Only 6% of scientists vote Republican

[futurecurrents]

Ok piehole you idio

That's correct. The recent rise in CO2 has caused a concurrent rise in temps. Only idiots- or righties, same thing - deny this.

 

[piezoe]

If I recall correctly at least 1/3 of scientists admit to falsifying data in their published papers. And those are only the ones that are willing to admit it.

This was likely your source: a paper in the open access open-access journal PLoS ONE by Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh, and here is a relevant excerpt from that paper: (I underlined the conclusion)
"...
On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had "fabricated" (made up), "falsified" or "altered" data to "improve the outcome" at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."

In surveys that asked about the behaviour of colleagues, 14% knew someone who had fabricated, falsified or altered data, and up to 72% knew someone who had committed other questionable research practices.

In both kinds of surveys, misconduct was reported most frequently by medical and pharmacological researchers. This suggests that either the latter are more open and honest in their answers, or that frauds and bias are more frequent in their fields. The latter interpretation would support growing fears that industrial sponsorship is severely distorting scientific evidence to promote commercial treatments and drugs.

As in all surveys asking sensitive questions, it is likely that some respondents did not reply honestly, especially when asked about their own behaviour. Therefore, a frequency of 2% is probably a conservative estimate, while it remains unclear how the figure of 14% should be interpreted.

More information: Fanelli D (2009) How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738, http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 "

 

[Scataphagos]

"... Thanks to the CLEP program, I was able to test out of all requirements except English and the classes in my majors.

The school was smart. They gave me credit for passing the English part of the CLEP... allowed for credit as having completed electives... but required I take the English classes. That was smart... 'cause to succeed in life, you gotta be able to talk and write good.

 

[Ricter]

This was likely your source: a paper in the open access open-access journal PLoS ONE by Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh, and here is a relevant excerpt from that paper: (I underlined the conclusion)
"...
On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had "fabricated" (made up), "falsified" or "altered" data to "improve the outcome" at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."

In surveys that asked about the behaviour of colleagues, 14% knew someone who had fabricated, falsified or altered data, and up to 72% knew someone who had committed other questionable research practices.

In both kinds of surveys, misconduct was reported most frequently by medical and pharmacological researchers. This suggests that either the latter are more open and honest in their answers, or that frauds and bias are more frequent in their fields. The latter interpretation would support growing fears that industrial sponsorship is severely distorting scientific evidence to promote commercial treatments and drugs.

As in all surveys asking sensitive questions, it is likely that some respondents did not reply honestly, especially when asked about their own behaviour. Therefore, a frequency of 2% is probably a conservative estimate, while it remains unclear how the figure of 14% should be interpreted.

More information: Fanelli D (2009) How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738, http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 "

One of the reasons for peer review.

 

[fhl]

The school was smart. They gave me credit for passing the English part of the CLEP... allowed for credit as having completed electives... but required I take the English classes. That was smart... 'cause to succeed in life, you gotta be able to talk and write good.

...or be able to hit threes.

 

[jem]

no one said something had to be false in order to be a logical fallacy.
the fallacy is that by making that the title of your thread you imply the scientists know something about voting correctly.

It's not a fallacy, it's a statement of fact. 6%. Unless you have different data... ? But you don't get to work backward from your ideology re taxation, as expressed in the AGW debate, and say, "therefore it is not 6%."

 

[Ricter]

no one said something had to be false in order to be a logical fallacy.
the fallacy is that by making that the title of your thread you imply the scientists know something about voting correctly.

Fair enough. It's merely chance, a flip of the coin if you will, that 94% of scientists, the majority of which work for the private sector, vote democrat.

 

[jem]

given... our situation... that democrats are responsible for..

higher taxes
massive inflation
no border security
iran soon to get nukes
pro muslim brotherhood
a terrible econoomy
attempt at amnesty so wages can go down and unemployment go up
and more big govt fascism


I doubt that poll from 2009... is still accurate.

 

[dbphoenix]

given... our situation... that democrats are responsible for..

higher taxes
massive inflation
no border security
iran soon to get nukes
pro muslim brotherhood
a terrible econoomy
attempt at amnesty so wages can go down and unemployment go up
and more big govt fascism


I doubt that poll from 2009... is still accurate.

You're fully indoctrinated, aren't you?

 

[jem]

more projection from a big govt loving pre fascist drone like db

everything I said can be supported.

by the way, in 2009 obama approval rating was about 70% and now it is at 38%.

You're fully indoctrinated, aren't you?