Only 6% of scientists vote Republican

[piezoe]

"
Research funding is a term generally covering any funding for scientific research, in the areas of both "hard" science and technology and social science. The term often connotes funding obtained through a competitive process, in which potential research projects are evaluated and only the most promising receive funding. Such processes, which are run by government, corporations or foundations, allocate scarce funds.

Most research funding comes from two major sources, corporations (through research and development departments) and government (primarily carried out through universities and specialized government agencies). Some small amounts of scientific research are carried out (or funded) by charitable foundations, especially in relation to developing cures for diseases such as cancer, malaria and AIDS.[citation needed]

According to OECD, around two-thirds of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industries, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government."

"Development" is a very broad term!, as is the term "Research". When you combine them you have a descriptor that is worthless except for the purpose of concealing something. The percentage numbers that come from this extremely broad, useless combination are correspondingly worthless. Reader beware.

 

[Ricter]

"Development" is a very broad term!, as is the term "Research". When you combine them you have a descriptor that is worthless except for the purpose of concealing something. The percentage numbers that come from this extremely broad, useless combination are correspondingly worthless. Reader beware.

Even giving back a substantial percentage of privately funded scientists to government, it still is apparent that the claim "most scientists work for government" is false.

 

[piezoe]

Oh and in case anyone forgot to keep in mind when looking at the above chart. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

This gee whiz chart from the early days of Hansen explains very nicely why so many where suckered into believing the Hansen hypothesis was likely correct. Unfortunately for them and their egos, correlation does not prove causation. Had they thought to look more closely at this often appearing chart, they would have recognized that the chart shows CO2 greatly lagging temperature. They should have been thinking WTF! instead of Gee Whiz!:eek:

 

[Scataphagos]

Again, follow the money. Many scientists (and academics in general) rely on government grants. So they vote for the party they think will support them the most.

Any reasonably intelligent "trader" should figure that out...

I was schooled as a scientist way back when. I never experienced any Leftist brainwashing. If I were in school today, I doubt I could put up with it enough to graduate.... let alone Summa Cum Laude. Thanks to the CLEP program, I was able to test out of all requirements except English and the classes in my majors.

 

[mike oxbig]

It's worse than bad judgement.

It's a scam. They know what they're pulling.

 

[jsp326]

There's a huge fallacy here: the appeal to authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

It basically goes like this: scientists are smart (note: sometimes) and objective (note: nope, often not the case). Therefore, they must know a lot about politics, even though it isn't their field.

Even the premise is flawed, so it's a huge fallacy. The much simpler explanation (Occam's Razor) is they generally vote for whoever gives them more funding.

 

[Ricter]

There's a huge fallacy here: the appeal to authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

It basically goes like this: scientists are smart (note: sometimes) and objective (note: nope, often not the case). Therefore, they must know a lot about politics, even though it isn't their field.

Even the premise is flawed, so it's a huge fallacy. The much simpler explanation (Occam's Razor) is they generally vote for whoever gives them more funding.

Appeal to authority is not the same as appeal to expertise.

 

[futurecurrents]

This gee whiz chart from the early days of Hansen explains very nicely why so many where suckered into believing the Hansen hypothesis was likely correct. Unfortunately for them and their egos, correlation does not prove causation. Had they thought to look more closely at this often appearing chart, they would have recognized that the chart shows CO2 greatly lagging temperature. They should have been thinking WTF! instead of Gee Whiz!:eek:

You are a fucking fool and a liar. It does NOT lag temps. It is essentially concurrent with it. You are a douchebag.

 

[futurecurrents]

There's a huge fallacy here: the appeal to authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

It basically goes like this: scientists are smart (note: sometimes) and objective (note: nope, often not the case). Therefore, they must know a lot about politics, even though it isn't their field.

Even the premise is flawed, so it's a huge fallacy. The much simpler explanation (Occam's Razor) is they generally vote for whoever gives them more funding.

Look moron. CO2 is the earth's most important greenhouse gas. We have raised it's levels by 40%. There is no question about these simple facts.

Try using the few brain cells you have and employ some fucking logic. No authority needed. This is simple basic shit. Are you smarter than a fifth grader?

 

[jsp326]

Look moron. CO2 is the earth's most important greenhouse gas. We have raised it's levels by 40%. There is no question about these simple facts.

Try using the few brain cells you have and employ some fucking logic. Holy shit some people are stupid.

You didn't engage with a thing I said. Yet you question my intelligence? Talk about pots, kettles and projection.