Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many of the Republican candidates vying for their party's nod to take on President Barack Obama, dismiss science in favor of strong evangelical faith, playing to a hardline conservative electorate.
Only one of the White House contenders, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, has come out with force to proclaim a belief in man-made climate change, as he condemned his party's hostility to science.
"To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy," he wrote in an August post on micro-blogging site Twitter.
"The minute that the Republican Party becomes the anti-science party -- we have a huge problem," the former US ambassador to China later told ABC television's "This Week."
Other major political figures, such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have lambasted the lack of scientific faith of Republican hopefuls seeking the highest office of the world's first superpower.
"We have presidential candidates who don't believe in science. I mean, just think about it, can you imagine a company of any size in the world where the CEO said 'Oh, I don't believe in science' and that person surviving to the end of that day? Are you kidding me? It's mind-boggling!" Bloomberg told an economic forum in November.
The importance of the ultra-conservative vote, championed by a religious, anti-evolution electorate, is not lost on the contenders seeking their party's nod to face Obama in November's presidential election.
In Iowa, where caucuses kick off the months-long nominating process on Tuesday, just 21 percent of Republican voters said they believe in global warming, and 35 percent in the theory of evolution, according to a Public Policy Polling survey.
Frontrunner Mitt Romney, a Mormon former governor of Massachusetts, has reversed his pro-science support in favor of more conservative views in a bid to gain favor among the more conservative base of his party.
The shifts in position go to the core of the mistrust from his critics, who label Romney a "flip-flopper."
As Massachusetts governor, he introduced in 2004 a statewide Climate Protection Plan, billed as "an initial step in a coordinated effort to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases."
And as recently as 2007, he defended the theory of evolution.
But at a New Hampshire town hall meeting in September, he changed his tune.
"The planet is probably getting warmer. I think we're experiencing warming," Romney said. "I believe that we contribute some portion of that. I don't know how much. It could be a lot, it could be a little."
Later he sought to clarify himself, saying: "My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet."
Other candidates are not so nuanced in their views. Texas Governor Rick Perry came out strongly against climate science by claiming the data had been "manipulated" by scientists in exchange for funding money.
Representative Michele Bachmann, who in April voted for a House bill preventing further regulation of greenhouse gases, similarly spoke of "manufactured science."
Former senator Rick Santorum has also dismissed fundamental theories of man-made climate change as "patently absurd," and Representative Ron Paul has labeled the science "the greatest hoax."
The Republican Party "has a strong religious base and the evangelical vote is a significant part of that," said Andrew Kohut, director Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
There are however, "a fair number of more secular and more moderated religious people who have doubt about global warming."
The larger issue, Kohut said, is how the federal government uses power to regulate global warming, and the issue is politicized, as Republicans fight what they see as government encroachment into the lives of Americans.
That is absolute hogwash and is a reflection moreso of liberal arrogance who assume to be blessed with innate and irrefutable knowledge of "science", in the absence of any advanced degrees in any area of science. It is a common characteristic of liberals that is quite amusing, in that any literature or communications major, if they are a liberal, is suddenly given an honorary political PhD in physics, chemistry, engineering, and biology, as well as an MD. Ask any liberal, they know everything about every scientific field.
Why even go to college? Just become a liberal and then you will have all the answers.
Why did I pay all that tuition then for my kid who's very liberal and writing his dissertation right now in.. gasp... science! LOL
You wasted your money. He is conferred absolute knowledge in all areas of science, simply by voting "D" in one or more elections. Tell him to quit, as the church of liberalism will tell him everything he needs to know and that degrees are meaningless. Ask the Pope of the church, Al Gore.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,143,759 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
You wasted your money. He is conferred absolute knowledge in all areas of science, simply by voting "D" in one or more elections. Tell him to quit, as the church of liberalism will tell him everything he needs to know and that degrees are meaningless. Ask the Pope of the church, Al Gore.
In actuality...his liberal ways are starting to wane, albeit still slowly. It's amazing to see the transformation from where he started while mom and dad were paying the bills, and his more conservative and republican ways starting to show up more since he's now footing the bills....
In actuality...his liberal ways are starting to wane, albeit still slowly. It's amazing to see the transformation from where he started while mom and dad were paying the bills, and his more conservative and republican ways starting to show up more since he's now footing the bills....
What's that saying " I was a Liberal but then, I grew up", the smart ones tend to come around.
Even being a Blue Dog Democrat, would be better.
01-03-2012, 10:26 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Can someone remind me how scientific data became a liberal thing?
Can someone remind me how scientific data became a liberal thing?
Exactly. The issue is not whether or not science is a liberal agenda. Obviously it isn't, since there are plenty of well educated Republicans, many of whom support progress in science. The issue is why Republican presidential candidates appear to be so completely ignorant with regard to scientific issues, and why Republicans can't bring themselves to offer up a candidate who actually knows something about these issues. It's just a shame that the Republican party has allowed itself to become a political wing of anti-science evangelicals.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,143,759 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
It's just a shame that the Republican party has allowed itself to become a political wing of anti-science evangelicals.
Bingo we have a winner! Although the same can be said of the democratic party as well. It has become a wing of the environmental wacko's as well. We deal with these folks every day... son deals with the anti-science wacko's every day. When common sense comes back into government (if ever?) we'll be able to have progress without environmental setbacks, and advances in medical sciences without fear of repercussions by those with beliefs different than ours...
Many of the Republican candidates vying for their party's nod to take on President Barack Obama, dismiss science in favor of strong evangelical faith, playing to a hardline conservative electorate.
Only one of the White House contenders, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, has come out with force to proclaim a belief in man-made climate change, as he condemned his party's hostility to science.
"To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy," he wrote in an August post on micro-blogging site Twitter.
"The minute that the Republican Party becomes the anti-science party -- we have a huge problem," the former US ambassador to China later told ABC television's "This Week."
Other major political figures, such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have lambasted the lack of scientific faith of Republican hopefuls seeking the highest office of the world's first superpower.
"We have presidential candidates who don't believe in science. I mean, just think about it, can you imagine a company of any size in the world where the CEO said 'Oh, I don't believe in science' and that person surviving to the end of that day? Are you kidding me? It's mind-boggling!" Bloomberg told an economic forum in November.
The importance of the ultra-conservative vote, championed by a religious, anti-evolution electorate, is not lost on the contenders seeking their party's nod to face Obama in November's presidential election.
In Iowa, where caucuses kick off the months-long nominating process on Tuesday, just 21 percent of Republican voters said they believe in global warming, and 35 percent in the theory of evolution, according to a Public Policy Polling survey.
Frontrunner Mitt Romney, a Mormon former governor of Massachusetts, has reversed his pro-science support in favor of more conservative views in a bid to gain favor among the more conservative base of his party.
The shifts in position go to the core of the mistrust from his critics, who label Romney a "flip-flopper."
As Massachusetts governor, he introduced in 2004 a statewide Climate Protection Plan, billed as "an initial step in a coordinated effort to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases."
And as recently as 2007, he defended the theory of evolution.
But at a New Hampshire town hall meeting in September, he changed his tune.
"The planet is probably getting warmer. I think we're experiencing warming," Romney said. "I believe that we contribute some portion of that. I don't know how much. It could be a lot, it could be a little."
Later he sought to clarify himself, saying: "My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet."
Other candidates are not so nuanced in their views. Texas Governor Rick Perry came out strongly against climate science by claiming the data had been "manipulated" by scientists in exchange for funding money.
Representative Michele Bachmann, who in April voted for a House bill preventing further regulation of greenhouse gases, similarly spoke of "manufactured science."
Former senator Rick Santorum has also dismissed fundamental theories of man-made climate change as "patently absurd," and Representative Ron Paul has labeled the science "the greatest hoax."
The Republican Party "has a strong religious base and the evangelical vote is a significant part of that," said Andrew Kohut, director Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
There are however, "a fair number of more secular and more moderated religious people who have doubt about global warming."
The larger issue, Kohut said, is how the federal government uses power to regulate global warming, and the issue is politicized, as Republicans fight what they see as government encroachment into the lives of Americans.
Even after all the exposure of the so called scientist emails, you still believe them?
If science is taboo or rejected by R's it's because they don't want to face the truth. They'd rather cling to their long-held and dying beliefs. Why? Because they are scared. In the absence of facts, emotions rule the day. And emotions win elections even if they are based on outright lies.
On a larger note, if you ignore facts and reject their impact on your belief system, you have no business running for President.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why did I pay all that tuition then for my kid who's very liberal and writing his dissertation right now in.. gasp... science! LOL
Although the same can be said of the democratic party as well. It has become a wing of the environmental wacko's as well. We deal with these folks every day... son deals with the anti-science wacko's every day. When common sense comes back into government (if ever?) we'll be able to have progress without environmental setbacks, and advances in medical sciences without fear of repercussions by those with beliefs different than ours...
