[QUOTE=only_human;258667]Some time back I was gobsmacked to learn that 6% of scientists identify themselves as Republican (55% of scientists are Democrat). This great disparity leads me to consider that bipartisan compromises are a compromise away from science. [URL="http://www.slate.com/id/2277104/"]Most scientists in this country are Democrats. That's a problem.[/URL]

What forces could perpetuate such a disparity?[/QUOTE]Well, first of all, we need to take a closer look at the 6% figure, where it came from, and what it means.

The article in [I]Slate[/I] that you link is just reporting on the actual Pew Research Center poll ( [URL]http://people-press.org/report/528/[/URL] ). Its paraphrase drops some important qualifiers that the Pew report states. Furthermore, the political affiliations of scientists was just a small section of the total poll and report. The [I]Slate[/I] article doesn't tell you that.

Also, it's 6% of [I]U.S.[/I] scientists (which [I]Slate[/I] [U]does[/U] clearly state ... but that's still not the whole picture frame), not world scientists in general -- though "Republican" and "Democrat" sorta imply that. And it's 6% of [I]only a particular category of U.S. scientists[/I] ... see below.

Here's how the Pew Report starts:

[quote]FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, July 9, 2009

[U]Scientific Achievements Less Prominent Than a Decade Ago[/U]
PUBLIC PRAISES SCIENCE; SCIENTISTS FAULT PUBLIC, MEDIA

A Survey Conducted in Collaboration With
The American Association for the Advancement of Science

With Commentary by
Dr. Alan I. Leshner, Chief Executive Officer
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Executive Publisher, Science

. . .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview

Chapter 1: Public Views of Science and Scientists

Chapter 2: Scientists Assess the State of Their Field

Chapter 3: Funding Scientific Research

Chapter 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion

Chapter 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues

Chapter 6: Scientists and Their Careers

Chapter 7: Science Interest and Knowledge

Commentary by Dr. Alan I. Leshner

Survey Methodology

Survey Toplines[/quote]The political leanings of scientists is just part of one of seven chapters.

But -- [I]which[/I] scientists?

From the Survey Methodology:

[quote]. . .

[U]About the Scientist Survey[/U]

Results for the scientist survey are based on 2,533 online interviews conducted from May 1 to June 14, 2009 with members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A sample of 9,998 members was drawn from the AAAS membership list excluding those who were not based in the United States or whose membership type identified them as primary or secondary-level educators.[/quote]Note that all the scientists polled were members of the AAAS.

But not all scientists are member of the AAAS! If there are systematic differences between AAAS members and scientists in general, then the [I]Slate[/I] paraphrase, "... only around [URL="http://people-press.org/report/528/"]6 percent[/URL] of U.S. scientists are Republicans ..." is misleading.

(BTW, the [I]Commentary[/I] magazine article on the Pew report is more complete than the [I]Slate[/I] article. [URL]http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2010/12/10/why-aren%E2%80%99t-there-any-republican-scientists-the-answer-may-not-be-so-complicated/[/URL] )

Furthermore, "primary or secondary-level educators" (as identified by membership type -- probably lower dues for educators) are excluded. Perhaps there are indeed few "scientists" (whatever that means) among primary and secondary-level teachers, or perhaps this exclusion skews the results in a way we'd think unfair if we knew the details.

From the more comprehensive [I]Commentary[/I] article (with my added boldface emphasis of two sentences):
[quote]. . .

And the society didn’t just provide Pew with its membership list. “[AAAS Director] Waylon Butler and his colleagues as AAAS were instrumental at constructing the sample of scientists and managing the recruitments of participants for the scientist survey,” says the Pew report.

This is important, because the AAAS is (as its name suggests) a political advocacy group.[/quote](How unfortunate that "the Advancement of Science" nowadays suggests not just political advocacy, which would be fine, but [I]partisan[/I] political advocacy!)
[quote]And, according to its [URL="http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/"]website[/URL], the top issues it advocates for are climate change legislation, increased funding for the National Science Foundation, stem cell research, and green energy initiatives. [B]Obviously, these aren’t the types of efforts that Republicans tend to support. It’s not hard to see why GOPers wouldn’t want to shell out the $146 membership fee to join an organization whose main mission is to advocate for issues they personally oppose.[/B]

So it makes sense that the Pew poll may be skewed in favor of liberal Democrats. But the question of where most scientists stand on the political spectrum is still worth looking into, and I’m curious to see what a broader study might show.[/quote]Thus, [U]the "6%" may be a [I]severe undercount[/I] of Republican U.S. scientists!![/U]

Before launching into political musings based on a paraphrase of a small part of a report, take a look at the details.

- - -

Some of you may note that I've skewered Republicans for their "War on Science". Yes, I have -- but it wasn't based on just a paraphrase of a small part of a report!

A serious selection bias indeed. Mea culpa. Actually prior to writing I pulled up the pew research survey report ([URL="http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/"]http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/[/URL]) but I read that wrong too because all I did was find the relevant table and read the asterisked note that N = 10,630 -- but I didn't even manage that correctly because that N refers to the general USA political percentage column and not the scientist column. I didn't look further. Thanks for setting the record straight.

Ross

BTW, davar55's quote in post #841 came from the [i]Slate.com article at [URL]http://www.slate.com/id/2277104/[/URL] that was linked ("Most scientists ...") by only_human in post #840.

As I already noted, [I]Slate[/I] didn't do a very careful job of paraphrasing the Pew Center report findings.

... and the following generalization by [I]Slate[/I] doesn't have much useful information either:

[quote=Slate]For 20 years, evidence about global warming has been directly and explicitly linked to a set of policy responses demanding international governance regimes, large-scale social engineering, and the redistribution of wealth.[/quote][I]Slate[/I] provides no source for this statement, so [I]we can't check whether their paraphrase about that is as misleading as their paraphrase about the Pew report[/I].

davar55,

I gave you a golden opportunity.

I asked:[QUOTE=cheesehead;258480]Can anyone point us to solid evidence that AGW is a hoax?

In particular, when did the AGW hoax start? What documentation or other solid evidence exists to support that? Can we put one time limit on that by googling when "AGW" and "hoax" first began appearing in the same sentences on public websites?

How did the hoaxers persuade over 90% of the world's climatologists to believe the hoax?

< snip>

Serious replies only, please.[/QUOTE]There was your golden chance to show all of us that AGW was a mere hoax, a politically-motivated deception. All you had to do was to post facts, or at least links to facts, that supported your claim that AGW was a hoax.

Where are those facts, if they exist?

I assume that what you posted was your "serious reply", as I asked for.

But your "serious reply" was only a mirror-image of what you claimed about the AGWers -- a [right-wing-]politically-motivated hoax based on allegations that you presented as "evidence" and called "proof".

Why did you do that? Why did you squander your golden opportunity?

- -

A bystander might ask, we have two opposing claims of hoaxes, so how can we tell which one is correct?

Answer: look at the facts. The case for AGW has been more and more strongly supported by facts. I have personally posted dozens of links to where anyone can see the facts for him/herself. I posted multiple links to where AGW is explained in simple language for beginners.

Did you go to any of those links, davar55?

Have you ever read any of the undistorted evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis?

- -

What facts have you presented, or linked from here, to support your contention that AGW is a "hoax"?

None.

Not one single bit of data.

Nothing but a political allegation -- without any link to where someone could cross-check its truth and accuracy.

(I don't mean the truth and accuracy of _whether [I]Slate[/I] did indeed publish that statement_ -- it did and I accept that. What I'm asking for is a way to cross-check the truth and accuracy of [I]Slate[/I]'s statement. Does it have any basis in fact -- where, when, how and who made the assertions about linking AGW to the odious choices [I]Slate[/I] listed?)

- -

Which side in this thread here looks like it's [I]really[/I] the one perpetuating a politically-motivated hoax?

A) The side that presents numerous scientific facts to support its case -- thousands of measurements over long time spans, that are consistent with a single scientific hypothesis?

or

B) The side that presents not a single scientific fact or observation, only undocumented political slander to support its allegation -- and then says that [I]their politically-motivated claim[/I] "constitutes proof in my book"?

Science should not be political. But in the case of AGW and extreme
environmentalism in general, it has been for years.

One good suggestion at a time could not be called odious social reform,
but a massive package deal of societal changes offered in the name of
an uncertain science is extremely suspect politically.

As soon as one says "do these" instead of "isn't this a good idea?",
the issue changes from sense to imposition. That's the beginning
and essence of totalitarianism.

Charges that the right all hate science while the left are all devotees
of science are simply exaggerations. In my view both ends of this
political spectrum have severe problems with scientific reasoning.

Is AGW real, is it a problem, is it a near-term problem? Only if all
three answers are yes should any governments begin to get involved.
The so-called evidence for AGW is tainted by the politics of its
claimants. Even if it were real, it's not necessarily a problem, it
might be a benefit. And even if it is a disaster in the near-term in
the making (which is in not just the right's view ridiculous) the
social changes that have been advocated amount to global dictatorship
and loss of freedom.

[QUOTE=davar55;259009]Science should not be

< snip >

and loss of freedom.[/QUOTE]Once again, there's not a single bit of factual [B]evidence[/B] in your post.

You already explained your opinions, biases and suspicions to us in earlier posts.

Do you even know [I]how[/I] to select and present [B]evidence[/B], separating it from your biases, opinions and suspicions?

Didn't you ever have to present [B]evidence[/B] in any of your school or college classes?

[QUOTE=davar55;259009]One good suggestion at a time could not be called odious social reform, but a massive package deal of societal changes offered in the name of an uncertain science is extremely suspect politically.

As soon as one says "do these" instead of "isn't this a good idea?", the issue changes from sense to imposition. That's the beginning and essence of totalitarianism.
[/QUOTE]But what you and many other conservatives advocate, namely, blocking or delaying any action to reduce the problem, will only allow the problem to become worse and worse, until all the pleasant response possibilities aren't enough. Your course of (in)action is practically designed to produce the very situation (requiring odious imposition and totalitarian measures) that you claim to fear!

Have you considered the possibility that the people who are producing the [I]anti-[/I]AGW propaganda, and the [I]myth[/I] that AGW is a hoax, are doing so because they [I]want to bring about[/I] a totalitarian situation, which is why they're doing all they can to prevent taking sensible actions now?

Wouldn't it be better to admit that AGW is a real problem (go to read the explanations at links I've posted before) and urge that we put nonodious measures into practice as soon as possible, in order to avert a worse and worse situation? That's my position -- what's wrong with it?

[quote]... conservatives ... pleasant response ... fear ... [I]anti-[/I]AGW propaganda, and the [I]myth[/I] that AGW is a hoax [I]bring about[/I] a totalitarian situation ... admit that AGW is a real problem ... That's my position -- what's wrong with it?[/quote]

Being pro-freedom is not the same as being conservative.

Forcing (requiring) social changes is not a "pleasant response" to anything.

One need not fear totalitarianism if one prevents it from happening.

The so-called near-term dangers of AGW haven't been demonstrated.

I gave my proof that AGW is a hoax: political cause and effect. If the
result is the suggested imposition of these changes, then the cause is
the falseness of the pseudo-science.

It shouldn't be necessary to keep repeating the same argument(s).

davar:
There have been many examples of the imposition of changes, which, amazingly, haven't been all that unpleasant or totalitarian. From removing lead from the water pipes, to the ongoing effort to improve safety on the road, which has lead to dragging automakers screaming and kicking into making seatbelts and airbags standard, saving many lives.

Also, while political effect might be suggestive, it is not a proof...no more than looking at GWB's reactions on the day of 9/11 and the subsequent political changes PROVE that GWB and his cronies had malice aforethought in allowing 9/11 to happen and should be executed for treason. In fact, cheesehead's suggestion is instructive, showing how there might be incentives for those that want to impose totalitarianism might want to allow the disasters, thusly increasing their personal power.

What will be required for you to accept a near-term problem on AGW? Venice underwater? Manhattan? Inescapable mold due the high CO2? Loss of crops because there are no bees to pollinate them? Destruction of New Orleans? Emergence of the antarctic landmass from the ice?

Yes, Manhattan under five feet of water might make me nervous.
But I wouldn't require all vehicles to be hybrid to prevent it.

There are degrees of danger, and nothing about AGW leads me
to feel threatened by it. Only by some of the proposed "solutions".

[QUOTE=davar55;259200]Forcing (requiring) social changes is not a "pleasant response" to anything.[/QUOTE]I never said it was.

By "pleasant response", I was referring to the non-social-changing things that can be done to avert AGW.

Why are you twisting my words?

Can't you refute my argument without distorting what I wrote?

[quote]The so-called near-term dangers of AGW haven't been demonstrated.[/quote]Yes, they have! Many times!

I've provided many links where you could go to read about it yourself -- why won't you do so?

[quote]I gave my proof that AGW is a hoax: political cause and effect.[/quote]But you've never, ever given us any [B]_evidence_[/B] that your claim is factually correct.

You've never given us even such a teeny-tiny fact such as the name of someone who both (a) played any significant part in formed the AGW hypothesis and (b) has shown any political motive for distorting, faking or hiding any of the evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis!

Stop merely repeating your fears. Start listing facts that support your claim.

Not once have you presented any [B]evidence[/B] that what you repeatedly claim is true! I've provided dozens of links to where [U]you can read evidence that AGW is true[/U]. You haven't ever provided any link to any evidence that it's not true!!!

Don't you understand the definition of "[B]evidence[/B]"?

Why do you never, ever present any [B]evidence[/B] to support your claim that AGW is a hoax?

[quote]It shouldn't be necessary to keep repeating the same argument(s).[/quote]It shouldn't be necessary for me to keep begging you to show us [B]evidence[/B]!

Just do it!

Show us some [B]evidence[/B], davar55. Don't just keep making your empty claim that AGW is a hoax. Don't you know even one single fact that supports your claim that AGW is a hoax?

Do you know the meaning of "[B]evidence[/B]"?