Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Pew Poll- 6% of Scientists are Republicans.

Goodness gracious, Republicans are not anti-science. Rob has it right. There are sciences where you have empiricism, hypothesis/proof, repeatability. Those are "hard" sciences.
Then there are stacks of soft sciences where causal relationships are not subject to experimental control, like climate change. It's not like we have an effing "control" planet to run a series upon.
And then you have the Pew study -- if these guys are scientists, why in HE!! do they have ANY political affiliation at all...and why, when the cross section of the American public is center-right, academics are a complete, order of many standard deviations, outlier?
Sheesh.

Head in the sand, or just slow learners.

And by the way, very little of science is empirical...kinda shows your lack of the scientific process.

Dumb-ass reply.

How do you see evolution and man-made climate change fitting into "true conservatism"?

BS what a load of crap this study should have been printed on TP..

You can make a poll show any results you want.

I don't. I do see prudent management of lands and resources as true conservatism. I see fiscal responsibility as true conservatism. I see acting cautiously when things are unknown and "better safe than sorry" as a near definition of conservative. I don't see either party embodying those traits.

So, forgie, you think the feds are doing a prudent job of "management" with their "science?"
Never mind the "precautionary principle" you allude to is right out of the conservation biology (itself an overtly political conflation) playbook of doing nothing, especially if doing something would be beneficial to human communities?

Hell, I couldn't have said it better.

Prove it.

Are you kidding? They had might as well be government employees. Goverment funding for Cal Tech - the primary source of their faculty/staff salaries - is MAJOR.

At CalTech - the largest federal agencies contributing to research are NASA, National Science Foundation, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Defense, and Department of Energy.[83] Caltech received $144 million in federal funding for the physical sciences, $40.8 million for the life sciences, $33.5 million for engineering, $14.4 million for environmental sciences, $7.16 million for computer sciences, and $1.97 million for mathematical sciences in 2008.
The Institute was awarded an all-time high funding of $357 million in 2009.[85] Active funding from the National Science Foundation Directorate of Mathematical and Physical Science (MPS) for Caltech stands at $343 million as of 2011, the highest for any educational institution in the nation, and higher than the total funds allocated to any state except California and New York.

BTW, how in hell someone can be a gun lover and not be a conservative Republican is beyond me.

For the OP....

Read this. It supports the PRC findings and explains why. Excellent.

"They had might as well be government employees". Not really. Can you claim you, anyone you know or any one here on this forum gave much thought to how your school was funded and it influenced your political leanings? Let's be realistic. No one at Cal Tech that I knew gave it any thought from the many conversations I had with them. Though there are examples in our history of the right smearing the left . Such as how right leaning Edward Teller threw Robert Oppenheimer under the bus during the cold war. "I have become death, destroyers of worlds" R. Oppenheimer after witnessing the first atomic explosion. Inspired by the Gita. The Gita lead to Oppenheimer teaching himself Sans Script. But that is for another day.

Dude your really starting to ramble on now.Smoke a joint and chill man. ED K

A lot of people seem to think that the words "republican" and "conservative" are synonymous. These days, those two terms seem to be mutually exclusive.

Here's a good critique of Mooney's horse [bleep].

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/the_republica065781.html

Seems like you are babbling I never said that the funding of Cal Tech influenced the politics of those who studied there - I said that they might as well be a government run school because the Feds fund the place with grant money. If you think the "scientists" who work there are not on the government dole, and if you think they would be working "scientists" without that government grant money, you must be using wacky weed. I can't say that being on the government teat is certain to make a person a liberal democrat, but I can agree that much of human nature - even the nature of "scientists" - is that they will give allegiance and favor to the source of their boondoggles. That is the point someone else made earlier - seemed to prompt babble.

Chris Mooney? Should be Moonbat.
Went to work at American Prospect (commie). Correspondent for Mother Jones (real credible there) and works at the Climate Desk, which is a collaboration of
The Atlantic, Center for Investigative Reporting, The Guardian, Grist, The Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Slate, and Wired.
Grist, Huffpo, Mojo and Slate are all vastly to the Left of the mainstream, and Atlantic has really gone to Pravda the last few years.
Funding for Climate Desk comes from Surdna Foundation, the Park Foundation, the Rosenthal Family Foundation, the Fidelity Charitable Trust, the Vanguard Charitable Trust, and Patagonia.

Park is a zillionairess who basically bankrolls the anti frackheads in the Marcellus. Surdna, Andrus family, more commie libtards, Patagonia -- Fidelity and Vanguard have huge operations as a pass through for anonymous giving.
Yeah, Mojo -- I can see you are really objective when it comes to your sources about science.