Since I was banned, I'd like to respond here to some of the commenters I got over at Redstate who tried to question the legitimacy of the poll, (and also, I'd like to respond to Moe and his banning "rationale").
...I don't see your point
Are you trying to prove that the Bush administration suppressed scientific research? If so, you’re going to need to provide a substantially greater amount of proof than polls.
Are you trying to spread the idea of conservatives as being anti-academic, or anti-science? In which case, wouldn’t the results on voter beliefs on science contradict that claim?
As to the “conservatives in the mist” segment of your diary, I don’t overly concern myself with group polling. I don’t think that the fact that blacks vote Democrat, that the military votes Republican, or that (not Native American) Indians vote Republican automatically lead to the conclusion that Dems are anti-military or anti-Indian, or that Republicans are anti-scientist or racist. In reality, there are several plausible explanations for the results indicated in the polls (assuming that the methodology is sound). As such, such data is only useful as an interesting anecdote, and not in my preferences for policy. Neoclassical monetarist economic policies encourage the development of a strong economy with high potential for growth, and that includes science and technology-related investment.
Also, aggregating all scientific fields to prove your “point” is an amateur move, as the “soft sciences” are much more partisan than harder sciences, esp. Engineering, Physics, and the like.
This last point is absolutely false. The scientists are broken into four groups: Biological and Medical (1,255), Chemistry (348), Geosciences (154), Physics and Astronomy (229). So much for the "amateur move." As for the questions- no, I don't think polling constitutes proof that the Bush Admin. suppressed evidence, I think the fact that the Bush Admin suppressed evidence constitutes proof that they suppressed evidence. And yes, I am trying to "spread" the idea of a disjunction between conservative thought and mainstream scientific thought, since it's supported by polling and ought to be discussed by people who don't seem to want to believe it's true.
Uma Ritcie says:
In most science-related articles
the author concludes with calls for “more government funding” to continue exploration of the topic. I assume that if you spend hours and hours on grant proposals when you’d much rather be in the lab doing research, you’re not going to identify with us tightwad Republicans.
I originally mistook this comment for a claim that this study ends by calling for more funding, and struggled in vain to find the part of the report where this occurs. It was, however an attempt to dismiss the report based on a lazy generalization, that's not even appropriate in this case because Pew doesn't take money from the government.
It's been quite a while since I've seen a true-blue "conservatives in the mist" diary
So let’s get down to nuts and bolts - when the Obama adminstration suppresses dissenting views on global
warmingclimate change, is that a bad thing (as when the Bush administration allegedly did that) or is that just a necessary silencing and suppression of heretics who dare to challenge a new scientific orthodoxy?
Your answer to that question will establish whether you believe in the old fashioned scientific method as a path to determining objective truth, or whether you agree with the predominant doctine today that science is simply a tool to leverage a post-modern political agenda that rejects objective scientific truth.
I hadn't heard of "conservatives in the mist" before. It apparently comes from a Jonah Goldberg article about the condescending practice of treating conservatives as poor, clueless creatures who don't know better; the quiet background premise being that this is not a legitimate observation. Goldberg's article is now meme-ified, which provides a handy defense mechanism should anyone suggest a divergence between conservative thought and mainstream thought in any context.
As for the question- I would agree provided the report in question were actually "suppressed" rather than unsolicited. So, I'm glad (I guess?) to have proven my commitment to objective scientific truth.
Your question on the military and overwhelming support for R's...
is indeed PROOF that the Dem’s are out of touch with the military and have been since Vietnam. The Military likes to get the job done without interference from the Congress and yet while they were no longer militarily engaged in Vietnam they watched as the Democrat Congress pulled the funding ensuring that people that helped them in anyway were slaughtered by the millions. The military in more recent times watched as those who were at war with us were treated by Dem’s as a police action instead of the war it was ie: 92 Twin Towers, Somalia, and well you know the rest.
So in conclusion I am saying that yes the military MISTRUSTS D’s as they should and with regards to Science the fact that Scientist’s consistantly want Government Spending which I believe makes their conclusions biased would not make a GREAT fit for Republicans.
JadedByPolitics appears to agree with the premise that polling a community for their approval of the political parties is a legitimate measure, or "PROOF," of whether those parties are "out of touch" with said community. Which apparently means they think Republicans are in some meaningful way "out of touch" with mainstream science.
You've obviously already made up your mind
So why do you waste our time and bandwidth?
You’ve never spent a day in the military yet you talk of the indoctination of military recruits. Where’s your evidence?
Get lost moby.
("Moby" is a term they use at Redstate for liberals who come to Redstate and pretend they are conservative.) I base it on my experiences with one close friend and three or four casual friends who have each joined different branches, as well as my own personal thought that soldiers need to believe the war they are risking their lives for is a war worth fighting and Republicans tend to always have reasons why wars are worth fighting.
I'd wonder about the internals of that poll
12 percent of scientists identified as Republican? What was the total number of Democrats and Republicans polled? I’m guessing that this poll way oversampled Democrats and way undersampled Republicans; whether intentionally or due to bad polling techniques it’s impossible to tell.
The total number of scientists polled was 2,533. I understand the notion of separating out Republicans, Democrats and independents in a poll, asking them questions, and then weight-adjusting their answers to compensate for over/under sampling and show the public's perspective on a given question. But I'm not sure where the idea comes from that you can weight-adjust the party affiliation numbers when the purpose of the question was to determine party affiliation.
Finally, site administrator Moe Lane says:
He's not returning anyway.
This is a partisan political site, not a therapy session for Democrats and liberals desperate to convince themselves that they aren’t bad people, really.
He certainly has me figured out. I ask them to account for the reported gulf between mainstream science and their Republican party because I feel guilty about Republicans who support policies injurious to the country because of their scientific illiteracy. Well, Moe, as long as you agree that every accusation you ever make of "bias" and "partisanship" is by your own admission hypocritical partisan garbage, that's fair enough. But even a partisan site secure in its message stands to benefit from a little introspection and self criticism.