican president selects the science laureate to spread their message across the land. Then you'll know this was a good idea.


Somehow I doubt the National Academy of Sciences would ever submit a creationist, flat-earther, climate change denier to any president for selection.
 
2013-09-13 05:14:21 PM

dookdookdook: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?


Fundamentalist Christians of all kinds.  There's significant overlap, of course.
 
2013-09-13 05:16:36 PM
Declare war????

This is just another skirmish in their fight to make America take first place in a world wide race to the bottom.
 
2013-09-13 05:17:09 PM
I'm kind of glad that this didn't pass, since if a Republican ever takes the presidency again, we'd have three science laureates who think that the earth is six-thousand years old, dinosaur bones are planted by Satan to deceive us, and that if you listen really hard, you can hear a blastocyst scream when it's aborted.
 
2013-09-13 05:19:40 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'm kind of glad that this didn't pass, since if a Republican ever takes the presidency again, we'd have three science laureates who think that the earth is six-thousand years old, dinosaur bones are planted by Satan to deceive us, and that if you listen really hard, you can hear a blastocyst scream when it's aborted.


My DNRTFA alarm just went off.
 
2013-09-13 05:19:46 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'm kind of glad that this didn't pass, since if a Republican ever takes the presidency again, we'd have three science laureates who think that the earth is six-thousand years old, dinosaur bones are planted by Satan to deceive us, and that if you listen really hard, you can hear a blastocyst scream when it's aborted.


Came here to say this.
 
2013-09-13 05:20:12 PM
Yet all of them rely every day upon the results of science.
 
2013-09-13 05:20:31 PM

dookdookdook: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?


Funny, I was going to say Taliban.
 
2013-09-13 05:20:48 PM
FTFA..."who will share his view that science should serve political ends, on such issues as climate change and regulation of greenhouse gases."

Now I'm no fancy Congressman, but shouldn't things like this fall under the science umbrella instead of  "political ends"?
 
2013-09-13 05:20:55 PM

Albino Squid: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'm kind of glad that this didn't pass, since if a Republican ever takes the presidency again, we'd have three science laureates who think that the earth is six-thousand years old, dinosaur bones are planted by Satan to deceive us, and that if you listen really hard, you can hear a blastocyst scream when it's aborted.

Came here to say this.


Damn. My DNRTFA alarm is really getting a workout today.
 
2013-09-13 05:21:47 PM
Wait, aren't liberals the ones who declared war on science because of like and such as?
 
2013-09-13 05:26:14 PM

Serious Black: Albino Squid: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'm kind of glad that this didn't pass, since if a Republican ever takes the presidency again, we'd have three science laureates who think that the earth is six-thousand years old, dinosaur bones are planted by Satan to deceive us, and that if you listen really hard, you can hear a blastocyst scream when it's aborted.

Came here to say this.

Damn. My DNRTFA alarm is really getting a workout today.


Not only that, but blastocysts only scream when you drop them into boiling water.
 
2013-09-13 05:26:54 PM

Flab: Again?


My first thought.  When did they stop?
 
2013-09-13 05:27:13 PM

2wolves: Yet all of them rely every day upon the results of science.


I propose we withhold all of these results until such a time as they stop being morons.
 
2013-09-13 05:27:25 PM

dookdookdook: Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?


There's the anti-GMO food and holistic medicine nutters, but they're not as outright politically powerful except in local and civil communities.
 
2013-09-13 05:30:25 PM

Serious Black: jigger: Just wait until the next Republican president selects the science laureate to spread their message across the land. Then you'll know this was a good idea.

Somehow I doubt the National Academy of Sciences would ever submit a creationist, flat-earther, climate change denier to any president for selection.


How about one that does nothing but go around the country dispelling myths about GMOs and fracking?
 
2013-09-13 05:31:37 PM
I wonder if they would be as against it if the President was also a Retardlican.  I'm not sure an old school Republican would be derpy enough for them.  Are there even any of those left?
 
2013-09-13 05:32:17 PM

jigger: How about one that does nothing but go around the country dispelling myths about GMOs and fracking?


So you're saying they're going to create a Lobbyist Laureate?
 
2013-09-13 05:33:12 PM
... I think it's about time for Science to declare war on Republicans.
 
2013-09-13 05:33:36 PM

Fart_Machine: jigger: How about one that does nothing but go around the country dispelling myths about GMOs and fracking?

So you're saying they're going to create a Lobbyist Laureate?


What the hell do you think the purpose of that post is?
 
2013-09-13 05:34:07 PM

Marcus Aurelius: So up until now it was an undeclared war then?

/dnctfl


Before it was a Police Action.
 
2013-09-13 05:34:13 PM
We are so f'ed as a country.
 
2013-09-13 05:35:04 PM

jigger: Fart_Machine: jigger: How about one that does nothing but go around the country dispelling myths about GMOs and fracking?

So you're saying they're going to create a Lobbyist Laureate?

What the hell do you think the purpose of that post is?


Oh yeah, I forgot about the sinister Climate Illuminati.
 
2013-09-13 05:38:07 PM

Fart_Machine: jigger: Fart_Machine: jigger: How about one that does nothing but go around the country dispelling myths about GMOs and fracking?

So you're saying they're going to create a Lobbyist Laureate?

What the hell do you think the purpose of that post is?

Oh yeah, I forgot about the sinister Climate Illuminati.


You seem to be implying that the sole purpose of the post is lobbying for some kind of CO2 legislation.
 
2013-09-13 05:38:09 PM
when are going to beat these idiots out of office???
 
2013-09-13 05:39:22 PM

nmrsnr: Did the Sad tag beat the Obvious tag to death?


ANS we're done here folks.
 
2013-09-13 05:40:09 PM

jigger: You seem to be implying that the sole purpose of the post is lobbying for some kind of CO2 legislation.


No those would be the House Republicans.
 
2013-09-13 05:42:04 PM
Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute told Science that climate-change deniers will object to the measure no matter what happens in committee. "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

For fark sake. I imagine Myron is bald and strokes his white cat in his lair of evil.
 
2013-09-13 05:43:55 PM

nmrsnr: Did the Sad tag beat the Obvious tag to death?


Repeat.
 
2013-09-13 05:46:12 PM
it's amazing how nothing was ever invented, no new discoveries made, no scientific breakthroughs, just zippo de nada, when the Republicans have had control of government.  Fark, why do we even put up with those dicks.

I bet a Science Laureate could tell us who gassed those kids in Syria, but nnnnoooooooooo, we don't have one because of an evil oompa loompa.
 
2013-09-13 05:49:56 PM
War?  When the hell were they at peace.
 
2013-09-13 05:49:59 PM
Good.  Progress is in direct opposition to scientific discovery.  Just try to name a single thing science has ever done for anyone.  And for the last time, refrigeration doesn't count.  That's just Jesus turning a cold shoulder to those filthy libs.
 
2013-09-13 05:49:59 PM

Neighborhood Watch: It's not a 'War on Science'.  I agree with not creating yet another bs public figure (with accompanying staff & payroll) on borrowed money to help promote the democrat party.

Scientists are already free to travel the country on money-begging tours and preach the snake oil on Global WarmingTM .  God knows that nobody's been stopping them for the last decade.


The REAL war on science are the attacks on technological progress that actually benefit mankind, such as fracking, genetically modified seed, techniques that allow premature infants to survive at younger and younger ages and, of course, defense technology.


Are you a caricature? Has Poe's Law broke trough the looking glass and came back? Have I mixed my metaphores?
 
2013-09-13 05:51:43 PM

dookdookdook: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?


Communists. That's about it.
 
2013-09-13 05:52:42 PM

Neighborhood Watch: All2morrowsparTs: Are you a caricature?


I'm just me, baby.  I'm just me.

/I also happen to be right


Sad, you would be better as satire.
 
2013-09-13 05:52:50 PM

Evil High Priest: 2wolves: Yet all of them rely every day upon the results of science.

I propose we withhold all of these results until such a time as they stop being morons.


Trouble would be that they would pretend to stop being morans but their inner idiot would continue spring forth and they'd beg forgiveness.  Just like when they get busted trolling truckstops and men's rooms.
 
2013-09-13 05:53:49 PM

Serious Black: My DNRTFA alarm just went off.


I have faith in the ability of the Republican party to dismantle, defund, or otherwise make illegal the National Academy of Sciences if they ever take back the White House.
 
2013-09-13 05:56:34 PM

dookdookdook: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?


Yup. The Anti-Vax movement.
 
2013-09-13 05:57:02 PM

dookdookdook: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?


North Korea.  Maybe.
 
2013-09-13 05:58:54 PM
Hart said the bill would give President Barack Obama the opportunity to appoint someone "who will share his view that science should serve political ends, on such issues as climate change and regulation of greenhouse gases."

Yeah, he's the one who's letting politics come before science.  Riiiight.
 
2013-09-13 05:59:41 PM

jigger: Fart_Machine: jigger: How about one that does nothing but go around the country dispelling myths about GMOs and fracking?

So you're saying they're going to create a Lobbyist Laureate?

What the hell do you think the purpose of that post is?


And sort of along those lines, why do we need a cheerleader for science to go, what, school to school? to tell people how great being a scientist is?  I don't think that is really necessary - a waste of money when you have Bill Nye, Beakman, et al. reaching more kids anyway.
 
2013-09-13 06:02:14 PM

balki1867: We are so f'ed as a country.


Why, because a science laureate position hasn't been created? Well then we've been farker since the founding then. It's a meaningless position created by people who have nothing else better to do. It's the exact kind f thing we need to get rid of in government.

Scientists already travel the world in attendance of symposiums, share information online and generally have a great networking architecture compared to other practices.
 
2013-09-13 06:02:59 PM
Next, they'll have the poet laureate in their sights.
 
2013-09-13 06:04:02 PM

highendmighty: And sort of along those lines, why do we need a cheerleader for science to go, what, school to school? to tell people how great being a scientist is? I don't think that is really necessary - a waste of money when you have Bill Nye, Beakman, et al. reaching more kids anyway.


Yea, unpaid positions are a waste of money!
 
2013-09-13 06:05:50 PM
Mike_LowELL: Progress is in direct opposition to scientific discovery.

LOL What?
 
2013-09-13 06:09:06 PM

sno man: highendmighty: And sort of along those lines, why do we need a cheerleader for science to go, what, school to school? to tell people how great being a scientist is? I don't think that is really necessary - a waste of money when you have Bill Nye, Beakman, et al. reaching more kids anyway.

Yea, unpaid positions are a waste of money!


To be fair, this person would probably be traveling at the taxpayer's expense.
 
2013-09-13 06:09:06 PM

sno man: dookdookdook: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?

North Korea.  Maybe.


Well, that's something for us to work with diplomatically.  We both only allow science if it makes better bombs.
 
2013-09-13 06:11:53 PM

sparkeyjames: Mike_LowELL: Progress is in direct opposition to scientific discovery.

LOL What?


Suspect sarcasm. Deep sarcasm.
 
2013-09-13 06:17:59 PM

Neighborhood Watch: It's not a 'War on Science'.  I agree with not creating yet another bs public figure (with accompanying staff & payroll) on borrowed money to help promote the democrat party.


==

The bipartisan Senators who proposed this are truly 'history's greatest monsters.'

"Like the Poet Laureate, the Science Laureate would be an unpaid, honorary post," according to the statement. The laureate would serve a 1- or 2-year term, and "would also be encouraged to continue their important scientific work." Nominees would be vetted by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.  "The U.S. Science Laureate will be a national role model who can encourage students to learn more about the sciences," Hirono said in the statement. "By elevating great American scientific communicators, we can empower students - especially girls and minorities - to get excited about science."

And I'm sure as Ron and Rand Paul will both tell you, there is no U.S. National Academy of Sciences in the Constitution. Thanks goodness the 101st Fighting Keyboardists like yourself are there to save us from the terrors of encouraging school children and the public from getting more interested in science.
 
2013-09-13 06:18:59 PM
Seriously? An unpaid honorary position that should promote science gets shot down because the person being appointed might happen to agree with the prevailing theories on climate change?

What a loathsome pack of slack jawed morons the Republican Party has become.
 
2013-09-13 06:20:03 PM
Again?
 
2013-09-13 06:20:28 PM

Serious Black: Albino Squid: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'm kind of glad that this didn't pass, since if a Republican ever takes the presidency again, we'd have three science laureates who think that the earth is six-thousand years old, dinosaur bones are planted by Satan to deceive us, and that if you listen really hard, you can hear a blastocyst scream when it's aborted.

Came here to say this.

Damn. My DNRTFA alarm is really getting a workout today.


I RTFA. I just don't think that the current process would survive for very long...next time members of the National Academy of Sciences do something cruel like writing a letter criticizing Cuchinelli's witch hunt, they'd suddenly cease to be an appropriate vehicle for determining scientific qualifications.
 
2013-09-13 06:22:09 PM

highendmighty: jigger: Fart_Machine: jigger: How about one that does nothing but go around the country dispelling myths about GMOs and fracking?

So you're saying they're going to create a Lobbyist Laureate?

What the hell do you think the purpose of that post is?

And sort of along those lines, why do we need a cheerleader for science to go, what, school to school? to tell people how great being a scientist is?  I don't think that is really necessary - a waste of money when you have Bill Nye, Beakman, et al. reaching more kids anyway.


It's a waste of the $0 they were going to pay?  It's an honorary position.
 
2013-09-13 06:31:01 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Government schools aren't teaching kids to read & write yet.


♫ derpy derpy doo, derpy derpy derp doo!♫
 
2013-09-13 06:34:28 PM

TFerWannaBe: sno man: highendmighty: And sort of along those lines, why do we need a cheerleader for science to go, what, school to school? to tell people how great being a scientist is? I don't think that is really necessary - a waste of money when you have Bill Nye, Beakman, et al. reaching more kids anyway.

Yea, unpaid positions are a waste of money!

To be fair, this person would probably be traveling at the taxpayer's expense.


shhhhuuuusssshhhh.  This is no place for sensible talk like that.
 
2013-09-13 06:36:47 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Somacandra: Thanks goodness the 101st Fighting Keyboardists like yourself are there to save us from the terrors of encouraging school children and the public from getting more interested in science.


First things first.

Government schools aren't teaching kids to read & write yet.


So any response to that this is an honorary and unpaid position with no staff behind it?
 
2013-09-13 06:38:41 PM

sno man: TFerWannaBe: sno man: highendmighty: And sort of along those lines, why do we need a cheerleader for science to go, what, school to school? to tell people how great being a scientist is? I don't think that is really necessary - a waste of money when you have Bill Nye, Beakman, et al. reaching more kids anyway.

Yea, unpaid positions are a waste of money!

To be fair, this person would probably be traveling at the taxpayer's expense.

shhhhuuuusssshhhh.  This is no place for sensible talk like that.


Teaching our kids to loveembrace science means nothing compared to the cost of a plane ticket and hotel room.
 
2013-09-13 06:46:41 PM

highendmighty: And sort of along those lines, why do we need a cheerleader for science to go, what, school to school? to tell people how great being a scientist is? I don't think that is really necessary - a waste of money when you have Bill Nye, Beakman, et al. reaching more kids anyway.


I got into science because Carl Sagan was a cheerleader who told me how great being a scientist was.
 
2013-09-13 06:47:09 PM

Serious Black: nmrsnr: Did the Sad tag beat the Obvious tag to death?

Sad, obvious, dumbass, asinine, fail...they all would have worked I think. I went with dumbass because that's what declaring a war on science will turn America into: a bunch of dumbasses.

/subby


If this keepa up soon we'll need a new tag: USA :(
 
2013-09-13 06:51:45 PM

Target Builder: If this keepa up soon we'll need a new tag: USA :(


It's too late.  Intelligence in America has already degraded to the point that Drew no longer remembers how to add the Arizona, Kansas, and North Carolina tags we've needed for months.
 
2013-09-13 06:53:58 PM

highendmighty: jigger: Fart_Machine: jigger: How about one that does nothing but go around the country dispelling myths about GMOs and fracking?

So you're saying they're going to create a Lobbyist Laureate?

What the hell do you think the purpose of that post is?

And sort of along those lines, why do we need a cheerleader for science to go, what, school to school? to tell people how great being a scientist is?  I don't think that is really necessary - a waste of money when you have Bill Nye, Beakman, et al. reaching more kids anyway.


... I wrote three separate responses to your statement before realizing that it was too willfully ignorant to dignify with a serious answer.
 
2013-09-13 06:54:14 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Government schools aren't teaching kids to read & write yet.


Oh they read.
i43.tinypic.com
 
2013-09-13 06:55:53 PM

Mentat: I got into science because Carl Sagan was a cheerleader who told me how great being a scientist was.


Shhhh.  This is a thread about repubes. They hate reality.
 
2013-09-13 06:58:16 PM

lockers: Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute told Science that climate-change deniers will object to the measure no matter what happens in committee. "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

For fark sake. I imagine Myron is bald and strokes his white cat in his lair of evil.



THIS; i've never read anything more brazenly ignorant and proud of it, then this douchewagon
 
2013-09-13 07:00:58 PM
Not having a "Science Laureate" doesn't bother me that much. It would just be a lightning rod for the right-wing nutjobs. I've heard enough about all the "czars" that Obama has appointed. What does bother me though is the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships and the recently created Office of Faith-Based Community Initiatives.
 
2013-09-13 07:02:14 PM
FWIW, the "Competitve Enterprise Institute" is setting off a thousand alarm bells, you know, like naming streets "deer run boulevard" or "Mountain Vista Way", you can be sure whatever they're calling it, the thing always ends up being the exact opposite.

Competitve, my ass. They can bite me.
 
2013-09-13 07:04:43 PM

lockers: Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute told Science that climate-change deniers will object to the measure no matter what happens in committee. "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

For fark sake. I imagine Myron is bald and strokes his white cat in his lair of evil.


Why the fark would anyone think that one of these extremely educated and successful people has anything worth listening to?
 
2013-09-13 07:09:32 PM
A bipartisan group of senators and House members proposed legislation in May to create this position for an expert in his or her field who "would travel around the country to inspire future scientists."

It is not very often I agree with Republicans but I gotta say, if you knew anything about science, you also would agree with them.  For completely different reasons of course.  The job market farking blows in science because funding from the NIH/NSF has gone way down beginning in the Bush years and yeah, Obama didn't make it much better.  Academic job openings are on the order of 400 applicants for 1 position.  It's not a question of whether you are a good scientist, or whether you are a top 1% scientist.  You have to be better than the top 1% and that demands an enormous personal sacrifice.  So we're going to send some jackass around the country telling people they should totally pursue a science education for the jobs that don't exist?

Call me when there are more science jobs than there are qualified applicants, then I'll be poutraged on this one.
 
2013-09-13 07:15:47 PM
ecx.images-amazon.com
It's a very depressing read...
 
2013-09-13 07:16:50 PM

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: ... I think it's about time for Science to declare war on Republicans.

i157.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-13 07:17:04 PM

lennavan: A bipartisan group of senators and House members proposed legislation in May to create this position for an expert in his or her field who "would travel around the country to inspire future scientists."

It is not very often I agree with Republicans but I gotta say, if you knew anything about science, you also would agree with them.  For completely different reasons of course.  The job market farking blows in science because funding from the NIH/NSF has gone way down beginning in the Bush years and yeah, Obama didn't make it much better.  Academic job openings are on the order of 400 applicants for 1 position.  It's not a question of whether you are a good scientist, or whether you are a top 1% scientist.  You have to be better than the top 1% and that demands an enormous personal sacrifice.  So we're going to send some jackass around the country telling people they should totally pursue a science education for the jobs that don't exist?

Call me when there are more science jobs than there are qualified applicants, then I'll be poutraged on this one.


we'll never get there, because there won't be anyone from this generation to make jobs for the next.

["Don't tread on mmmmmph" snake eating it's own tail.jpg]
 
2013-09-13 07:17:48 PM
Perhaps they should read some books rather than burning them.
 
2013-09-13 07:21:08 PM

Serious Black: jigger: Just wait until the next Republican president selects the science laureate to spread their message across the land. Then you'll know this was a good idea.

Somehow I doubt the National Academy of Sciences would ever submit a creationist, flat-earther, climate change denier to any president for selection.


But what about a 9/11 truther or a moon landing guy? Those are valid fields for research and inquiry.
 
2013-09-13 07:22:23 PM

Neighborhood Watch: It's not a 'War on Science'.  I agree with not creating yet another bs public figure (with accompanying staff & payroll) on borrowed money to help promote the democrat party.

Scientists are already free to travel the country on money-begging tours and preach the snake oil on Global WarmingTM .  God knows that nobody's been stopping them for the last decade.


The REAL war on science are the attacks on technological progress that actually benefit mankind, such as fracking, genetically modified seed, techniques that allow premature infants to survive at younger and younger ages and, of course, defense technology.


It's an unpaid position.  Didn't you notice that?
 
2013-09-13 07:26:59 PM

HighZoolander: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 234x346]
It's a very depressing read...


It's also seriously flawed.
 
2013-09-13 07:27:42 PM

dookdookdook: Teaching our kids to loveembrace science means nothing compared to the cost of a plane ticket and hotel room.


Nonsense.  Those plain tickets and hotel rooms cost a brazillion dollars.  Scratch that along with Public Television and you've balanced the budget.
 
2013-09-13 07:29:38 PM
maybe the "dumbing down of america" began with those who, now long retired/dead, taught these people. they are incurious derisive and dismissive - and see nothing of interest in education

current teachers? your fight began long ago!
 
2013-09-13 07:32:47 PM

vygramul: HighZoolander: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 234x346]
It's a very depressing read...

It's also seriously flawed.


how so? (I'm not very far into it yet)
 
2013-09-13 07:33:54 PM

Fart_Machine: dookdookdook: Teaching our kids to loveembrace science means nothing compared to the cost of a plane ticket and hotel room.

Nonsense.  Those plain tickets and hotel rooms cost a brazillion dollars.  Scratch that along with Public Television and you've balanced the budget.


Don't be ridiculous. There's no way that what you suggested would be enough to balance the budget.

To do that you'd need to defund Planned Parenthood and cut foreign aid too.
 
2013-09-13 07:39:09 PM
They declared war on science years ago.  This is old news for anyone who has been paying attention to politics for the past 5-10 years or so.
 
2013-09-13 07:39:29 PM
Sounds more like a war on making yet another government-paid unnecessary job, and that's a good thing.
 
2013-09-13 07:44:08 PM

parasol: maybe the "dumbing down of america" began with those who, now long retired/dead, taught these people. they are incurious derisive and dismissive - and see nothing of interest in education

current teachers? your fight began long ago!


"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both." - Barry Goldwater

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" - Isaac Asimov

I think the evidence points to it being more of a top down ideological drive, with the direction of the authoritarians. The quotes just illustrate it from 30 years ago, you know, the formative years of many of these people.
 
2013-09-13 07:46:31 PM

jjorsett: Sounds more like a war on making yet another government-paid unnecessary job, and that's a good thing.


You read neither the article nor the thread. You fail. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
 
2013-09-13 07:48:08 PM
Why do we keep electing such stupid people? Its a rhetorical question, stupid people are elected by stupid voters, no wonder the republicans are against higher education.
 
2013-09-13 07:48:31 PM

HighZoolander: vygramul: HighZoolander: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 234x346]
It's a very depressing read...

It's also seriously flawed.

how so? (I'm not very far into it yet)


There is some minor exaggerations, but the most irritating thing was the double standard. Example: Republicans are unscientific for not wanting to first do the research before declaring something can't work, and then the Republicans were unscientific for wanting to do the research on SDI when it was obvious it wouldn't work.

There were good points to be made, but Mooney didn't write an objective book exploring the problem, he wrote a polemic.
 
2013-09-13 07:48:39 PM

Neighborhood Watch: The REAL war on science are the attacks on technological progress that actually benefit mankind, such as fracking, genetically modified seed, techniques that allow premature infants to survive at younger and younger ages and, of course, defense technology.


Fracking? Really dude?

I already thought you were a dick, but you want to poison the water table just as we enter an age of water scarcity?
 
2013-09-13 07:49:04 PM
If every member of the US House of Representatives were to keel over dead, the country would be a MUCH better place.
 
2013-09-13 07:55:07 PM

lennavan: A bipartisan group of senators and House members proposed legislation in May to create this position for an expert in his or her field who "would travel around the country to inspire future scientists."

It is not very often I agree with Republicans but I gotta say, if you knew anything about science, you also would agree with them.  For completely different reasons of course.  The job market farking blows in science because funding from the NIH/NSF has gone way down beginning in the Bush years and yeah, Obama didn't make it much better.  Academic job openings are on the order of 400 applicants for 1 position.  It's not a question of whether you are a good scientist, or whether you are a top 1% scientist.  You have to be better than the top 1% and that demands an enormous personal sacrifice.  So we're going to send some jackass around the country telling people they should totally pursue a science education for the jobs that don't exist?

Call me when there are more science jobs than there are qualified applicants, then I'll be poutraged on this one.


Trust me when I say I understand your view firsthand.  That said, you still have to inspire the next generation of scientists.  If you pull back in the hopes that things get better eventually, then you'll have the exact opposite problem when the Boomers and Gen Xers retire.  We have to fight to improve the lot of active scientists but we also have to get the next generation ready in the hopes that things will be better when they hit the job market.
 
2013-09-13 07:58:07 PM
 
2013-09-13 08:00:46 PM

AntiNerd: Higher education leads to liberalism so I don't think you could expect anything different from them.


Not necessarily to "liberalism" in the economic sense, but it definitely makes someone far more likely to question traditional dogmatic belief systems, like Bible literalism, traditional gender roles, the established societal pecking order, etc.  It also tends to make people more tolerant and less fearful/hateful of the "other" (other ethnic or religious groups, gays, etc.)

The problem is that the modern conservative movement is fundamentally based on the type of traditional dogmatic thinking that can't stand up to facts, scrutiny, and critical thinking.  Since higher education promotes critical thinking skills, people tend to be less conservative/traditional in their beliefs when they graduate.

Conservatives see this intellectual transformation as "ivory tower leftist indoctrination", when in reality what is happening is that when people are given the tools to think for themselves, they are able to see the flaws in traditional dogmatic beliefs.
 
2013-09-13 08:07:30 PM

vygramul: HighZoolander: vygramul: HighZoolander: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 234x346]
It's a very depressing read...

It's also seriously flawed.

how so? (I'm not very far into it yet)

There is some minor exaggerations, but the most irritating thing was the double standard. Example: Republicans are unscientific for not wanting to first do the research before declaring something can't work, and then the Republicans were unscientific for wanting to do the research on SDI when it was obvious it wouldn't work.

There were good points to be made, but Mooney didn't write an objective book exploring the problem, he wrote a polemic.


I can see it being polemical, but I'm not sure I see how the example you give here is a double standard - scientists should do research to determine whether something can work. Once it is obvious (assuming that that is truly clear) that something can't work, I can see an argument that it's unscientific to continue to pursue it. It seems that continuing in the face of prior evidence that you will fail suggests that you are not motivated by those prior conclusions, but by politics or money or something else. And if you've never done the research to arrive at those prior conclusions, maybe there isn't a scientific basis for the continued work either.

Unless I missed the point of your example?
 
2013-09-13 08:09:06 PM

jigger: How about one that does nothing but go around the country dispelling myths about GMOs and fracking?


I oppose GMO foods but not because I think they're unsafe to eat, they're about as safe as anything else you can pull off a store shelf these days. What I oppose in GMO foods is Monsanto splicing in terminator genes into their seed stores. That's a farking agricultural holocaust just waiting to happen.
 
2013-09-13 08:11:28 PM

HighZoolander: vygramul: HighZoolander: vygramul: HighZoolander: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 234x346]
It's a very depressing read...

It's also seriously flawed.

how so? (I'm not very far into it yet)

There is some minor exaggerations, but the most irritating thing was the double standard. Example: Republicans are unscientific for not wanting to first do the research before declaring something can't work, and then the Republicans were unscientific for wanting to do the research on SDI when it was obvious it wouldn't work.

There were good points to be made, but Mooney didn't write an objective book exploring the problem, he wrote a polemic.

I can see it being polemical, but I'm not sure I see how the example you give here is a double standard - scientists should do research to determine whether something can work. Once it is obvious (assuming that that is truly clear) that something can't work, I can see an argument that it's unscientific to continue to pursue it. It seems that continuing in the face of prior evidence that you will fail suggests that you are not motivated by those prior conclusions, but by politics or money or something else. And if you've never done the research to arrive at those prior conclusions, maybe there isn't a scientific basis for the continued work either.

Unless I missed the point of your example?


The problem is not the first part. Yes, first do the research. But when it came to SDI, the GOP was wrong because the research wasn't necessary: it was obvious to all it couldn't work so they didn't have to first do research. And that made Republicans again wrong for some reason.
 
2013-09-13 08:16:32 PM
I think the fact both parties vote to defund science organizations, like the NSF and NASA,  is a bigger war on science than the Republicans voting against a science cheerleader position, but that's just me.

Increase funding for science. Only good things will happen.
 
2013-09-13 08:19:59 PM

Kumana Wanalaia: Neighborhood Watch: The REAL war on science are the attacks on technological progress that actually benefit mankind, such as fracking, genetically modified seed, techniques that allow premature infants to survive at younger and younger ages and, of course, defense technology.

Fracking? Really dude?

I already thought you were a dick, but you want to poison the water table just as we enter an age of water scarcity?


How else are we going to usher in the Endtimes?  Did you ever think of THAT?
 
2013-09-13 08:26:14 PM
I have no issue with fracking per se.

I just have issues with how shady and secretive the fracking industry is with their processes.

Local governments: "Can we know exactly what you're injecting into the ground?"
Fracking industry: "No...mind your own farking business!"

Yeah...no matter how many cheesy PR ads you try to air during Pirates and Penguins games, it's still not convincing me.
 
2013-09-13 08:30:39 PM

dookdookdook: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?


News Corp.  And like the Taliban, they're not just powerful nationally, but internationally.
 
2013-09-13 08:31:44 PM

machoprogrammer: I think the fact both parties vote to defund science organizations, like the NSF and NASA,  is a bigger war on science than the Republicans voting against a science cheerleader position, but that's just me.

Increase funding for science. Only good things will happen.


And it's supply-side economics. There is absolutely zero reason for Republicans to vote against science funding.
 
2013-09-13 08:46:24 PM

Mentat: Trust me when I say I understand your view firsthand. That said, you still have to inspire the next generation of scientists. If you pull back in the hopes that things get better eventually, then you'll have the exact opposite problem when the Boomers and Gen Xers retire. We have to fight to improve the lot of active scientists but we also have to get the next generation ready in the hopes that things will be better when they hit the job market.


I don't think you actually understand my view firsthand then.  Have you actually looked an undergraduate in the eyes and told them they should go into science, knowing they would be spectacular at it but odds are there would be no job for them unless they move to china?  I haven't, I tell them the truth.  Some go anyways but I'll be damned if I'm going to actively recruit.
 
2013-09-13 08:50:31 PM

Neighborhood Watch: First things first.Government schools aren't teaching kids to read & write yet.


Not that you'd ever have or propose or be able to discuss a metric by which any results would be measured. As usual your sociopolitical opinion is unsubstantiated, anecdotal and worthless. Certainly not worth influencing public policy in any way.
 
2013-09-13 08:54:34 PM

lennavan: I don't think you actually understand my view firsthand then. Have you actually looked an undergraduate in the eyes and told them they should go into science, knowing they would be spectacular at it but odds are there would be no job for them unless they move to china? I haven't, I tell them the truth. Some go anyways but I'll be damned if I'm going to actively recruit.


I'm one of the 399 applicants who don't get the job.  Trust me, I fully understand.
 
2013-09-13 08:55:35 PM

Neighborhood Watch: It's not a 'War on Science'.  I agree with not creating yet another bs public figure (with accompanying staff & payroll) on borrowed money to help promote the democrat party.

Scientists are already free to travel the country on money-begging tours and preach the snake oil on Global WarmingTM .  God knows that nobody's been stopping them for the last decade.


The REAL war on science are the attacks on technological progress that actually benefit mankind, such as fracking, genetically modified seed, techniques that allow premature infants to survive at younger and younger ages and, of course, defense technology.


5
 
2013-09-13 09:01:43 PM

Mentat: lennavan: I don't think you actually understand my view firsthand then. Have you actually looked an undergraduate in the eyes and told them they should go into science, knowing they would be spectacular at it but odds are there would be no job for them unless they move to china? I haven't, I tell them the truth. Some go anyways but I'll be damned if I'm going to actively recruit.

I'm one of the 399 applicants who don't get the job.  Trust me, I fully understand.


K, my bad.  I'm one of the hundreds+ of other applicants who heard about the 399 and didn't bother applying.  I mean, I'm pretty good.  World wide, I suppose I'm really good.  But I'm nowhere near the top 0.1%.  I'm not even in the ballpark.
 
2013-09-13 09:07:33 PM

Marcus Aurelius: So up until now it was an undeclared war then?

/dnctfl


police action.
 
2013-09-13 09:17:11 PM

alizeran: Neighborhood Watch: Government schools aren't teaching kids to read & write yet.

Oh they read.
[i43.tinypic.com image 437x584]


Actually, I've read that one. It's pretty good, and not at all derpy.
 
2013-09-13 09:18:04 PM

dookdookdook: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?


The Flat Earth Society?
The Church of the Subgenius?
 
2013-09-13 09:18:35 PM
Fark all Republicans, and everything they stand for.

Fo reals.
 
2013-09-13 09:20:35 PM

Somacandra: Neighborhood Watch: First things first.Government schools aren't teaching kids to read & write yet.

Not that you'd ever have or propose or be able to discuss a metric by which any results would be measured. As usual your sociopolitical opinion is unsubstantiated, anecdotal and worthless. Certainly not worth influencing public policy in any way.


He attended a government school.
 
2013-09-13 09:24:05 PM

dookdookdook: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?


A lot of conservative parties throughout the world (Conservative in Canada and the UK, Liberal in Australia), are all pretty much skeptics when it comes to Global Warming.

Because much like Republicans here in the US, those parties tend to be the "pro-business" party and things such as environmental standards get in the way of business in their eyes.
 
2013-09-13 09:30:14 PM

nova_gamer_gettysburg: AntiNerd: Higher education leads to liberalism so I don't think you could expect anything different from them.

Not necessarily to "liberalism" in the economic sense, but it definitely makes someone far more likely to question traditional dogmatic belief systems, like Bible literalism, traditional gender roles, the established societal pecking order, etc.  It also tends to make people more tolerant and less fearful/hateful of the "other" (other ethnic or religious groups, gays, etc.)

The problem is that the modern conservative movement is fundamentally based on the type of traditional dogmatic thinking that can't stand up to facts, scrutiny, and critical thinking.  Since higher education promotes critical thinking skills, people tend to be less conservative/traditional in their beliefs when they graduate.

Conservatives see this intellectual transformation as "ivory tower leftist indoctrination", when in reality what is happening is that when people are given the tools to think for themselves, they are able to see the flaws in traditional dogmatic beliefs.


I wish I could get people on the right to read and comprehend this piece of poetry right here....but then I'd be classified as an ivory tower left wing indoctrinist instead of them actually trying to provide a thought out rebuttal.
 
2013-09-13 09:52:09 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: it's amazing how nothing was ever invented, no new discoveries made, no scientific breakthroughs, just zippo de nada, when the Republicans have had control of government.  Fark, why do we even put up with those dicks.

I bet a Science Laureate could tell us who gassed those kids in Syria, but nnnnoooooooooo, we don't have one because of an evil oompa loompa.


Wow.

I guess the fact that this idea had broad bipartisan support until the radical right got involved and then the Republicans all stood to attention and said "Sieg Heil!" and blocked it means nothing to you, eh?
 
2013-09-13 10:02:18 PM

Leishu: dookdookdook: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?

Yup. The Anti-Vax movement.


So, American conservatives.
 
2013-09-13 10:03:23 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: it's amazing how nothing was ever invented, no new discoveries made, no scientific breakthroughs, just zippo de nada, when the Republicans have had control of government. Fark, why do we even put up with those dicks.


One of the projects I worked on in science was the creation of a novel class of chemotherapeutics that would specifically target cancers.  We proved they work exactly as we hoped through a variety of assays in vitro and in vivo in model organisms, so next we wanted to give a mouse cancer and prove our chemotherapeutic cured that cancer.  We missed the payline by 2%.  Before Republicans took control of the government, the payline was about 7-8% higher.

I just wanted you to know.  Maybe this class of therapeutics would have cured some cancers, maybe not.  We won't ever know, the project was dropped.  But vote (R) anyway.
 
2013-09-13 10:12:33 PM
for every republican derp, there is an equal and opposite herp.


/science, biatches
 
2013-09-13 10:14:42 PM

lennavan: Mentat: lennavan: I don't think you actually understand my view firsthand then. Have you actually looked an undergraduate in the eyes and told them they should go into science, knowing they would be spectacular at it but odds are there would be no job for them unless they move to china? I haven't, I tell them the truth. Some go anyways but I'll be damned if I'm going to actively recruit.

I'm one of the 399 applicants who don't get the job.  Trust me, I fully understand.

K, my bad.  I'm one of the hundreds+ of other applicants who heard about the 399 and didn't bother applying.  I mean, I'm pretty good.  World wide, I suppose I'm really good.  But I'm nowhere near the top 0.1%.  I'm not even in the ballpark.


You shouldn't get discouraged. I'm not even in the top 10%, but I still managed to get a job.

/In Australia, but still.
 
2013-09-13 10:15:43 PM

The Name: Leishu: dookdookdook: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?

Yup. The Anti-Vax movement.

So, American conservatives.


I don't think one can fairly put the Jenny-McCarthyites at any particular segment of the political spectrum, since both endpoints have an intrinsic distrust of the medical establishment.
 
2013-09-13 10:17:26 PM

vygramul: HighZoolander: vygramul: HighZoolander: vygramul: HighZoolander: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 234x346]
It's a very depressing read...

It's also seriously flawed.

how so? (I'm not very far into it yet)

There is some minor exaggerations, but the most irritating thing was the double standard. Example: Republicans are unscientific for not wanting to first do the research before declaring something can't work, and then the Republicans were unscientific for wanting to do the research on SDI when it was obvious it wouldn't work.

There were good points to be made, but Mooney didn't write an objective book exploring the problem, he wrote a polemic.

I can see it being polemical, but I'm not sure I see how the example you give here is a double standard - scientists should do research to determine whether something can work. Once it is obvious (assuming that that is truly clear) that something can't work, I can see an argument that it's unscientific to continue to pursue it. It seems that continuing in the face of prior evidence that you will fail suggests that you are not motivated by those prior conclusions, but by politics or money or something else. And if you've never done the research to arrive at those prior conclusions, maybe there isn't a scientific basis for the continued work either.

Unless I missed the point of your example?

The problem is not the first part. Yes, first do the research. But when it came to SDI, the GOP was wrong because the research wasn't necessary: it was obvious to all it couldn't work so they didn't have to first do research. And that made Republicans again wrong for some reason.


So are you suggesting that it's scientific (or rather, not unscientific) to want to do unnecessary research? Sorry for being dense, but I still don't follow you. Doesn't that still speak to a political or economic motive for SDI, rather than a scientific one?

lennavan: One of the projects I worked on in science was the creation of a novel class of chemotherapeutics that would specifically target cancers.  We proved they work exactly as we hoped through a variety of assays in vitro and in vivo in model organisms, so next we wanted to give a mouse cancer and prove our chemotherapeutic cured that cancer.  We missed the payline by 2%.  Before Republicans took control of the government, the payline was about 7-8% higher.


That sucks. The funding levels in my field (which I'll decline to specify) are at historic lows as well, and well established faculty are starting to give up and look for greener pastures. It's not a good sign.
 
2013-09-13 10:25:36 PM
They could have approved it if they had limited the list of science specialties.
 
2013-09-13 10:50:27 PM

because I care: You shouldn't get discouraged. I'm not even in the top 10%, but I still managed to get a job.

/In Australia, but still.


HighZoolander: That sucks. The funding levels in my field (which I'll decline to specify) are at historic lows as well, and well established faculty are starting to give up and look for greener pastures. It's not a good sign.


I'm not discouraged.  I have a job.  Actually, I have two.  They just aren't why I became a scientist.  So I'm going to give up and go to medical school.  I hope to still do science but I'll do more clinical science.  So I'm doing fine, I just think people hoping to go into science should go in knowing the reality.

I have looked at the well established faculty who are struggling to get by and asked myself "am I better than him/her?"  Because if I am just as good, then I can expect to similarly struggle.  I'm not better than them.  Seeing the personal life sacrifices they make, I don't even want to be better.
 
2013-09-13 11:00:19 PM

lennavan: because I care: You shouldn't get discouraged. I'm not even in the top 10%, but I still managed to get a job.

/In Australia, but still.

HighZoolander: That sucks. The funding levels in my field (which I'll decline to specify) are at historic lows as well, and well established faculty are starting to give up and look for greener pastures. It's not a good sign.

I'm not discouraged.  I have a job.  Actually, I have two.  They just aren't why I became a scientist.  So I'm going to give up and go to medical school.  I hope to still do science but I'll do more clinical science.  So I'm doing fine, I just think people hoping to go into science should go in knowing the reality.

I have looked at the well established faculty who are struggling to get by and asked myself "am I better than him/her?"  Because if I am just as good, then I can expect to similarly struggle.  I'm not better than them.  Seeing the personal life sacrifices they make, I don't even want to be better.


Good luck with med school.  I'm in a similar frame of mind, but I may struggle for a while longer.
 
2013-09-13 11:08:54 PM

HighZoolander: So are you suggesting that it's scientific (or rather, not unscientific) to want to do unnecessary research? Sorry for being dense, but I still don't follow you. Doesn't that still speak to a political or economic motive for SDI, rather than a scientific one?


Your difficulty seems to be thinking that my problem is that he took a position on research. It isn't. My problem is that he didn't take a CONSISTENT position on research. He changed his position based on whether it was a GOP or Democrat issue.

You have two issues: x, and y.

"It's stupid not to do research on x before deciding on whether it's valid."
"It's stupid to waste time doing research on y. It's obviously wrong."

The author held both views at the same time. Why? Because x was championed by Democrats and y was championed by Republicans.
 
2013-09-13 11:10:17 PM

HighZoolander: vygramul: HighZoolander: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 234x346]
It's a very depressing read...

It's also seriously flawed.

how so? (I'm not very far into it yet)


You haven't read much of what ViagraMule writes, either. The "serious flaw" is that it criticizes Republicans.
 
2013-09-13 11:17:54 PM

Neighborhood Watch: It's not a 'War on Science'.  I agree with not creating yet another bs public figure (with accompanying staff & payroll) on borrowed money to help promote the democrat party.

Scientists are already free to travel the country on money-begging tours and preach the snake oil on Global WarmingTM .  God knows that nobody's been stopping them for the last decade.


The REAL war on science are the attacks on technological progress that actually benefit mankind, such as fracking, genetically modified seed, techniques that allow premature infants to survive at younger and younger ages and, of course, defense technology.


It helps to troll if you RTFA, specifically the part where they mention that it's a non-paid position. As in, no staff or money.
 
2013-09-13 11:34:58 PM

lennavan: because I care: You shouldn't get discouraged. I'm not even in the top 10%, but I still managed to get a job.

/In Australia, but still.

HighZoolander: That sucks. The funding levels in my field (which I'll decline to specify) are at historic lows as well, and well established faculty are starting to give up and look for greener pastures. It's not a good sign.

I'm not discouraged.  I have a job.  Actually, I have two.  They just aren't why I became a scientist.  So I'm going to give up and go to medical school.  I hope to still do science but I'll do more clinical science.  So I'm doing fine, I just think people hoping to go into science should go in knowing the reality.

I have looked at the well established faculty who are struggling to get by and asked myself "am I better than him/her?"  Because if I am just as good, then I can expect to similarly struggle.  I'm not better than them.  Seeing the personal life sacrifices they make, I don't even want to be better.


I'll echo HighZoolander and wish you luck. I hope it all works out. As far as encouraging young people, I think we still want to get the best and brightest to pursue science, but at the moment I feel like the best opportunities may not be in America. Here in Australia people are still doing good research, but they don't have that same mentality where you're expected to not have a personal life. In fact, we're forced to take vacations.

Of course, that may change.
 
2013-09-13 11:45:58 PM
I'm conflicted about this. On the one hand, it comes on the heels of a propaganda repeal. But on the other hand, I'm pro global warming ...
 
2013-09-13 11:48:22 PM

Hickory-smoked: since both endpoints have an intrinsic distrust of the medical establishment.


I think that is because the medical community things they're sick and wants to cure them. That the medical community is right doesn't matter to zealots.
 
2013-09-13 11:51:33 PM
msg-ctrl.com
 
2013-09-13 11:51:59 PM
I'll just leave this here:

www.anneofcarversville.com
 
2013-09-13 11:53:15 PM
Damn!  Wrong thread!  Well... uh... kind of... works... I guess.

1/10
 
2013-09-13 11:58:54 PM
"a needless addition to the long list of presidential appointments."

While the GOP is notoriously full of crap, I kind of agree with this.
 
2013-09-14 12:03:48 AM

Gyrfalcon: I'll just leave this here:

[www.anneofcarversville.com image 465x916]


The Republican answer: Cut even more money from the DOE, whine about teachers if they get anything close to a decent wage, and put creationism, global warming denialism and revisionist history in textbooks.
 
2013-09-14 12:05:18 AM

jjorsett: Sounds more like a war on making yet another government-paid unnecessary job, and that's a good thing.


Because we should waste money on a job that the government is not paying for. Oh, wait. It is a non-pay position.
 
2013-09-14 12:10:24 AM
Postmodernists and right wingers. Politics makes strange bedfellows.
 
2013-09-14 12:15:55 AM

lennavan: K, my bad. I'm one of the hundreds+ of other applicants who heard about the 399 and didn't bother applying. I mean, I'm pretty good. World wide, I suppose I'm really good. But I'm nowhere near the top 0.1%. I'm not even in the ballpark.


No big deal.  Everyone's discouraged right now.  I'm going to spend all day tomorrow sending out resumes and cv's.  It's not fun, but I try to remember it's not just about me and that we need to think about 20 years down the line.  No one cares though, so who knows what will happen.
 
2013-09-14 12:31:42 AM

Neighborhood Watch: PsiChick: It helps to troll if you RTFA, specifically the part where they mention that it's a non-paid position. As in, no staff or money.


I don't know what the 'troll' comment refers to, but I don't see why Republicans should vote to create an official government voice for Global WarmingTM taxes, outside of the democrat party.  If the 'job' is non-paid, then why can't these scientists do all of this for free now?  Is something stopping them?  Why do they need Republicans to vote for it?


They are doing it for free, and they're getting harassed to hell and back by the Know Nothings.
 
2013-09-14 12:38:21 AM

Neighborhood Watch: PsiChick: It helps to troll if you RTFA, specifically the part where they mention that it's a non-paid position. As in, no staff or money.


I don't know what the 'troll' comment refers to, but I don't see why Republicans should vote to create an official government voice for Global WarmingTM taxes, outside of the democrat party.  If the 'job' is non-paid, then why can't these scientists do all of this for free now?  Is something stopping them?  Why do they need Republicans to vote for it?


Like Republicans would ever vote on anything related to science.
 
2013-09-14 12:38:30 AM

Neighborhood Watch: PsiChick: It helps to troll if you RTFA, specifically the part where they mention that it's a non-paid position. As in, no staff or money.


I don't know what the 'troll' comment refers to, but I don't see why Republicans should vote to create an official government voice for Global WarmingTM taxes, outside of the democrat party.  If the 'job' is non-paid, then why can't these scientists do all of this for free now?  Is something stopping them?  Why do they need Republicans to vote for it?


The 'troll' comment refers to the fact that I have you farkied as 'cannot care about other people', so either you're a  stunningly unaware sociopath or a troll. Do you know what a poet laureate is? A science laureate would be the same thing. It has nothing whatsoever to do with taxes or global warming. It has to do with recognition of achievement within a field.
 
2013-09-14 12:49:51 AM
Now I think I know why the GOP needs all of those excess tanks and fighter jets.....the war on science is looming....and they must prepare for battle.
 
2013-09-14 12:52:25 AM
We already have a de facto science laurate
static6.businessinsider.com
 
2013-09-14 01:19:52 AM

Neighborhood Watch: In fact, I can't think of one scientific thing that a conservative/Republican would be 'at war' with.  And before you say 'evolution' or 'stem cell research' (there isn't a war on either one)


LOL
 
2013-09-14 01:23:00 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Zeppelininthesky: Like Republicans would ever vote on anything related to science.


Domestic energy exploration and production is definitely related to science.  So is missile defense.  Republican vote for both of those!  Both of those scientific fields are despised by liberals/democrats.

Pharmaceuticals are also related to science, doncha' think?  That industry is constantly under attack by liberals/democrats.

Oh, btw.  Remember the atom smasher that was going to be built in the U.S. over a decade ago?  A Republican President put it in Texas.  Yeah, the project fell apart a few years later, but that was for a variety of reasons.  Nonetheless, it had the full support of a Republican President.


In fact, I can't think of one scientific thing that a conservative/Republican would be 'at war' with.  And before you say 'evolution' or 'stem cell research' (there isn't a war on either one), know that I'll just counter with genetically modified seed and domestic energy exploration - there really IS a war on those two fields of science.


/also, it wasn't Republicans who killed NASA



You seem to be conflating specific policy decisions and applications with the idea of a "scientific field".

For instance, genetically modified seed and domestic energy exploration are specific policy decisions based on the underlying scientific fields of genetics and geology/physics. One can be against specific applications of the scientific knowledge without somehow being against the knowledge itself. Evolution and stem cell research, on the other hand are in of themselves scientific fields of inquiry - opposition to these is not based upon their applications, but the scientific information itself.
 
2013-09-14 01:25:30 AM

Neighborhood Watch: /also, it wasn't Republicans who killed NASA


Gee, I wonder what could have happened in 2010 that made it difficult to fund NASA projects?
 
2013-09-14 01:29:34 AM

Neighborhood Watch: In fact, I can't think of one scientific thing that a conservative/Republican would be 'at war' with.


I was going to say Climate Change, but apparently that's not true. In fact, two thirds of Republican and Republican-leaning voters disagree with the official Republican position on Climate Change. link

In fact, it appears at this point you would have to be a complete drooling moron to be a Climate Change denier.
 
2013-09-14 01:32:06 AM
because I care:In fact, it appears at this point you would have to be a complete drooling moron to be a Climate Change denier.

Which would perfectly describe every elected Republican politician in this country.
 
2013-09-14 01:32:58 AM
Explain to me why we need a political appointee for science?  Is science dependent on ideology?  How about we leave political advocacy to politicians and not appoint political people posing as scientists to government jobs.
 
2013-09-14 01:35:07 AM
Neighborhood Watch:

*SIGH*

Hello,  Rush Limbaugh Sent Me. How long 'til you're plonked this time, y'think?
 
2013-09-14 01:41:13 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Zeppelininthesky: Like Republicans would ever vote on anything related to science.


Domestic energy exploration and production is definitely related to science.  So is missile defense.  Republican vote for both of those!  Both of those scientific fields are despised by liberals/democrats.

Pharmaceuticals are also related to science, doncha' think?  That industry is constantly under attack by liberals/democrats.

Oh, btw.  Remember the atom smasher that was going to be built in the U.S. over a decade ago?  A Republican President put it in Texas.  Yeah, the project fell apart a few years later, but that was for a variety of reasons.  Nonetheless, it had the full support of a Republican President.


In fact, I can't think of one scientific thing that a conservative/Republican would be 'at war' with.  And before you say 'evolution' or 'stem cell research' (there isn't a war on either one), know that I'll just counter with genetically modified seed and domestic energy exploration - there really IS a war on those two fields of science.


/also, it wasn't Republicans who killed NASA


I love how you are so insulated from reality. You do know the money that was allocated for the supercollider was actually redirected to the ISS?

Evolution:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-giberson-phd/americas-o ngoing-war-o n-e_b_828655.html
War on education:  http://progressive.org/conniff0511.html
Stem Cell Research:  http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-503767_162-4853385.html  and  http://healthland.time.com/2012/08/21/legitimate-rape-todd-akin-and-o t her-politicians-who-confuse-science/slide/bush-bans-stem-cell-research /
Domestic energy production:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/22/president-obama-discusses-d o mestic-energy-production-new-mexico

I also know that your claim that the "liberals" are at war with the Pharmaceutical companies is totally bullshiat (spend 6 years in that field)

By the way, the only people opposed to genetically modified seeds are fringe groups that do not make policy in this country.
 
2013-09-14 01:41:15 AM

tbeatty: Explain to me why we need a political appointee for science?  Is science dependent on ideology?  How about we leave political advocacy to politicians and not appoint political people posing as scientists to government jobs.


So oil companies get to engage in political advocacy but not scientists?  Sorry, no dice.  My livelihood is intimately tied to what happens in Washington, and I deserve to have someone there lobbying for me just like everyone else does.
 
2013-09-14 01:44:17 AM

Mentat: Neighborhood Watch: /also, it wasn't Republicans who killed NASA

Gee, I wonder what could have happened in 2010 that made it difficult to fund NASA projects?


*raises hand*

Ohh ohh ohhh pick me I know!

The Republicans made a total mess of the economy and cut spending despite the fact that short term spending in a depressed economy is the proven method to turn things around.
 
2013-09-14 01:46:19 AM

tbeatty: Explain to me why we need a political appointee for science?


So are you proposing national elections for positions like NSF/NIH/NASA/CDC director, or just the complete elimination of all government scientific funding and research?
 
2013-09-14 01:47:06 AM
So, no science laureate then? How is our constitutional form of government supposed to survive that blow?

[grumpy_cat.jpg]
 
2013-09-14 01:48:29 AM

tbeatty: Explain to me why we need a political appointee for science?  Is science dependent on ideology?  How about we leave political advocacy to politicians and not appoint political people posing as scientists to government jobs.


Because people who are not scientists can dictate "science" to the people. This is a major cause of people denying things like evolution and global warming. The less an oil company can dictate policy against trying to fix global warming the better.
 
2013-09-14 01:48:45 AM

tbeatty: and not appoint political people posing as scientists to government jobs.



so who exactly is a non scientist posing as one for political purposes?
 
2013-09-14 01:55:31 AM

Neighborhood Watch: cloning humans for organ harvesting.


You really have absolutely no grasp of what is actually going on.
 
2013-09-14 01:56:46 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Damnhippyfreak: You seem to be conflating specific policy decisions and applications with the idea of a "scientific field".

For instance, genetically modified seed and domestic energy exploration are specific policy decisions based on the underlying scientific fields of genetics and geology/physics. One can be against specific applications of the scientific knowledge without somehow being against the knowledge itself. Evolution and stem cell research, on the other hand are in of themselves scientific fields of inquiry - opposition to these is not based upon their applications, but the scientific information itself.


I see your point, but I believe that you contradict yourself.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that liberals/democrats aren't against the 'science', they're just against what it can be used for - such as off-shore drilling, for example.  But then, I take it, you are claiming that Republicans/conservatives are simply against the science behind evolution and stem cell research for no particular reason.  That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Questions of religion & morality have everything to do with applications of science.  Two good examples would be the development of the atom bomb and cloning humans for organ harvesting.  If you oppose either one, are you 'anti-science'?


It's my belief that Global WarmingTM is a hoax, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-science.  I believe in what the Bible says, but I don't have a problem with the overall idea of evolution.  The creation story in Genesis is vague & dream-like enough to incorporate it.  Most Christians feel the same way.  My problem with it is how the science of evolution is 'used' as an attack weapon (one of many) that's designed to inflict the maximum mental anguish on people of faith.  Whatever.

In the example of bio-medical research, conservatives/Republicans aren't against or 'at war' with it.  That's just ridiculous.  But embryonic stem-cell research does cross ethical boundaries f ...


The reason you are anti-science is because you stand against something that has been tested, confirmed, retested, confirmed and supports all of the observable evidence. It also has the support of 98% of the scientific field. There is literally no debate among scientists that global warming not only exists, that it is changing the Earth and that humans are a direct contributor. You also do not understand science. Science asks the question 'how', faith asks the question 'why'. Again, evolution has been tested, retested, and supports all of the observable evidence. It is as much of a fact as one can possible have. Those who have a problem with evolution, I think do no understand the difference between evidence and faith.
 
2013-09-14 01:57:18 AM

Neighborhood Watch: In the above examples, it is Republicans/conservatives who embrace the science... and not the other way around.


How you get any bites at all is a mystery to me.
 
2013-09-14 01:57:47 AM

Neighborhood Watch: It's my belief that Global WarmingTM is a hoax, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-science.


Actually, that's exactly what it means.
 
2013-09-14 01:59:46 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Liberals want the old & infirm to hurry up and die (that's the cold, hard truth)


I am a liberal.  I grew up in a liberal household in a liberal corner of the US that had lots of liberal elected officials.  The vast, vast majority of my friends are liberals.  Literally none of them want this.  Literally zero of them.

So STFU and DIAF, you useless, mendacious twat.
 
2013-09-14 01:59:59 AM
I realize that many Republicans are waving their "science" diplomas from Bob Roberts University and those sorts of places but please tell the them to STFU.  Good lord, Christian universities are for f**k-tards.  Really.  You insignificant pieces of crap.

There were several dumbf**ks at UC when I was a student who just didn't understand physics.  They mildly passed their classes, but they just did not get it.  Then, they act as if they are experts on things because they got a an advanced degree in a very specific field that had nothing to do with what they were an "expert" on.  They are just as big of retards as those from Bob Roberts.

That being said, lawyers and congressthings are even below the retard level of those guys.  Why would anyone think that they could ever speak an truly cogent though except by accident?
 
2013-09-14 02:00:34 AM
Time to pull back into our monasteries and to keep the spirit of learning alive, fellow scribes.
 
2013-09-14 02:01:07 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Damnhippyfreak: You seem to be conflating specific policy decisions and applications with the idea of a "scientific field".

For instance, genetically modified seed and domestic energy exploration are specific policy decisions based on the underlying scientific fields of genetics and geology/physics. One can be against specific applications of the scientific knowledge without somehow being against the knowledge itself. Evolution and stem cell research, on the other hand are in of themselves scientific fields of inquiry - opposition to these is not based upon their applications, but the scientific information itself.


I see your point, but I believe that you contradict yourself.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that liberals/democrats aren't against the 'science', they're just against what it can be used for - such as off-shore drilling, for example.  But then, I take it, you are claiming that Republicans/conservatives are simply against the science behind evolution and stem cell research for no particular reason.  That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Questions of religion & morality have everything to do with applications of science.  Two good examples would be the development of the atom bomb and cloning humans for organ harvesting.  If you oppose either one, are you 'anti-science'?


It's my belief that Global WarmingTM is a hoax, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-science.  I believe in what the Bible says, but I don't have a problem with the overall idea of evolution.  The creation story in Genesis is vague & dream-like enough to incorporate it.  Most Christians feel the same way.  My problem with it is how the science of evolution is 'used' as an attack weapon (one of many) that's designed to inflict the maximum mental anguish on people of faith.  Whatever.

In the example of bio-medical research, conservatives/Republicans aren't against or 'at war' with it.  That's just ridiculous.  But embryonic stem-cell research does cross ethical boundaries f ...


Also, please show me a liberal who wants old people to die. The only folks who are saying this are the ones that want to restrict and remove healthcare for poor folks, seniors and children. These are also the folks that want to defund the ACA, take away Foodstamps, and close places like Planned Parenthood. These are things that a lot of folks rely on to prevent health issues and treat health issues.
 
2013-09-14 02:02:38 AM
DREW. If you have any balls. BAN NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH as the troll he is. Seriously.


GROW A PAIR
 
2013-09-14 02:06:13 AM

log_jammin: tbeatty: and not appoint political people posing as scientists to government jobs.


so who exactly is a non scientist posing as one for political purposes?


What about half the people on the Congressional Science Committee? Like Todd "Legitamite Rape" Akin. Or anyone at the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine?
 
2013-09-14 02:06:42 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Zeppelininthesky:  There is literally no debate among scientists that global warming not only exists, that it is changing the Earth and that humans are a direct contributor.


That's bullsh*t.


No, it is not.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

The only folks that doubt global warming are anti-science folks who regularly ignore evidence that contradicts their claim. They are also funded by the oil and gas companies.
 
2013-09-14 02:09:40 AM

mgshamster: log_jammin: tbeatty: and not appoint political people posing as scientists to government jobs.


so who exactly is a non scientist posing as one for political purposes?

What about half the people on the Congressional Science Committee? Like Todd "Legitamite Rape" Akin. Or anyone at the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine?


I love how some of them do not believe in evolution, even though it is the basis for literally every biological science. I do think that anyone who is on that committee should be an actual scientist that understands the concepts of science.
 
2013-09-14 02:14:35 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Damnhippyfreak: You seem to be conflating specific policy decisions and applications with the idea of a "scientific field".

For instance, genetically modified seed and domestic energy exploration are specific policy decisions based on the underlying scientific fields of genetics and geology/physics. One can be against specific applications of the scientific knowledge without somehow being against the knowledge itself. Evolution and stem cell research, on the other hand are in of themselves scientific fields of inquiry - opposition to these is not based upon their applications, but the scientific information itself.


I see your point, but I believe that you contradict yourself.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that liberals/democrats aren't against the 'science', they're just against what it can be used for - such as off-shore drilling, for example.  But then, I take it, you are claiming that Republicans/conservatives are simply against the science behind evolution and stem cell research for no particular reason.  That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


I don't think it's for no particular reason. What I'm thinking is that the kind ofconflation you were making isn't uncommon, especially on the right (but of course not limited to such). Being against the scientific fields of evolution and stem cell research is based upon the perceived challenges these fields present to religion and the abortion debate. The mistake is that if one does not like the implications of said fields, therefore one is against said fields.


Neighborhood Watch: Questions of religion & morality have everything to do with applications of science.  Two good examples would be the development of the atom bomb and cloning humans for organ harvesting.  If you oppose either one, are you 'anti-science'?


Bolded for emphasis. One can distinguish between the applications of scientific inquiry and the scientific information itself. If we take on your example of the atom bomb, atomic energy is an alternative application of the same scientific field. Same field, different application - one can be against one application and yet for the other. Again I caution you not to conflate applications of a science with scientific information itself.

While you're quite right to note that larger ethical questions should come into play, one has to be careful to what exactly they're applying to. We wouldn't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.


Neighborhood Watch: t's my belief that Global WarmingTM is a hoax, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-science.  I believe in what the Bible says, but I don't have a problem with the overall idea of evolution.  The creation story in Genesis is vague & dream-like enough to incorporate it.  Most Christians feel the same way.  My problem with it is how the science of evolution is 'used' as an attack weapon (one of many) that's designed to inflict the maximum mental anguish on people of faith.  Whatever.


Maybe "anti-science" is not a very good term. I think what is meant is more that one is willing to give more credence to non-scientific kinds of information (such as religious belief) with subjects that are probably better accessed through science.

That aside, the attitude you're talking about in your last sentence is the reason why some appear to be against the science itself, a trap it looks like you're not falling into.


Neighborhood Watch: In the example of bio-medical research, conservatives/Republicans aren't against or 'at war' with it.  That's just ridiculous.  But embryonic stem-cell research does cross ethical boundaries for many people.  That's the way it is with medical science - I mean, using that example.


You have a good point here in that it's counter-productive to overstate or misrepresent the opinions of your perceived opponents - a good lesson you unfortunately seem to forget in the next paragraph.


Neighborhood Watch: For instance, Medical science is enabling people to live longer and longer and enabling premature infants to survive at younger and younger ages.  Liberals want the old & infirm to hurry up and die (that's the cold, hard truth) and think about what the liberal/democrat reaction will be when science soon enables a 90 day old (or younger) fetus to survive outside the womb and grow into a normal & healthy infant?

In the above examples, it is Republicans/conservatives who embrace the science... and not the other way around.


You seem to be basing this upon what is arguably a false impression of what you perceptive a liberal/democrat position. In addition, you're once again conflating an application of a science with the underlying scientific information itself.

Because you believe that Republicans/conservatives are in favor of the benefits of medical science does not mean that they are necessarily in favor of the underlying information, (evolution as part of said medical science is a good example).
 
2013-09-14 02:17:16 AM

mgshamster: What about half the people on the Congressional Science Committee? Like Todd "Legitamite Rape" Akin.


wait what? akin claims to be a scientist?

mgshamster: Or anyone at the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine?


I....had no idea that existed. wtf???
 
2013-09-14 02:18:25 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Zeppelininthesky: The only folks that doubt global warming are anti-science folks who regularly ignore evidence that contradicts their claim. They are also funded by the oil and gas companies.


You're just wrong.

I'm not calling you stupid (or any of the names here that everyone is calling me), I'm just saying that you're being close-minded IMO.  I mean, you've literally shut your mind off from the possibility of being wrong.

That's not very 'scientific'.  In fact, it's the opposite.


Hmmmmm

I link actual data linked to literally thousands of studies that conclude that climate change is happening, and you link one article with no evidence.

Sounds legit.
 
2013-09-14 02:35:17 AM

tbeatty: Explain to me why we need a political appointee for science?  Is science dependent on ideology?  How about we leave political advocacy to politicians and not appoint political people posing as scientists to government jobs.


Unpaid positions with real scientists.  What is there to object to?
 
2013-09-14 02:35:55 AM

Zeppelininthesky: I link actual data linked to literally thousands of studies that conclude that climate change is happening, and you link one article with no evidence.


Actually, it's worse than that. From the article he linked:

SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?
Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you.

It's actually a pretty good article. Storch is a reputable climate scientist and does a pretty good job of explaining some of the issues of climate science in layman's terms.
 
2013-09-14 02:38:04 AM

log_jammin: mgshamster: What about half the people on the Congressional Science Committee? Like Todd "Legitamite Rape" Akin.

wait what? akin claims to be a scientist?

mgshamster: Or anyone at the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine?

I....had no idea that existed. wtf???


I'm not sure if he ever claimed to be an actual scientist, but he did (does?) serve on a science committee at the national level. There are also several creationists on the committee.

As for the NCCAM, yeah. Disappointing, ain't it? The con-artists are doing the same thing in my own state, with a government or for naturopaths who are dedicated on getting state approval to be primary and family practitioners, "because we don't have enough physicians."
 
2013-09-14 02:43:54 AM

mgshamster: I'm not sure if he ever claimed to be an actual scientist, but he did (does?) serve on a science committee at the national level. There are also several creationists on the committee.


Yeah. I'm aware of that, but it's not exactly posing as a scientist.

mgshamster: As for the NCCAM, yeah. Disappointing, ain't it?


I don't have the words...
 
2013-09-14 02:53:11 AM
So, democracy, eh? Where the puling quims who head one pissant "organization", clearly a teensy, tiny, pointless minority in the overall discussion, can have enough influence and power over a democratic government to pull legislation because it makes them pinch their peepees in anxiety?

Yeah, that's the GOP's idea of "smaller government" - fewer elected officials getting in the way of what the rich want to do, and we can't have high-falutin' ideas like "science" and "truth" rain on the parade of the rich.
 
2013-09-14 03:25:45 AM
Wait, NW is supposed to be a troll?  I always thought he was a satirist.

Is there some variant of Poe's law that covers trolls who are so bad that you assume they must be deliberately trying to sound like morons?
 
2013-09-14 03:46:34 AM

Zeppelininthesky: Mentat: Neighborhood Watch: /also, it wasn't Republicans who killed NASA

Gee, I wonder what could have happened in 2010 that made it difficult to fund NASA projects?

*raises hand*

Ohh ohh ohhh pick me I know!

The Republicans made a total mess of the economy and cut spending despite the fact that short term spending in a depressed economy is the proven method to turn things around.


BZZZT!  I'm sorry, the answer we were for was "Benghazi".
 
2013-09-14 03:58:41 AM

dookdookdook: Wait, NW is supposed to be a troll?  I always thought he was a satirist.

Is there some variant of Poe's law that covers trolls who are so bad that you assume they must be deliberately trying to sound like morons?


His attempt to transition from Trayvon Troll to standard derp spewer has been a rough one. Still. He gets the bites.
 
2013-09-14 04:07:50 AM
What am I missing?

I know both of you sides like to bash on each other at any opportunity, but... cmon.

War is a bit harsh of a term, seeing as they actually are debating a real war at the moment.  Cant you back off the rhetoric a tad?  So they pulled a bill creating a non-productive position.  Its a Laureate position, who cares?
 
2013-09-14 04:46:42 AM

Neighborhood Watch: It's not a 'War on Science'.  I agree with not creating yet another bs public figure (with accompanying staff & payroll) on borrowed money to help promote the democrat party.

Scientists are already free to travel the country on money-begging tours and preach the snake oil on Global WarmingTM .  God knows that nobody's been stopping them for the last decade.


The REAL war on science are the attacks on technological progress that actually benefit mankind, such as fracking, genetically modified seed, techniques that allow premature infants to survive at younger and younger ages and, of course, defense technology.


DNRTFA.  It's an unpaid position.
 
2013-09-14 05:16:17 AM
SCIENCE SAVE US!
 
2013-09-14 05:19:41 AM

I sound fat: War is a bit harsh of a term


no it's not. The Right has consistently been in a "war" against science for quite some time now.

I sound fat: So they pulled a bill creating a non-productive position.


they pulled the bill because...

the bill would give President Barack Obama the opportunity to appoint someone "who will share his view that science should serve political ends, on such issues as climate change and regulation of greenhouse gases."
 
2013-09-14 05:29:37 AM

I sound fat: What am I missing?

I know both of you sides like to bash on each other at any opportunity, but... cmon.

War is a bit harsh of a term, seeing as they actually are debating a real war at the moment.  Cant you back off the rhetoric a tad?  So they pulled a bill creating a non-productive position.  Its a Laureate position, who cares?


I think the outrage is more about Republican's making a mountain of a molehill. This is by all accounts a feel good bill that should pass easily since it doesn't really require Congress to actually do much of anything. Yet, nope. Climate change is science fact, and anyone who says otherwise is by all accounts anti-science. Throw in science budget cuts that are a direct result of Republicans who have been on the war path for spending cuts and I think that qualifies as a very hostile environment for science in the United States.
 
2013-09-14 06:13:47 AM
 
2013-09-14 06:19:27 AM

Curious: What others say about CEI:
The Business Insider: CEI's "Myron Ebell may be enemy #1 to the current climate change community."

so he's anti science, gotcha.


The CEI calls itself a Libertarian think tank but it takes funding from Big Tobacco and Big Oil and opposes any scientist that might cut into their bottom line.

That's pretty much all you need to know about those guys.
 
2013-09-14 06:48:43 AM
Is being the neighborhood watch around here an unpaid position?
 
2013-09-14 07:15:06 AM

robohobo: Neil Degrasse Tyson smirks at partisan hacks.


February 2009.  The Republicans have taken a sharp turn for the worse since then.
 
2013-09-14 07:17:52 AM

dangelder: Is being the neighborhood watch around here an unpaid position?


I sincerely hope so... but for some reason I doubt it.
 
2013-09-14 07:34:12 AM
Whoever's moderating these threads can't possibly not know that Neighborhood Watch is a troll, right? I mean seriously - I'm pretty sure trolls far less obvious than this guy have been given timeouts in the past.
 
2013-09-14 07:38:01 AM

Biological Ali: Whoever's moderating these threads can't possibly not know that Neighborhood Watch is a troll, right? I mean seriously - I'm pretty sure trolls far less obvious than this guy have been given timeouts in the past.


calling someone a troll like that will get your comments deleted.

or so I hear...
 
2013-09-14 08:03:01 AM

Biological Ali: Whoever's moderating these threads can't possibly not know that Neighborhood Watch is a troll, right? I mean seriously - I'm pretty sure trolls far less obvious than this guy have been given timeouts in the past.


They have to say something pretty farked up to get that treatment. If the mods weren't going to do it for the racist shiat he spewed in the threads that gave this alt Fark Fame, they're not going to do it for standard derpery. The politics tab runs on these trolls.

Years ago, right around the time when Weaver95 finally had to give in and stop defending the Bush administration, Fark had the choice to either let political threads devolve into a massive circlejerk, or give big leeway to obvious conservatrolls. Not even the PITA could fix things. To see what their alternative choice was, look at how Reddit's /r/politics turned out.

It's a shame. You used to be able to get a feel for who had political momentum based purely on the headlines around here - because funny *was* the number 1 priority. So whoever was farking up most would be the target of more headlines. But the Republicans farked up so consistently, for so long, artificial "balance" had to be infused.
 
2013-09-14 08:57:27 AM

VJStinger: dangelder: Is being the neighborhood watch around here an unpaid position?

I sincerely hope so... but for some reason I doubt it.


When someone like Steven Milloy tells lies on behalf of plutocrats who would poison their own mothers if it would bring in a few bucks, at least he separates said plutocrats from some fraction, however minuscule, of their billions.  Neighborhood Watch apparently provides these services for free.
 
2013-09-14 09:07:59 AM

The Name: Leishu: dookdookdook: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

Serious question: Besides American conservatives, is there any other nationally-powerful organization in any other country as openly and proudly hostile to science in particular and objective reality in general this side of the Taliban?

Yup. The Anti-Vax movement.

So, American conservatives.


There are just as many leftists that are anti-vax as there are rightists. Seriously. Both are retarded, too.
 
2013-09-14 09:15:57 AM

Jensaarai: To see what their alternative choice was, look at how Reddit's /r/politics turned out.


how did it turn out?
 
2013-09-14 09:29:12 AM
FTA: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

...because pontificating is something that only politicians, political pundits, and Farkers on the politics tab should be allowed to do.
 
2013-09-14 09:40:34 AM

abb3w: FTA: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

...because pontificating is something that only politicians, political pundits, and Farkers on the politics tab should be allowed to do.


Yeah, it's pretty telling how scared they are of science.
 
2013-09-14 10:31:07 AM

MontanaDave: HighZoolander: vygramul: HighZoolander: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 234x346]
It's a very depressing read...

It's also seriously flawed.

how so? (I'm not very far into it yet)

You haven't read much of what ViagraMule writes, either. The "serious flaw" is that it criticizes Republicans.


You apparently haven't read a lot of what I write.
 
2013-09-14 10:36:38 AM

starsrift: abb3w: FTA: "There's no way to make it work," Ebell said. "It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we're opposed to it."

...because pontificating is something that only politicians, political pundits, and Farkers on the politics tab should be allowed to do.

Yeah, it's pretty telling how scared they are of science.


scared of facts in general I think.

/shameful
 
2013-09-14 10:42:01 AM

robohobo: Neil Degrasse Tyson smirks at partisan hacks.


Yeah, I wonder how his tune has changed since he made those statements 4+ years ago.
 
2013-09-14 10:45:52 AM

robohobo: Neil Degrasse Tyson smirks at partisan hacks.


Yes, because political parties don't evolve over time and Abraham Lincoln is the same sort of Republican as Michele Bachmann. In the Republican's case its been for the worse. Certain idiots were voted in in 2010, who had a pro spending cutting platform. Which is what they did, by eventually insisting that that they wouldn't raise the debt ceiling unless there were cuts. Which as we know resulted in S&P downgrading our credit rating.

Then there is the sequester which might not be all the Republican's fault is a direct result of them wanting more cuts because we cut the Bush era tax cuts especially for the so called job creators (hah). Oh, and debt ceiling round two is coming up. So that should be fun.

Anyway, Republican's certainly don't hold all the blame but science has certainly payed the price as result of this sort of Republican created environment on the hill.
 
2013-09-14 10:53:30 AM
Of course the Republicans had to declare war on science.
Science attacked first. Do you think DSM IV was a warning shot?
 
2013-09-14 10:54:14 AM
But America's still exceptional, right?
 
2013-09-14 11:01:40 AM

Jensaarai: Years ago, right around the time when Weaver95 finally had to give in and stop defending the Bush administration, Fark had the choice to either let political threads devolve into a massive circlejerk, or give big leeway to obvious conservatrolls. Not even the PITA could fix things. To see what their alternative choice was, look at how Reddit's /r/politics turned out.


The problem with trolls like Neighborhood Watch isn't that they're conservative - it's that they very obviously don't believe the things they're posting and the result is that entire threads get derailed by a single attention whore who has no intention of ever engaging in sincere discussion.

Every once in a while, trolls have been sent away (and the nonsense they've posted purged from the threads), and it's not as though the site turned into a "circlejerk" when that happened. The only result it had was that the quality of discussion briefly improved, at least until the next attention-whoring threadshiatter came along.
 
2013-09-14 11:01:47 AM
What could go wrong with mixing science and politics, it's working out great for politics and religion.
 
2013-09-14 11:07:26 AM

jigger: How about one that does nothing but go around the country dispelling myths about GMOs and fracking?


The opposition to fracking is more about the poor safety record of energy companies.  (Recall BP and gulf of Mexico where completely safe technology with blow-out preventers and back-up blow-out preventers failed and eleven people died.)

This year in Ohio a fracking company was found to have illegally dumped their toxic waste water into local water ways. We have energy companies swearing the the technology and proven and completely safe, and then this shiat ALWAYS happens.  It is the public that bears the costs and the private companies that makes the profits.

Fracking companies do need more regulation and oversite.  If they are so sure about their technology then they should put up a performance bond to guarantee their work.
 
2013-09-14 11:15:47 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Liberals want the old & infirm to hurry up and die (that's the cold, hard truth) and think about what the liberal/democrat reaction will be when science soon enables a 90 day old (or younger) fetus to survive outside the womb and grow into a normal & healthy infant?


wat?  Dude what are you on?  I'm pretty sure that if you make up stuff to get angry about you should see a doctor.
 
2013-09-14 12:00:55 PM

paygun: What could go wrong with mixing science and politics, it's working out great for politics and religion.


Exactly.  Why are Republicans politicizing science?
 
2013-09-14 12:18:20 PM

Neighborhood Watch: It's not a 'War on Science'.  I agree with not creating yet another bs public figure (with accompanying staff & payroll) on borrowed money to help promote the democrat party.

Scientists are already free to travel the country on money-begging tours and preach the snake oil on Global WarmingTM .  God knows that nobody's been stopping them for the last decade.


The REAL war on science are the attacks on technological progress that actually benefit mankind, such as fracking, genetically modified seed, techniques that allow premature infants to survive at younger and younger ages and, of course, defense technology.



I am (as always) late to the Thread, and have read no further than this comment as of yet..but, this post has elevated you from "Ridiculous Troll to be Disregarded in All Things" to "Subtle Wordsmith who Knows How to Stir the Pot, When He Makes the Effort," in my mind.

Bravo..
 
2013-09-14 12:39:39 PM

paygun: What could go wrong with mixing science and politics, it's working out great for politics and religion.


I always saw Religion as pure sodium and Science as Water.
 
2013-09-14 12:58:58 PM

DVOM: Neighborhood Watch: cloning humans for organ harvesting.

You really have absolutely no grasp of what is actually going on.


I have it blocked, but someone should inform it that The Island was fiction. Terrible fiction.
 
2013-09-14 01:32:47 PM

Biological Ali: Jensaarai: Years ago, right around the time when Weaver95 finally had to give in and stop defending the Bush administration, Fark had the choice to either let political threads devolve into a massive circlejerk, or give big leeway to obvious conservatrolls. Not even the PITA could fix things. To see what their alternative choice was, look at how Reddit's /r/politics turned out.

The problem with trolls like Neighborhood Watch isn't that they're conservative - it's that they very obviously don't believe the things they're posting and the result is that entire threads get derailed by a single attention whore who has no intention of ever engaging in sincere discussion.

Every once in a while, trolls have been sent away (and the nonsense they've posted purged from the threads), and it's not as though the site turned into a "circlejerk" when that happened. The only result it had was that the quality of discussion briefly improved, at least until the next attention-whoring threadshiatter came along.


Careful.  You're criticizing one of the pet trolls.
 
2013-09-14 01:35:50 PM

Damnhippyfreak: You seem to be conflating specific policy decisions and applications with the idea of a "scientific field".

For instance, genetically modified seed and domestic energy exploration are specific policy decisions based on the underlying scientific fields of genetics and geology/physics. One can be against specific applications of the scientific knowledge without somehow being against the knowledge itself. Evolution and stem cell research, on the other hand are in of themselves scientific fields of inquiry - opposition to these is not based upon their applications, but the scientific information itself.


"Opposition to stem cell research" is a misnomer and is only opposed when the source of embryonic stem cells is aborted fetuses.  Stem cell research on embryonic stem cells from umbilical cord blood or adult stem cells is not opposed by anyone as far as I have seen.  In fact, cord blood is routinely stored and banked commercially and research continues.

Keep in mind that ethical decisions about pure research (like not using aborted fetuses) keeps the science aspect of it alive.  Eugenics was a scientific field until the political application of it made the entire field abhorrent and it is now a not considered a science but a social movement.

Climate studies are a scientific field but Global Warming has moved into a political movement.  Pure science is interested in discovery of facts but it becomes social movement when those facts are used and manipulated to create societal change.

No scientist doubts evolution and that genetic attributes are passed from parent to child.  We use that knowledge to manipulate plants and animals to create more hardier strains or specific breeds of dogs.  Scientists research and apply that to plants and animals but there is no way any scientists would try the same with humans.  It isn't because the science is invalid, it's because the politicians and social change advocates applied it in such a way that it's use is very limited.  There is the very real danger that legitimate climate studies will be curtailed if politicians and activists continue to overplay their hand.  Scientists are caught in the middle in terms of funding and research that becomes narrowly targeted to support a social activist agenda.  If, say, in thirty years, it appears that changes in the availability of coal and power for 3rd world nations caused poverty and famine,  and science (not social activists) are blamed, climatology could go the way of eugenics and the dodo bird.  The same could be true for embryonic stem cell research if there is an unethical method of obtaining research material.

Science itself is never the issue.  It's political advocacy for action based on an interpretation of science that causes problems.  There are literally hundreds of stories of misapplied science causing unnecessary harm or inconvenience.  From insect control to cancer causing agents from plastic baby bottles to hormones given to cows to create more milk.  Likewise there is the unethical application of science (like eugenics) that have literally destroyed avenues of advancement.

Oh, and everyone likes to point out science has expanded the human lifespan.  IN reality the upper bounded number has remained virtually unchanged.  There are no 130 year old humans.   That would be the next great scientific breakthrough and perhaps stem cell research is part of that direction.  But for now, science has only manipulated the low and medium ends of actuarial tables.  Infant mortality goes down.  Cancer deaths in middle age decline and these all push the "at birth life expectancy up".  But for someone that has made it to 90 or 100 years old, the actuarial table for remaining years is virtually unchanged for the last century.   More people make it there, but they die at the same rate as they have always have and maybe even faster.  Notice that the oldest human alive at any given period is always about the same age.
 
2013-09-14 01:52:34 PM

tbeatty: Damnhippyfreak: You seem to be conflating specific policy decisions and applications with the idea of a "scientific field".

For instance, genetically modified seed and domestic energy exploration are specific policy decisions based on the underlying scientific fields of genetics and geology/physics. One can be against specific applications of the scientific knowledge without somehow being against the knowledge itself. Evolution and stem cell research, on the other hand are in of themselves scientific fields of inquiry - opposition to these is not based upon their applications, but the scientific information itself.

"Opposition to stem cell research" is a misnomer and is only opposed when the source of embryonic stem cells is aborted fetuses.  Stem cell research on embryonic stem cells from umbilical cord blood or adult stem cells is not opposed by anyone as far as I have seen.  In fact, cord blood is routinely stored and banked commercially and research continues.

Keep in mind that ethical decisions about pure research (like not using aborted fetuses) keeps the science aspect of it alive.  Eugenics was a scientific field until the political application of it made the entire field abhorrent and it is now a not considered a science but a social movement.

Climate studies are a scientific field but Global Warming has moved into a political movement.  Pure science is interested in discovery of facts but it becomes social movement when those facts are used and manipulated to create societal change.

No scientist doubts evolution and that genetic attributes are passed from parent to child.  We use that knowledge to manipulate plants and animals to create more hardier strains or specific breeds of dogs.  Scientists research and apply that to plants and animals but there is no way any scientists would try the same with humans.  It isn't because the science is invalid, it's because the politicians and social change advocates applied it in such a way that it's use is very ...



I agree with you here, and I shouldn't have lumped stem cell research in there.
 
2013-09-14 01:56:23 PM

Damnhippyfreak: tbeatty: Damnhippyfreak: You seem to be conflating specific policy decisions and applications with the idea of a "scientific field".

For instance, genetically modified seed and domestic energy exploration are specific policy decisions based on the underlying scientific fields of genetics and geology/physics. One can be against specific applications of the scientific knowledge without somehow being against the knowledge itself. Evolution and stem cell research, on the other hand are in of themselves scientific fields of inquiry - opposition to these is not based upon their applications, but the scientific information itself.

"Opposition to stem cell research" is a misnomer and is only opposed when the source of embryonic stem cells is aborted fetuses.  Stem cell research on embryonic stem cells from umbilical cord blood or adult stem cells is not opposed by anyone as far as I have seen.  In fact, cord blood is routinely stored and banked commercially and research continues.

Keep in mind that ethical decisions about pure research (like not using aborted fetuses) keeps the science aspect of it alive.  Eugenics was a scientific field until the political application of it made the entire field abhorrent and it is now a not considered a science but a social movement.

Climate studies are a scientific field but Global Warming has moved into a political movement.  Pure science is interested in discovery of facts but it becomes social movement when those facts are used and manipulated to create societal change.

No scientist doubts evolution and that genetic attributes are passed from parent to child.  We use that knowledge to manipulate plants and animals to create more hardier strains or specific breeds of dogs.  Scientists research and apply that to plants and animals but there is no way any scientists would try the same with humans.  It isn't because the science is invalid, it's because the politicians and social change advocates applied it in such a way that it's use ...


Chris Mooney considers opposition to stem cells to be anti-science because one of the arguments Republicans make is that there are n number of strains when it's really n-6 (it was like it was 16 but Republicans said it was 22 or something on that order). To scientists, the difference is substantial. To the public, it probably isn't. To Mooney, it was evidence of a war on science.
 
2013-09-14 02:42:23 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Biological Ali: The problem with trolls like Neighborhood Watch isn't that they're conservative - it's that they very obviously don't believe the things they're posting and the result is that entire threads get derailed by a single attention whore who has no intention of ever engaging in sincere discussion.

Every once in a while, trolls have been sent away (and the nonsense they've posted purged from the threads), and it's not as though the site turned into a "circlejerk" when that happened. The only result it had was that the quality of discussion briefly improved, at least until the next attention-whoring threadshiatter came along.


Why don't you back off a little bit, my friend.


Why don't you stop trolling this website? Surely you can find a better hobby than this.
 
2013-09-14 03:12:16 PM

Gyrfalcon: I'll just leave this here:

[www.anneofcarversville.com image 465x916]


HA HA! SUCK IT, LIECHTENSTEIN!
 
2013-09-14 05:22:29 PM

log_jammin: Jensaarai: To see what their alternative choice was, look at how Reddit's /r/politics turned out.

how did it turn out?


He fixed the cable?
 
2013-09-14 06:27:40 PM

Somacandra: the 101st Fighting Keyboardists


I like that.
 
2013-09-14 08:49:21 PM

Gyrfalcon: I'll just leave this here:


maybe we could restrict "participating regions of the united states" to wealthy suburbs around the country (except atlanta) and all of massachussetts (except for south boston) and we'll see how well we compare with your "average" chinaman...

/hell, if you point is comparison of "economical system" and not to be based on race, why not compare asian americans to asian asians. wonder who will perform better?
 
2013-09-14 08:58:48 PM

lennavan: So I'm going to give up and go to medical school.


wait, you got a phd, and now you're going to go to medical school? jesus man, will the abuse never end???
 
2013-09-14 09:15:01 PM
Herb Utsmelz:

I like that.

The Killer Keyboard Kommandos usually swats two flies simultaneously.
 
Displayed 231 of 231 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report