The Anti-Science Party marches on ...

[rubato]

They've discovered that as long as you have absolutely no conscience at all you can capture the valuable "stupid vote" forever.

Where did the intelligent Republicans all go? The ones who have to be ashamed of this?

_______________________________
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opini ... .html?_r=1
Advertise on NYTimes.com
Op-Ed Columnist
Republicans Against Science
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 28, 2011


Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Paul Krugman

To see what Mr. Huntsman means, consider recent statements by the two men who actually are serious contenders for the G.O.P. nomination: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”

The second part of Mr. Perry’s statement is, as it happens, just false: the scientific consensus about man-made global warming — which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences — is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting.

In fact, if you follow climate science at all you know that the main development over the past few years has been growing concern that projections of future climate are underestimating the likely amount of warming. Warnings that we may face civilization-threatening temperature change by the end of the century, once considered outlandish, are now coming out of mainstream research groups.

But never mind that, Mr. Perry suggests; those scientists are just in it for the money, “manipulating data” to create a fake threat. In his book “Fed Up,” he dismissed climate science as a “contrived phony mess that is falling apart.”

I could point out that Mr. Perry is buying into a truly crazy conspiracy theory, which asserts that thousands of scientists all around the world are on the take, with not one willing to break the code of silence. I could also point out that multiple investigations into charges of intellectual malpractice on the part of climate scientists have ended up exonerating the accused researchers of all accusations. But never mind: Mr. Perry and those who think like him know what they want to believe, and their response to anyone who contradicts them is to start a witch hunt.

So how has Mr. Romney, the other leading contender for the G.O.P. nomination, responded to Mr. Perry’s challenge? In trademark fashion: By running away. In the past, Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, has strongly endorsed the notion that man-made climate change is a real concern. But, last week, he softened that to a statement that he thinks the world is getting hotter, but “I don’t know that” and “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.” Moral courage!

Of course, we know what’s motivating Mr. Romney’s sudden lack of conviction. According to Public Policy Polling, only 21 percent of Republican voters in Iowa believe in global warming (and only 35 percent believe in evolution). Within the G.O.P., willful ignorance has become a litmus test for candidates, one that Mr. Romney is determined to pass at all costs.

So it’s now highly likely that the presidential candidate of one of our two major political parties will either be a man who believes what he wants to believe, even in the teeth of scientific evidence, or a man who pretends to believe whatever he thinks the party’s base wants him to believe.

And the deepening anti-intellectualism of the political right, both within and beyond the G.O.P., extends far beyond the issue of climate change.

Lately, for example, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page has gone beyond its long-term preference for the economic ideas of “charlatans and cranks” — as one of former President George W. Bush’s chief economic advisers famously put it — to a general denigration of hard thinking about matters economic. Pay no attention to “fancy theories” that conflict with “common sense,” the Journal tells us. Because why should anyone imagine that you need more than gut feelings to analyze things like financial crises and recessions?

Now, we don’t know who will win next year’s presidential election. But the odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge. And, in a time of severe challenges — environmental, economic, and more — that’s a terrifying prospect.
______________________________


yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

As we have discussed many times in the past, the Dems have just about cornered the market on the "stupid" vote, and their activities w/r/t illegal (uneducated) immigrants, motor voter, Voter ID, and other initiatives show clearly that they are planning to continue their reliance on voter ignorance for the foreseeable future. That along with Envy and sucking the Gub'mint's teats.

It is remarkable in the extreme the number of ignorant journalists whose knowledge about "Evolution" is a mile wide and a quarter inch deep, yet who accept it whole with a faith that would be the envy of the most strident Bible thumper in the land. Ann Coulter has written extensively and in great detail about "problems" with current Evolution theory, and as much as she is villified in the press, there has not been a single substantive rebuttal to any of her points.

The same blind faith is bestowed on "Global Warming," even in spite of the fact that the Priests of Global Warming changed the name to "Climate Change," a few years ago, since the globe is irritatingly failing to warm up as predicted.

But it is possible to be a totally blind believer in Global Warming and STILL fight the draconian measures that the Greenies want to impose on the U.S. and other Western countries. The fact is that the United States' contribution to the total of greenhouse gases (mainly water vapor) is miniscule and will be growing smaller for the foreseeable future, as China and India build coal-fired electric plants by the dozen. And God help us if the people in Africa ever get their heads out of their asses and start to want air conditioning.

It's not about global warming at all, but about government control of economic activity. One would have to be stupid not to see that, which is why the Dems are so keen on the mythical benefits of "renewable energy."

[Liberty1]

It's not about global warming at all, but about government control of economic activity

Exactly and as I posted here about a month ago, the latest NASA data and analysis shows CO2 to be a non-factor.

[oldr_n_wsr]

It's not about global warming at all, but about government control of economic activity.

Did everyone buy their carbon credits for this year? And if so, what did that money go to?

[Liberty1]

So if the left wants to talk about science, why don't they talk about heritability of intelligence, or the existence of fetal pain, or nuclear power, which if used more widely as an energy source would diminish Americans’ reliance on what they believe are environment-destroying fossil fuels, or their emotional resistance against genetically modified crops, orthe fact that bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100, the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks.

Some of these are contraversial subjects, just like AGW or evolution (which if you read Darwin's points that would disprove his theory, you choose to ignore), so any anti-sciece BS from the left is just BS. Look in the mirror.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream ... telligence
http://blog.american.com/2011/08/the-de ... y-narrows/

[Scooter]

Well, on the heritability of intelligence, for example...

Any bias present in intelligence tests is likely to weigh (positively or negatively) in the same way on children as it does on their parents, therefore confounding the results.

The existence or not of fetal pain is irrelevant to the issue of abortion. Abortion is an act of self-defence protecting a woman's body against assault by an unwelcome invader. There is nothing requiring an act of self-defence against an assailant to be painless.

[quaddriver]

The existence or not of fetal pain is irrelevant to the issue of abortion. Abortion is an act of self-defence protecting a woman's body against assault by an unwelcome invader. There is nothing requiring an act of self-defence against an assailant to be painless.

So we *CAN* kill jehovas and fuller brush salesmen. Since they are as likely, if not more likely to kill a homeowner than a tiny baby will its mother (based on nothing else than tiny babies cannot load load the clip and pull the slide)

[Grim Reaper]

It is remarkable in the extreme the number of ignorant journalists whose knowledge about "Evolution" is a mile wide and a quarter inch deep, yet who accept it whole with a faith that would be the envy of the most strident Bible thumper in the land. Ann Coulter has written extensively and in great detail about "problems" with current Evolution theory, and as much as she is villified in the press, there has not been a single substantive rebuttal to any of her points.

Ann Coulter, who has approximately zero scientific background, is not someone I would listen to about evolution.

And I'm betting there's been no rebuttals because the "problems" she raised have either already been rebutted or are such complete hogwash that there's nothing to argue about.

The same blind faith is bestowed on "Global Warming," even in spite of the fact that the Priests of Global Warming changed the name to "Climate Change," a few years ago, since the globe is irritatingly failing to warm up as predicted.

Remember folks, changing your predictions to more accurately reflect reality means that you're completely 100% wrong about anything, ever, and can never be trusted at all.

You are a dangerous fool if you actually believe anything you just typed.

Some of these are contraversial subjects, just like AGW or evolution (which if you read Darwin's points that would disprove his theory, you choose to ignore), so any anti-sciece BS from the left is just BS. Look in the mirror.

The theory of evolution has more evidence and is more understood than the theory of gravity. Yet you anti-science tools don't suggest religious based alternatives for that.

[Liberty1]

The theory of evolution has more evidence and is more understood than the theory of gravity. Yet you anti-science tools don't suggest religious based alternatives for that.

The theory of evolution does have tons of evidence. All you have to do is look at all the different breeds of dogs to see it. And yet there are no transitional fossil records, of which Darwin himself said without, his theory is proven incorrect. Yet you anti-christian tools refuse to admit it.

On the other hand, if evolution were proven I would be just fine with that. That changes none of my beliefs.

[Scooter]

First, to claim there are "no" transitional fossils is incorrect; here is an incomplete list of transitional fossils that have been identified.

Second, Darwin did not say that the lack of transitional fossils "proves" his theory incorrect; he said it created "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against [his] theory". Recognizing that an objection can be raised does not constitute disproof of the theory. He then goes on to show how the fossil collections existing at that time showed patterns that were completely congruent with his theory. Of course, since then many transitional fossils have been found that further reinforce the theory.

[Grim Reaper]

The theory of evolution does have tons of evidence. All you have to do is look at all the different breeds of dogs to see it. And yet there are no transitional fossil records, of which Darwin himself said without, his theory is proven incorrect. Yet you anti-christian tools refuse to admit it.

Amazing how you can make such a ridiculous claim when proof to the contrary is a quick search away.

Also, you don't get to call yourself a Christian and deny evolution at the same time. The last two Popes have come out in support of the theory while still believing God is the driving force.

[Crackpot]

Not to deny your point, but, Christian does not equal Giving a shit about what a pope says or thinks.

[Long Run]

I thought Rich Lowry had a good take on this: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index ... scien.html

Three basic points: Perry really isn't anti-science; all politicians, left and right, abuse and misuse the term science; and it really doesn't matter when it comes to actual governance.

In no sense that the ordinary person would understand the term is Rick Perry "anti-science." He hasn't criticized the scientific method, or sent the Texas Rangers to chase out from the state anyone in a white lab coat. In fact, the opposite. His website touts his Emerging Technology Fund as an effort to bring "the best scientists and researchers to Texas." The state has a booming health care sector composed of people who presumably have a healthy appreciation for the dictates of science.

Science is often just an adjunct to the left's faith commitments. A Richard Dawkins takes evolutionary science beyond its competence and argues that it dictates atheism. An Al Gore makes it sound as if there is no scientific alternative to his policy preferences. They are believers wrapping themselves in the rhetoric of science while lacking all the care and dispassionate reasoning we associate with the practice of it.

Ultimately, a president's views on evolution count for little. Ronald Reagan shared Perry's skepticism, and the nation survived. In Texas, Perry adopted policies designed to draw doctors and technology firms to Texas and create jobs. He succeeded. In this, he's proven admirably empirical

[Sean]

The theory of evolution has more evidence and is more understood than the theory of gravity. Yet you anti-science tools don't suggest religious based alternatives for that.

Religion sucks?

[rubato]

I thought Rich Lowry had a good take on this: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index ... scien.html

Three basic points: Perry really isn't anti-science; all politicians, left and right, abuse and misuse the term science; and it really doesn't matter when it comes to actual governance.

In no sense that the ordinary person would understand the term is Rick Perry "anti-science." He hasn't criticized the scientific method, or sent the Texas Rangers to chase out from the state anyone in a white lab coat. In fact, the opposite. His website touts his Emerging Technology Fund as an effort to bring "the best scientists and researchers to Texas." The state has a booming health care sector composed of people who presumably have a healthy appreciation for the dictates of science.

Science is often just an adjunct to the left's faith commitments. A Richard Dawkins takes evolutionary science beyond its competence and argues that it dictates atheism. An Al Gore makes it sound as if there is no scientific alternative to his policy preferences. They are believers wrapping themselves in the rhetoric of science while lacking all the care and dispassionate reasoning we associate with the practice of it.

Ultimately, a president's views on evolution count for little. Ronald Reagan shared Perry's skepticism, and the nation survived. In Texas, Perry adopted policies designed to draw doctors and technology firms to Texas and create jobs. He succeeded. In this, he's proven admirably empirical

Perry is so anti-science and so anti common sense that only someone devoted to destroying the United States would ever vote for him.



yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

And there we have it... democracy at work!

[rubato]

I thought Rich Lowry had a good take on this: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index ... scien.html

Ultimately, a president's views on evolution count for little. Ronald Reagan shared Perry's skepticism, and the nation survived. In Texas, Perry adopted policies designed to draw doctors and technology firms to Texas and create jobs. He succeeded. In this, he's proven admirably empirical

This is false. Perry lied about attracting doctors and technology to Texas. The numbers of doctors changed in direct proportion to demographic changes. Perry is a liar in additon to being anti-science. Re: the note below about the difference between licensed vs practicing doctors; my wife was licensed to practice in Calif., Oregon and Washington simultaneously for 3+ years.


____________________
http://cherryhill.injuryboard.com/medic ... eid=293672

FALSE: Texas Gained 21,000 Doctors Because of Tort Reform

Mike Ferrara


Republicans everywhere, including presidential hopeful/George W. Bush doppelganger Rick Perry, like to claim that tort reform, and malpractice reform in particular, is a great way to reduce health care costs while attracting more doctors to states that have lower damage caps and stronger malpractice suit deterrents. In August, Rick Perry proudly stated:

"This last year, 21,000 more physicians practicing medicine in Texas because they know they can do what they love and not be sued. Some 30 counties that didn’t have an emergency room doc have one today. Counties along the Rio Grande, where women were having to travel for miles and miles outside of the county to see an ob-gyn, for prenatal care and now they have that care." –PolitiFact.com


It sounds really great. But unfortunately, Perry’s numbers don’t add up at all. As PolitiFact found, Perry’s 21,000 is actually the number of new licensed doctors in Texas, not the number of new practicing ones. Based on practicing ones, the increase is only actually 12,788. Lest you think this still sounds like a lot, please note that almost all of this increase is consistent with the simple population increase in Texas during the same period: From 2002 to 2010, the population of Texas grew by 20 percent, while the number of practicing doctors grew by only a slightly higher 24 percent. ... "
_________________________________

Rick Perry wouldn't know empiricism if it bit him in the ass.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Ultimately, a president's views on evolution count for little. Ronald Reagan shared Perry's skepticism, and the nation survived. In Texas, Perry adopted policies designed to draw doctors and technology firms to Texas and create jobs. He succeeded. In this, he's proven admirably empirical

Unfortunately Reagan's ignorance about science let him to delay responding to the HIV crisis for years allowing thousands of people to die needlessly and millions more to be infected. His ignorance about science led him to kill US research in solar power so that we gave up world leadership to Japan and Germany (who continued to invest). His ignorance about science led him to ignore the APS (American Physical Society, the professional association of physicists. The real 'rocket scientists') who told him that "Star Wars" cannot work and wasted $100 Billion dollars (more than 4 times the cost of AFDC). Reagan's ignorance about science led him to repeat foolish statements like "trees cause more pollution than humans".


yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

actually, Reagan's often cited "tardiness" about HIV had a lot more to do with the relative populations at risk, as compared with heart disease, cancer, and other diseases that were the focus of NIH work at the time. Even today, the population that is at risk of AIDS is miniscule, and AIDS funding is completely out of proportion to the danger to the general public.

And of course, unlike most diseases, AIDS is principally spread by and to people who are completely aware of the risks, and who could avoid them completely with simple changes of lifestyle.

I'm just sayin...

[Scooter]

And yet, it is the fouth largest global killer (after cardiovascular disease of all types, respiratory diseases of all types, and diarrheal and dysentary disease of all types).

And the best predictor of acquiring HIV - being a married woman.

Just sayin'.