# Eric Cantor - Republican Whip or Anti-science Republican Scourge? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 10, 2010, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628 "2010-12-10T04:55:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2010, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/41 "2010-12-11T00:23:02Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > They didn’t mention ANY grants. They simply provided a link to all of them and offered _citizens_ a voice in determining which ones should be funded. That doesn’t means they’ll be defunded - it just means that if enough people agree, they’ll put it up for a vote. Isn’t this exactly the kind of government transparency reform the Democrats have been clamoring for? Science is not supposed to be a democracy, you are indeed swallowing the propaganda of the anti-scientists that are using double speak to get their way. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > If the White House had put up a similar site, only asking for citizen input as to what additional funding there should be, you guys would be singing its praises. > > Can you at least agree that the link cited in the OP is not evidence of an ‘antiscience inquisition’, or that Eric Cantor is an ‘anti-science Republican Scourge’? Not much that would do when elsewhere the actions of the Republicans speak loudly of how unscientific they are when the science is against them. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > But while we’re on the subject of attacking science, would anyone like to comment on the [anti-science actions](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19808-were-waiting-mr-president.html) of the Obama administration? > > The quote is from **NewScientist** magazine - not exactly a Republican mouthpiece. From the same report: > [@](#): > > But there is no room for complacency. Francesca Grifo, who heads the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), says that her phone **is no longer ringing off the hook like it did during the worst excesses of the Bush administration**. But government scientists who are worried about political interference in their work still call Grifo for advice – and the latest survey from the UCS makes disturbing reading. Indeed, if true, this is disturbing, but is is really pathetic to put this at the level of what the previous administration was doing. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2010, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/42 "2010-12-11T03:28:50Z")
> [@C3](#): > > Ha ha - clearly, you have never traveled in an Amtrak sleeper car. Ultra-luxury for the rich is not exactly how I would characterize it. When they say “turndown service,” they mean they leave the seats in the “bed” position for embarking passengers. The “private toilet” also does duty as the step stool for the top bunk and the nightstand. > > (not that I necessarily disagree that the sleeper car fare subsidies should be eliminated) Yeah, I was going to say that also. The only rich people I can imagine riding Amtrak are rail enthusiasts who might do it just for the experience. Certainly no rich no person is riding for its “turndown service” or any of its other alleged luxuries. And as for the food, we’re not talking gourmet here. We’re talking about stuff that would Denny’s seem like haute cuisine. And BTW I too think it wouldn’t be a bad idea for the sleeper service to be forced to pay for itself. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2010, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/43 "2010-12-11T06:53:54Z")
I’ve never ridden Amtrak, so I don’t know what ‘first class’ provides. But it’s clearly a higher-priced premium service for those who can afford it. Not only that, but sleeper cars are less energy efficient per passenger. Why in the world would you want to subsidize that kind of thing? How is that good policy in any way? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2010, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/44 "2010-12-11T07:11:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Science is not supposed to be a democracy, you are indeed swallowing the propaganda of the anti-scientists that are using double speak to get their way. No, but do you know what IS a Democracy? Democracy. Last time I checked, that’s what the U.S. was, and that means when science wants to use funds provided by citizens, the citizens have the ability to have some choice in how their money is spent. > [@](#): > > Not much that would do when elsewhere the actions of the Republicans speak loudly of how unscientific they are when the science is against them. So do Democrats. Science is used as a pawn by both sides - heralded when it favors one side, demonized or ignored when it favors the other. Democrats have no problem exaggerating the effects of global warming when it suits their political needs. Al ore, that beacon of Democratic scientific thinking, has been spouting complete bullshit for years, and no one calls him on it. He was doing it when he was a Senator and a Vice President as well. And you can find examples of Democratic politicians engaging in wild hyperbole on issues from second-hand smoke to the damage to the environment that would be caused by drilling in Alaska. They’ve promoted shoddy research into gun violence, and over-hyped the dangers of DDT and Asbestos. Democrats generally oppose nuclear power on demonstrably false grounds, and hype any research that suggest risks and downplay or deny research that show safety. Noted Democrat Bill Maher is an anti-vaccination nut. > [@](#): > > From the same report: > > > [@](#): > > > > But there is no room for complacency. Francesca Grifo, who heads the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), says that her phone is no longer ringing off the hook like it did during the worst excesses of the Bush administration. But government scientists who are worried about political interference in their work still call Grifo for advice – and the latest survey from the UCS makes disturbing reading. > > Indeed, if true, this is disturbing, but is is really pathetic to put this at the level of what the previous administration was doing. I never said a thing about the previous administration. The question is whether or not YouCut is a front for an anti-science inquisition, or whether YouCut proves that Eric Cantor is an ‘Anti-Science Scourge’. That trump card is getting a little worn out, by the way. I would not argue that Republicans are innocent of manipulating science. I might even agree that they do so more than do the Democrats. But YouCut certainly doesn’t do that, and it’s most definitely not a front for an anti-science inquisition. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2010, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/45 "2010-12-11T07:33:57Z")
Just to get things back on topic, could someone explain this to me? > [@](#): > > …he slandered a teenaged sex slave into the House record on behalf of then-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. “[S]he wanted to do nude dancing,” said Hall of the fifteen-year-old girl who was taken from her parents in the Phillippines and forced to perform sex acts on stage and before video cameras at a Northern Marianas sex club. What exactly went on here? How do you “slander” someone “into the House record”, on “behalf” of someone, no less? I don’t understand the actual exchange that took place regarding the “sex slave.” What relation did she have either to Jack Abramoff or to any possible goings-on in the House record? Please, someone explain. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2010, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/46 "2010-12-11T07:38:33Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > No, but do you know what IS a Democracy? Democracy. Last time I checked, that’s what the U.S. was, and that means when science wants to use funds provided by citizens, the citizens have the ability to have some choice in how their money is spent. And it is interesting that no sooner that was said that then we got: > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > So do Democrats. Science is used as a pawn by both sides - heralded when it favors one side, demonized or ignored when it favors the other. And that is why it is folly to put science into a popularity contest. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Democrats have no problem exaggerating the effects of global warming when it suits their political needs. Al ore, that beacon of Democratic scientific thinking, has been spouting complete bullshit for years, and no one calls him on it. He was doing it when he was a Senator and a Vice President as well. > **[Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?](https://skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors-intermediate.htm)** > > \While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science.\ > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts - is consistent with peer reviewed science. > > It’s worth pointing out that Al Gore is a politician, not a climate scientist. Debunking Gore does not disprove anthropogenic global warming. Nevertheless, it is instructive to look at the purported errors in An Inconvenient Truth as it reveals a lot about climate science and the approach of his critics. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > And you can find examples of Democratic politicians engaging in wild hyperbole on issues from second-hand smoke to the damage to the environment that would be caused by drilling in Alaska. They’ve promoted shoddy research into gun violence, and over-hyped the dangers of DDT and Asbestos. There you go again with the DDT conservative shibboleth “science” point. [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ddt/](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ddt/) > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Democrats generally oppose nuclear power on demonstrably false grounds, and hype any research that suggest risks and downplay or deny research that show safety. Noted Democrat Bill Maher is an anti-vaccination nut. And funny thing that I do not agree with that and I still have to see Bill Maher elected to a position to cause harm. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I never said a thing about the previous administration. The question is whether or not YouCut is a front for an anti-science inquisition, or whether YouCut proves that Eric Cantor is an ‘Anti-Science Scourge’. > > That trump card is getting a little worn out, by the way. > > I would not argue that Republicans are innocent of manipulating science. I might even agree that they do so more than do the Democrats. But YouCut certainly doesn’t do that, and it’s most definitely not a front for an anti-science inquisition. When they said that they are going to check first for what is funded in science it is clear to me that you did drank the kool aid for the way you are attempting to minimize this. That conclusion comes from your last reply as you still have not learned anything from previous times when you got burned for what conservative sources are saying about scientific issues. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2010, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/47 "2010-12-11T08:17:12Z")
Remember when I said that chances are that the Republican politicians are the ignoramus with the examples they made on the YouCut review video? [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/12/03/citizens-against-peer-review/](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/12/03/citizens-against-peer-review/) > [@](#): > > And here’s part of the text that accompanies the video: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > NSF makes more than 10,000 new grant awards annually, many of these grants fund worthy research in the hard sciences. Recently, however NSF has funded some more questionable projects – $750,000 to develop computer models to analyze the on-field contributions of soccer players and $1.2 million to model the sound of objects breaking for use by the video game industry. Help us identify grants that are wasteful or that you don’t think are a good use of taxpayer dollars. > > > > ``` > > So here’s the problem. These scientific grants are peer reviewed. You can look at them in an offhand way and decide that hey, they involve soccer or video games, and therefore infer that they’re stupid and wasteful–but that’s not a fair way of going about it. Just because research involves these subjects doesn’t mean it’s not scientifically meritorious. > > Let’s look at some of the research in question, and see if it really is so silly. The first grant, concerning “soccer”? As Live Science explains: > > > [@](#): > > > > LiveScience did some digging and found that the money went to Northwestern University engineering professor Luis Amaral, who has created models to rank soccer player success. But the work is more broadly applicable to understanding the contributions of team members in any organization, including workplaces, the researchers wrote in a paper published in June in the open-access journal PLoS One. Amaral also researches other complex systems like the stock market and ecosystems, as well as the impact of scientific research and the performance of individual scientists and institutions. > > And the second grant, concerning “video games”? It appears to be this Cornell research, which of course was also deemed meritorious by peer review: > > > [@](#): > > > > Computational physics can help us animate crashing rigid and deformable bodies, or fracturing solids, or splashing water, but the results are silent movies. Virtually no practical algorithms exist for synthesizing synchronized sounds automatically. Instead, sound recordings are edited manually for pre-produced animations or triggered automatically in interactive settings. The former is labor intensive and inflexible, while the latter produces awkward, repetitive results. This situation is a serious obstacle to building realistic, interactive simulations (whether for entertainment, training, or other applications), which require sound to be compelling,. In this research the PIs will begin filling this broad void by pursuing fundamental advances in computational methods while solving several particularly challenging sound rendering problems. The goal is to produce some of the first viable methods in this area, upon which many more can be built. Successful implementation of this program will fundamentally transform our relationship with our increasingly convincing simulated realities, because for the first time we will be able to hear them as well as see them. To these ends, the PIs will develop fundamental algorithms that address the problems of simulating the vibrations that cause sound and computing the sound field produced by those vibrations…. > > This latter research, to me, sounds very much like just the kind of basic science that can trigger technological innovations that will, in turn, create jobs. Isn’t that what we want the government funding? > > More generally, why does Rep. Smith think that this approach–let’s call it the “citizens Googling” method–is a good way of evaluating research grants, as opposed to the merit-based peer review system? What a leadership we got for the next 2 years at least… the saddest thing will be to see a chunk of people falling for that fake leadership when we all will have to work to solve serious difficult issues in the near and far future. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/48 "2010-12-11T16:39:07Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I’ve never ridden Amtrak, so I don’t know what ‘first class’ provides. But it’s clearly a higher-priced premium service for those who can afford it. Not only that, but sleeper cars are less energy efficient per passenger. Why in the world would you want to subsidize that kind of thing? How is that good policy in any way? Because it’s not really accurate (well, it is accurate that sleeper cars are less energy efficient). It’s an accounting artifact. As Andrew Selden (VP of the United Rail Passenger Alliance) explains: > [@](#): > > The issue is the corrupt Amtrak RPS-based internal MIS/cost accounting system. Large subsidies to western sleepers are an artifact, if not an intentional distortion, caused by the system, not the business activity. We can show (and have often done so) that these sleepers are substantial net contributors of free cash flow to Amtrak, failing only to cover arbitrarily allocated shares of other system, not operating, costs, only some of which are even indirectly related to the operation of these services. > > The Superliner sleeping car, measured by business economic factors like return on capital investment, load factor, revenue per dollar invested, etc., is the best thing Amtrak owns. These members of Congress should look closely at actual sleeping car fares out west, where many passengers are paying thousands of dollars for a single trip. There is NO POSSIBILITY that these fares are losing money on a direct cost basis. The catch is always to audit deeply what costs Amtrak is charging against the sleeping car revenues to determine that a loss exists in the first place. That is where the members of Congress were being conned. > > The collateral issue is the subsidy that these sleepers provide to the dining cars. FIRST, diners are indispensable to all travelers on LD trains, where the AVERAGE trip runs 15-20 hours in duration (varying by route). These people therefore (including every coach passenger) are on board over two to four meal periods (and of course some for even more). Lose the diner, and you’ll lose ALL the passengers, not just the “fat cat” families and retirees in the sleepers. The sleeper fare transfer to the diner is what keeps the diner on at all—by including meals in the sleeper fare, Amtrak guarantees a predictable base of revenue to the diner. Take away the sleepers and that fare transfer, and with the loss of sleeping car passengers (most of whom wouldn’t be caught dead making a two or three day trip in coach) and their fare transfers to the diner, the diner would have to charge obscene prices that would drive out the remaining coach passengers, and without meals over two to three day trips, no one will ride and the trains would be empty. > > If Congress wants to look for subsidies to first class riders, have them divide the Acela first class revenue by its proportionate share of the annual two-thirds of a billion dollars of subsidy “invested” each year into the NEC. Those numbers are real and staggering, even though Amtrak never reports them as such. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/49 "2010-12-17T04:16:43Z")
nvm ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/50 "2010-12-17T14:44:26Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > Well, given that only [6% of scientists are Republicans](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html), this seems right. Did not know that. Wonder why? I mean, isn’t science essentially apolitical? Even political science? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/51 "2010-12-17T14:49:01Z")
Well, it makes sense that grant-funded science would be friendly to Democrats. Since, AFAIK, most scientists are employed in the private sector, though, that doesn’t explain why 55% are Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/52 "2010-12-17T16:06:42Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > If the White House had put up a similar site, only asking for citizen input as to what additional funding there should be, you guys would be singing its praises. Actually, before inauguration in '09 the Obama transition team _did_ have a website up asking for citizen input on government priorities, including a section on health funding to which I contributed. The reason I heard about this is that the site was flooded with calls to fund all sorts of “alternative medicine” initiatives and treatments, and the evidence-based science community was encouraged to respond. No commitments were made by the transition team to advance legislation on any of these things, but it disturbed me that pressure groups for woo might be able to advance their agendas through such a “vote”. It is similarly worrisome that Republicans might fall for “the will of the people” in deciding which science projects are worth supporting. If Sarah Palin isn’t qualified to pass judgment on research priorities (she isn’t), then her supporters are even less qualified to do so. The Tea Partyites scoff at pointy-headed intellectual experts, their Know-Nothing counterparts on the Left are suspicious of anything they can link to Our Omnipresent Corporate Overlords. I don’t want either side telling the NSF and NIH what to do. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/53 "2010-12-17T16:17:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Did not know that. Wonder why? I mean, isn’t science essentially apolitical? Even political science? It doesn’t help that Republican leaders keep saying things that sound like a translation of “Jesus sucks dead donkey balls” into science-speak. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/54 "2010-12-17T22:08:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Did not know that. Wonder why? I mean, isn’t science essentially apolitical? Even political science? Not necessarily. It could be pure correlation with a hidden dependent variable - maybe the same impulses that make you a liberal also make you want to be a scientist, without there being a causal connection between them. We can speculate on why scientists trend liberal, but there could be lots of reasons. For example, it could be that being liberal drives you towards specialties that are more abstract, or which avoid the messiness and complexity of real life. As the esteemed Dr. Raymond Stantz said, “I’ve worked in the private sector - they expect results.” In my experience, engineering is even more lopsided than science - only in the other direction. Most engineers I know are more centrist or libertarian than is the public at large. [This study](http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~ngross/lounsbery_9-25.pdf) shows that while 45.2% of Ph.D’s in the physical and biological sciences describe themselves as liberal, only 10.7% of Ph.D’s in computer science and engineering call themselves liberal. We can speculate all day about what the difference might be, but speculation will probably say more about our own biases than about real differences. For example, it seems to me that a big difference is that engineers and computer scientists work in the real world of messy answers, complexity, economic constraint, and practicality, while scientists operate in the abstract world of theory. In the PEW poll, a large percentage of scientists said that their motivation was to solve big problems and do good for society. That’s a liberal mindset: the idea that really smart people can come up with solutions and apply them to society to make it better. Engineers and Comp Sci types are more likely to understand the limitations of what they can achieve and are more practical, hard-headed types who don’t think in terms of universal solutions to universal problems. It’s pure liberal conceit to draw the conclusion that scientists are liberals because ‘reality has a well known liberal bias’. If that were the case, you would expect engineers, health care Ph.D’s and computer scientists to also be liberals, but they’re not. It probably has a lot more to do with the nature of the work and the environment around the work than to be any kind of statement about whether liberalism is ‘better’ or more reflective of reality. If you want to go down that road, I’d argue back that engineers and comp-sci people have a much better grasp of real-world conditions than do ivory-tower academics, and they’re not liberals. Another potential factor for academic bias in the sciences is that the sciences saw a huge growth in population during the years when teenagers who grew up in the 60’s entered college. The paper I linked to found that the incidence of liberals spikes among faculty members who were between the ages of 50-64 in 2007. That would be the baby boom generation. Professors outside this age cohort were less liberal. Notably, the comp-sci and engineering faculties very likely trend younger than the physical sciences - notably so in the case of computing science. Another possible source of difference - women in the social sciences. They are overwhelmingly liberal, and there are large numbers of them. Comp-sci and engineering are largely male specialties. But finally, there’s a lot of strangeness in the data that’s simply not easy to explain. For example, 31.6% of professors of electrical engineering described themselves as Republican, while only 13.2% described themselves as Democrats. On the other hand, only 6.3% of professors of Mechanical Engineering described themselves as Republican, while 28.1% described themselves as Democrats. That’s a huge difference in political ideology between two sub-specialties of engineering. I have no idea why that would be the case. Maybe it’s just sampling error, or the effect of some powerful influencers in one of the fields or something. One thing I will note is that ‘conservatism’ alienates all of them. I think it’s fair to say that religious conservatives alienate all highly educated people with their anti-science, anti-reason positions. It could well be why 78% of engineers and comp-sci people describe themselves as independents - they’re not liberals, but they can’t find a home in the conservative wing as long as it remains so resolutely anti-science and anti-intellectual. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/55 "2010-12-18T03:27:32Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > One thing I will note is that ‘conservatism’ alienates all of them. I think it’s fair to say that religious conservatives alienate all highly educated people with their anti-science, anti-reason positions. It could well be why 78% of engineers and comp-sci people describe themselves as independents - they’re not liberals, but they can’t find a home in the conservative wing as long as it remains so resolutely anti-science and anti-intellectual. This. As a scientist with my degrees in electrical engineering, I CANNOT STAND the Republican Party and the conservatives that control them. I think President Obama is OK and that he is relatively centrist in his policies. I would not call myself a Liberal, though I am very civil libertarian and I distrust the anti-regulation stance of most economic conservatives. But I CANNOT STAND conservatives, CANNOT STAND them. Ick! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/56 "2010-12-18T04:16:41Z")
Neither can I when they attempt to either pander to deniers or are they themselves the deniers of science: [http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/07/cantor-jobs-climate/](http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/07/cantor-jobs-climate/) > [@](#): > > Later in the discussion, Cantor replied to a question about the U.S.’s role at the climate change conference in Copenhagen by saying, “I think from the larger sense the question of climate change comes down to, if there’s been any constant in human history it’s been climate change, and the real question is the severity of that and the involvement of humans in all of that.” Watch it: > > Former White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart responded, “I wouldn’t have predicted last year that scientific doubters would still have this strong a voice.” Ah yes! The old “climate changes, so what we see is natural or/and that there is still many doubts on how much humans are responsible” point > **[What does past climate change tell us about global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm)** > > Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now. Interestingly, the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion. To understand this, first you have to ask why climate has changed in the past. It doesn’t happen by magic. Climate changes when it’s forced to change. When our planet suffers an energy imbalance and gains or loses heat, global temperature changes. > > [snip] > > Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to external forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out the degree of past temperature change, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. From this, we can determine how temperature has changed due to past energy imbalances. What we have found, looking at many different periods and timescales in Earth’s history, is that when the Earth gains heat, positive feedbacks amplify the warming. This is why we’ve experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past. Our climate is highly sensitive to changes in heat. We can even quantify this: when you include positive feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 causes a warming of around 3°C. > > What does that mean for today? Rising greenhouse gas levels are an external forcing, which has caused climate changes many times in Earth’s history. They’re causing an energy imbalance and the planet is building up heat. From Earth’s history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify the greenhouse warming. So past climate change doesn’t tell us that humans can’t influence climate; on the contrary, it tells us that climate is highly sensitive to the greenhouse warming we’re now causing. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/57 "2010-12-18T07:12:38Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > My understanding of YouCut is that it’s very specifically not taking anything off the table - as it should be. Your understanding is incorrect. Defense was declared untouchable, of course, as it always is. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/58 "2010-12-18T18:38:31Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > We can speculate on why scientists trend liberal, but there could be lots of reasons. For example, it could be that being liberal drives you towards specialties that are more abstract, or which avoid the messiness and complexity of real life. As the esteemed Dr. Raymond Stantz said, “I’ve worked in the private sector - they expect results.” > > … > > We can speculate all day about what the difference might be, but speculation will probably say more about our own biases than about real differences. For example, it seems to me that a big difference is that engineers and computer scientists work in the real world of messy answers, complexity, economic constraint, and practicality, while scientists operate in the abstract world of theory. I’m sorry but these statements are absolutely ridiculous. It’s the typical “ivory tower elitist” bullshit label given to scientists by ignorant rightwing pundits. You really have no clue. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/59 "2010-12-18T18:44:55Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > I’m sorry but these statements are absolutely ridiculous. It’s the typical “ivory tower elitist” bullshit label given to scientists by ignorant rightwing pundits. You really have no clue. Yeah, Sam likes to make long good looking posts that have plenty of good points but always manages to add a [squick](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=squick) item. > **[Bread, Eggs, Milk, Squick - TV Tropes](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BreadEggsMilkSquick)** > > When a mundane conversation goes bad. You're winding up a boring conversation, and throw in one last thing in there. And that one last thing was praise for the Ku Klux Klan, or a plan to kill the Mayor, or a swear word, when you had been talking … ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628/60 "2010-12-18T19:07:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Bread, Eggs, Milk, Squick - TV Tropes](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BreadEggsMilkSquick) 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eric-cantor-republican-whip-or-anti-science-republican-scourge/563628.md?page=4)