Reply With Quote
How many climastrologists are left of center?
...and even fewer (6%) as Republican.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/...-and-religion/
And tons of other great data on scientists and their beliefs, if you flip through the sections.
Some of my favorites:
*Scientists are third most well-respected profession in US behind military and teachers, even when people's beliefs conflict with scientists'
*87% of scientists believe humans evolved due to natural processes, 8% believe humans evolved guided by a supreme being. Only 3% don't believe in evolution
*84% of scientists think the earth is getting warmed due to human influence, 10% believe it is warming due to natural causes, only 4% believe it's not warming. 70% say Global Warming is a serious problem
*33% believe in God, 18% in some other higher power
*92% of scientist cite Economic Issues or the Job Market as a major hurdle to a research career
*Only 4% of scientists list a financially reward career as a very important factor in choosing their career
How many climastrologists are left of center?
old
scientists are educated and informed, right-wingers, esp "Christians" and red necks aren't
So when they try to explain to you that some GM organisms could have great benefit you consider the scientists corporate shills? Those are the republican scientists of course...
scientists paid by corporations do the corporations bidding, are shills.
GM is a racket for Monsanto, Syngnenta, Bayer, etc to control all of agriculture and the supply of x-icides.
You stated all GM crops were bad. I asked you to look at the interesting history of Golden Rice as one example.
So what do you say now? Same thing...
Golden Rice was not a for-profit product. and it still needs traditional plant breeding
It still needs traditional breeding, even though it basically has the beta carotene gene inserted. So it's ok as long as some traditional breeding is involved? Sorry boots, it's a GM crop and all GM crops are bad, you sad so.
Again the problem is people hear GM and it's scary. Put corporations in the mix, because it has fantastic possibilities, and it's now (bad)^2
corporations aren't doing GM to benefit humans or the planet, but only for profits, and if people, water, air, land get ed up, so what? profit is profit, and everything else be damned.
Nobody's forcing the farmers to buy it, so they must see a benefit to paying the money.
*87% of scientists believe humans evolved due to natural processes, 8% believe humans evolved guided by a supreme being. Only 3% don't believe in evolution*33% believe in God, 18% in some other higher power
Poll: Nearly half of meteorologists don’t believe in man-made global warming
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/po...#ixzz2uHWv3vKA
le should be Only 9% of AAAS members Self-Identify as Conservative.
Judging from wiki this isn't much of a surprise...
Advocacy[edit]
Since 2006, AAAS's CEO Dr. Alan I. Leshner has published many op-ed articles discussing how many people integrate science and religion in their lives. He has opposed the insertion of non-scientific content, such as creationism or intelligent design, into the scientific curriculum of schools.[5][6][7][8]
In December 2006, the AAAS adopted an official statement on climate change in which they stated, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."[9]
In February 2007, the AAAS used satellite images to do ent human rights abuses in Burma.[10] The next year, AAAS launched the Center for Science Diplomacy to advance both science and the broader relationships among partner countries, by promoting science diplomacy and international scientific cooperation.[11]
In his 2008 article [12] about the Experimental Lakes Area, in Kenora District Ontario, Canada, published in Science, Erik Stokstad described the ELA's "extreme science."[12] The ELA project manipulated whole lake ecosystem's for forty years, collecting long-term records for climatology, hydrology, and limnology based on whole-ecosystem experiments that address key issues in water management.[13] The ELA influenced public policy in water management in Canada, the USA and Europe,[12] but by 2008 was attempting to convince federal funders to focus on climate change research. The decision to abruptly defund the ELA was widely condemned by the Canadian and international scientific community.[12][14] The scientific journal Nature in an article en led, The Death of Evidence, described the decision as "disturbing", and said that it "is hard to believe that finance is the true reason" for the closure.[15]
In 2012, AAAS published op-eds,[16] held events on Capitol Hill and released analyses of the U.S. federal research[17] and development budget to warn that a budget sequestration would pose risks to scientific progress.[18]
Nice cherry picked Koch spam regurgitation.
The study had several conclusions.
1) The more educated the meteorologist was and the more he participated in the peer reviewed process the more likely he was to accept the consensus.
2) Scientific views were coopted by political allegiance.
3) Meteorologists skeptics were much more likely to claim there was no consensus and that there was a large degree of conflict within the scientific community.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...S-D-13-00091.1
Further the survey was self selected and had only 25% of the meteorologists participate.
In conclusion, given the potential for human society and the earth’s ecosystems to be harmed by climate change, it is imperative that members of the scientific community and the professional societies that represent them take all reasonable measures to ensure that what is known about the risks, and about options for managing those risks, are shared with decision makers who should be considering that information. While the difficulties of doing this are widely acknowledged (Pidgeon & Fischhoff, 2011), the problem is often attributed to the difficult dynamics associated with external communication, i.e., sharing complex scientific information with the broader community. Our research suggests that there are also important dynamics associated with internal communication, i.e., sharing information and coming to consensus within the scientific community.
AMS members need not have a degree in an appropriate scientific field, FYI.
Also, FYI, the authors of the study speak out after having it mischaracterized.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2...limate-change/
Par for the course.
Authors of a new study of meteorologists' views of global warming set the record straight when Forbes op-ed writer James Taylor, consistent with his long history of denial and obfuscation on climate change, selectively reports the results of a poll of members of the American Meteorological Society. Taylor claims the study shows weak support for the human contribution to global warming. In fact, as authors of the study point out below, the survey found that more than 90 percent of those respondents who are more engaged in research and publishing on climate science acknowledge the human contribution to warming.
It's a poll...it is important.
So was Scott's poll...
So show me the data in scott's study that contradicts our conclusion. We have shown you how your cherry picking was not representative of the study you pulled from. I don't think you understand what cherry picking means.It's a poll...it is important.
I didn't conduct a pollIt's a poll...it is important.
You're mind is blown by the possibility that someone can believe in God and still accept evolution?
No, that's what I believe. I don't think it's possible to believe in God and believe God had no role in evolution.
Do those numbers seem consistent to you?
Last edited by SnakeBoy; 02-24-2014 at 09:47 PM.
I'm a theist who believes in evolution. Unfortunately, this is a rather difficult position to describe.
96% of those surveyed are either stupid or lying.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
