Pew Poll: Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans

[WillT]

It wouldn't be. You hear much more outright denials that global warming is real or really caused by human beings than nuanced arguments about the cost vs the benefits of preventing or curbing climate change.

Ok. Just checking. I have to disagree that, on average, anti GMO advocates use nuanced arguments. In my experience it's mostly fear tactics.

[4588686]

Ok. Just checking. I have to disagree that, on average, anti GMO advocates use nuanced arguments. In my experience it's mostly fear tactics.

 

 

I wasn't trying to make any sort of statement on the average quality of the arguments made by anti-GMO advocates.  I know that a lot of EU states have laws requiring that GMO foods be labeled and some measured apprehension of these products not being adequately regulated seems reasonable and there seem to be valid reasons for thinking that GMO foods should be labeled.  But it's not a major issue.  I've worked in Democratic politics for almost a year now and I have never seen GMO foods mentioned in any context except the an email maybe a week ago from the Progressive Democrates, which is a fringe element of the Democratic Party.  Climate change, on the other hand, is a major issue and the American Republican party is almost alone in the industrialized, or even developing, world in just claiming that the science is somehow invalid.  Mitt Romney's stance that human climate change was real (but not that we should do anything of substance to prevent it) was to the left of his party's base and leadership.  

[WillT]

I wasn't trying to make any sort of statement on the average quality of the arguments made by anti-GMO advocates. I know that a lot of EU states have laws requiring that GMO foods be labeled and some measured apprehension of these products not being adequately regulated seems reasonable and there seem to be valid reasons for thinking that GMO foods should be labeled. But it's not a major issue. I've worked in Democratic politics for almost a year now and I have never seen GMO foods mentioned in any context except the an email maybe a week ago from the Progressive Democrates, which is a fringe element of the Democratic Party. Climate change, on the other hand, is a major issue and the American Republican party is almost alone in the industrialized, or even developing, world in just claiming that the science is somehow invalid. Mitt Romney's stance that human climate change was real (but not that we should do anything of substance to prevent it) was to the left of his party's base and leadership.

Oh, I know your argument was not about the quality of GMO foods etc. I just know a lot of people who are anti GMO but ridicule those who use essentially the same arguments against anthropogenic climate change. Edited June 7, 2013 by WillT

[Winchester]

pew pew pew pew

[jeffboom]

I think it is the religious right's affiliation with the Republican Party that keeps scientists away.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it might be an indicator that objective minded people view the republican party as lacking. theyve never shown that i know of, shown that one or the other party had higher IQ etc. maybe a point or two on the progressive side. but, that doesn't mean all smart people are objective minded. this study might be exposing the truth. 

[Winchester]

pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew

pew pew pew pew pew pew pew

[Papist]

That's what I mean - even if a scientist theoretically might be fiscally conservative, pro-life, small government, pro gun rights, etc, the strong anti-science messages some of the vocal members of the party send could be a big turn off.  Why should we expect more middle of the road scientists to be Republican if some who actually hold Republican opinions about issues are turned off? 

 

It still blows my mind that Congress' science commission doesn't have some kind of requirement of actually having some kind of science background. Or, saving that (I don't think many scientists are running for office), have some kind of required background prep work. But that also goes back to the general hostility toward academic scientific research by many loud Republicans.   

 

Seems like the question of scientists being Republican is a bit like asking why more Fundamentalists or Evangelicals aren't Democrats. It isn't because of some big political conspiracy.  It's because there are fundamentally hostile attitudes towards that attribute within the party.  

 

What's a anti-science message? And what's a strong one?

[Winchester]

pew pew pew pew pew pew pew

pew pew pew pew pew

[KnightofChrist]

This thread gave me cancer..... ZOMBIE CANCER!!!! 

 

PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW

[dairygirl4u2c]

pew pew pew pew pew pew pew

 

pew pew pew pew pew pew pew

[dairygirl4u2c]

pew pew pew pew pew

 

i'm going to have to agree with winchester on this... anything else would be illogical. 

[Winchester]

pew pew pew pew pew

[fides' Jack]

How is "accepting the science" behind GMO crops but still arguing against the use of said technology because of "economic or cultural" reasons any less "anti-science" than a conservative who accepts the science behind anthropogenic climate change but argues against it on "economic or cultural" grounds?

 

I admit I had to look up "anthropogenic".

 

Which apparently even the spell-checker doesn't recognize.  Stop using scientific words to make yourself sound smart!

[Chestertonian]

I admit I had to look up "anthropogenic".

 

Which apparently even the spell-checker doesn't recognize.  Stop using scientific words to make yourself sound smart!

 

Actually, it's a very commonly used word amongst people whom discuss man's relationship to his environment.