[Brewpralgar]

My sites are mainly NASA, or science sites. I ignore blogs (even though they may have accurate information).



Not a conspiracy. Just a movement. You know, like how Hollywood is controlled by leftists. ANd how the vast majority of college professors and news reporters are also leftists.
Regarding the scientists, of course they weren't subverted. More likely, many of them that joined had an agenda and/or a pre-conceived bias.

Kramer

That just begs a new question. Why are all the world's most respected scientists, college professors, and journalists leftists? And why are they all (especially the scientists) willing to sacrifice their integrity for a leftist cause? And what possible motive could the leftists have for this scam?

I should say that I know a fair number of scientists and every one of them that has any political views at all (most don't) is a conservative.

[Sironimoll]

That just begs a new question. Why are all the world's most respected scientists, college professors, and journalists leftists? And why are they all (especially the scientists) willing to sacrifice their integrity for a leftist cause? And what possible motive could the leftists have for this scam?

I should say that I know a fair number of scientists and every one of them that has any political views at all (most don't) is a conservative.

I am a scientist. Most of my colleagues have very left views. Perhaps it depends on the particular discipline of science. Now, I am at a new position and my policy is to keep my political views to myself when I am around people from work. At my last position, I found one other person in our department who was considered on the "right". She asked me to swear not to reveal her views to others in the department, but they knew. In reality, her and my views are pretty centrist, but among persons who are so far left, we were painted with the typical broad-paint brush of rhetorical names the radical left uses to describe the other side.

[Brewpralgar]

I am a scientist. Most of my colleagues have very left views. Perhaps it depends on the particular discipline of science. Now, I am at a new position and my policy is to keep my political views to myself when I am around people from work. At my last position, I found one other person in our department who was considered on the "right". She asked me to swear not to reveal her views to others in the department, but they knew. In reality, her and my views are pretty centrist, but among persons who are so far left, we were painted with the typical broad-paint brush of rhetorical names the radical left uses to describe the other side.

And how many of you have sacrificed your scientific integrity to run a politically motivated scam with junk science?

[Sironimoll]

And how many of you have sacrificed your scientific integrity to run a politically motivated scam with junk science?

None that I know of. That's a good way to have an unrecoverable loss of your reputation.

[Brewpralgar]

None that I know of. That's a good way to have an unrecoverable loss of your reputation.

You'll have a hard time selling that idea to our resident global warming and evolution deniers.

Maybe our different experiences of the political leanings of scientists is purely geographic. I'm in upstate NY where everyone is very conservative. Even alot of our college professors - supposedly the vanguard of the socialist army.

[Sironimoll]

You'll have a hard time selling that idea to our resident global warming and evolution deniers.

Maybe our different experiences of the political leanings of scientists is purely geographic. I'm in upstate NY where everyone is very conservative. Even alot of our college professors - supposedly the vanguard of the socialist army.

My experience might also reflect the type of institution. I have been in academia for a while, now I'm out of it. Academia is seriously and very left. I'm not sure about how to classify where I am now, but I don't want to find out as that would entail talking politics with colleagues and I'm not going to do that.

[Sironimoll]

But there are scientists in that field who say that the jury is still out on global warming. I know a few folks at NOAA and have asked them about it. There a few who say that it is absolutely due to humans' impact. There are a few who have said that the jury is out. I have yet to meet any in that field who deny humans' impact altogether, though.

[Brewpralgar]

But there are scientists in that field who say that the jury is still out on global warming. I know a few folks at NOAA and have asked them about it. There a few who say that it is absolutely due to humans' impact. There are a few who have said that the jury is out. I have yet to meet any in that field who deny humans' impact altogether, though.

When the National Academy of Science, the IPCC, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all come to the same conclusion I think we can claim a general consensus. And almost anything I've ever read lately that denies human cause is coming directly from industry flacks or flat-earthers.

[Sironimoll]

When the National Academy of Science, the IPCC, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all come to the same conclusion I think we can claim a general consensus. And almost anything I've ever read lately that denies human cause is coming directly from industry flacks or flat-earthers.

Thus, it needs to be addressed.

I have never liked Kyoto because I saw way too many inequities in it. I like the Brookings recommendation for addressing it. It seems fair.

Even pre-911 and pre-Iraq, there was already some international animosity for the US because we did not ratify Kyoto. I didn't get that because the inequities of Kyoto were clear to me. With a more equitable agreement, we could ratify it and give the global community some assurance that we will address emissions. Fostering trust is good for our economy in this global society.

[merloermfgj]

After reading a thread yesterday about outsourcing, I wanted to post a thread summarizing The Brookings Institute's recent release this month - their first “Top 10”, with respect to Global Economic challenges, for the year 2007. It was interesting. http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events...topten2007.pdf

The following is a summary (rather long, but not as long as the link ).


I believe that they are spot on in their analysis and recommendations. What do you think about these Top 10?

So, how the hell is this "Breaking News in Politics," again?

Rifuckingdiculous.

[Brewpralgar]

My experience might also reflect the type of institution. I have been in academia for a while, now I'm out of it. Academia is seriously and very left. I'm not sure about how to classify where I am now, but I don't want to find out as that would entail talking politics with colleagues and I'm not going to do that.

Now that I think about it there could very well be a shifting of political allegiance among scientists and engineers these days. I'm seeing alot of anger directed at the republican party because of the political attacks on science over the creationism in science class and climate change issues. Stunts like the bogus "abortion causes breast cancer" claim posted on the National Cancer Institute’s web site and allowing sales of "alternative theories" books at national parks that posit the creation of the grand canyon in seven days have not given scientists or educators a warm feeling lately.

[Sironimoll]

So, how the hell is this "Breaking News in Politics," again?

Rifuckingdiculous.

Because it was just released .

[merloermfgj]

It is an environmental issue, Genius. It is definately not BREAKING POLITICAL news.

[Sironimoll]

It is an environmental issue, Genius. It is definately not BREAKING POLITICAL news.

The environmental issue is only one of the 10 global economy rec's. The economy is a political issue. There are nine other rec's they make; people are talking about number one, now. Any thoughts about any of the other nine?

[Sironimoll]

Now that I think about it there could very well be a shifting of political allegiance among scientists and engineers these days. I'm seeing alot of anger directed at the republican party because of the political attacks on science over the creationism in science class and climate change issues. Stunts like the bogus "abortion causes breast cancer" claim posted on the National Cancer Institute’s web site and allowing sales of "alternative theories" books at national parks that posit the creation of the grand canyon in seven days have not given scientists or educators a warm feeling lately.

I never experienced any pressure to include any party's beliefs in lecture, plus there is not much political about chemistry (my field) so it wouldn't be relevant to the subject.

I have my own thoughts about academia's heavy leaning to the left. So many who make a career out of academia have been in school or working for a school since they have been five years old. That doesn't give them much of a chance to work in the real world. Lack of experience in other working environments can lead to some pretty closed thinking - thinking based only on limited experiences.

[Brewpralgar]

I never experienced any pressure to include any party's beliefs in lecture, plus there is not much political about chemistry (my field) so it wouldn't be relevant to the subject.

I have my own thoughts about academia's heavy leaning to the left. So many who make a career out of academia have been in school or working for a school since they have been five years old. That doesn't give them much of a chance to work in the real world. Lack of experience in other working environments can lead to some pretty closed thinking - thinking based only on limited experiences.

Maybe you have a theory to explain it. What do conservatives have against education?

[Sironimoll]

Maybe you have a theory to explain it. What do conservatives have against education?

LOL...absolutely nothing. Saying one is against education is like saying one hates puppies or flowers. Methods in which the problem in public education is solved, is where the differences are.

[Brewpralgar]

LOL...absolutely nothing. Saying one is against education is like saying one hates puppies or flowers. Methods in which the problem in public education is solved, is where the differences are.

I only ask because I see this claim all the time. College professors are radical leftists. We have a "liberal" media. And on this thread we see a claim that even the world's scientific community is overrun with socialists. I only see three possible explanations.

1. Most of the world is "leftist" which leads to leftist professors, journalists, and scientists.
2. These claims are bogus rants from people who are desperate to blame someone for the fact that their beliefs can't get a serious hearing
3. Conservatives feel contempt for education, an informed citizenry, and scientific inquiry or they consider these pursuits too sacreligious or too politically inconvenient or too low paying to be considered as careers.