science versus politics

[Wacka]

Ok, I'll bite.

 

What you said above is true, but it's the same reason that there is not ONE single superior lifeform on Earth. Less evolved life forms don't simply cease to exist (unless they remove themselves, duh huh) which is why we still have fish, frogs and rednecks...

 

or Democrats.

[Jauronimo]

Some thoughts to ponder

 

If we concede that this board is representative of a cross section of the male population then:

 

Can anyone say that Intelligent Design is the cause for our creation? Think of DiN, Conner, BFBF, lyrbob and BillsFan-4-Ever. Knowing the strength of the rebuttal examples can anyone have the balls here to attempt supporting the idea of Intelligent Design?

 

On the other hand, how can we support the Theory of Evolution, when by its very nature evolution lends itself to continued improvement and refinement? If we have had all of these many, many thousands of years to evolve, how do we still have examples like the ones that were mentioned under the Intelligent Design conundrum? Assuming that in real life they don't look like cavemen and probably their only "tell" is their pocket protectors, we can't even stretch things and propose dual evolution.

 

It will be interesting to see the boards take on this.

Human beings are an exception, as we are the only organism to have effectively removed the pressures of natural selection, the engine of evolution. We have all sorts of treatments and medications which ensure the survival and reproduction of individuals who otherwise would have perished, thus removing negative traits from the gene pool. We are the only species where the least capable and least fit, reproduce with the greatest frequency. In nature, the most fit individuals pass on their genetic material with the greatest frequency. Take a pride of lions for example. One stud lion gets 12 to 15 sexy lionesses all sorts of pregnant. Back to humans, where burdens of the state squat out 8 kids to ensure larger checks from the government, while CEOs, scientists, and Dr.'s who are well equipped for success in our environment have an average of 2 children.

 

Our mating rituals have also gotten absurd, and the selection process a total cluster f#$%. For mature peacocks, whether or not an individual is passing on its genetic material boils down to whos got the biggest brightest tail - a clear indicator of viability as supporting a heavy tail requires strength, and the brightness of color shows that the rooster is healthy and parasite free. Contrast this process to humans.

 

2 to 18 months of dating, which may or may not lead to marriage, which is no guarantee of reproduction anyways. The woman chooses her mates based on a host of factors ranging from income, physical attractivess, the degree to which her choice pisses off her dad, the desire to be the first of her friends to get married, pressure from parents, and many others. Simply put, choice of partner is often based not on viability but on other frivolous factors.

 

Then we have the trophy wife effect, whereby our most talented and gifted individuals choose semi-retarded trophy wives. Instead of passing on their spectacular traits, they produce talentless offspring that no one likes. This phenomenon is both counter-productive in an evolutionary sense and has also ruined many a private enterprise. Sure, theres the offsetting Cromartie-Henry effect, but the results are still unknown.

 

It is my contention that evolution has ceased for homo-sapiens, or at the very least, stalled.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Jauronimo

[Jim in Anchorage]

That also represents a misunderstanding of evolution - it's not change from "lower" to "higher" life forms as much as it is change to increased suitability to a given environment. Saying a frog is a "lower" life form is somewhat misleading...I'd like to see you live in a pond and catch flies with your tongue as successfully.

We say we are better because we write the books on evolution. I remember seeing a cartoon that came out at time of the monkey trial. Professor crocodile is showing his anatomy class the skull of a extinct human. "look at the puny jaws and teeth- it's a miracle the creature could fed it's self!"

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Human beings are an exception, as we are the only organism to have effectively removed the pressures of natural selection, the engine of evolution. We have all sorts of treatments and medications which ensure the survival and reproduction of individuals who otherwise would have perished, thus removing negative traits from the gene pool. We are the only species where the least capable and least fit, reproduce with the greatest frequency. In nature, the most fit individuals pass on their genetic material with the greatest frequency. Take a pride of lions for example. One stud lion gets 12 to 15 sexy lionesses all sorts of pregnant. Back to humans, where burdens of the state squat out 8 kids to ensure larger checks from the government, while CEOs, scientists, and Dr.'s who are well equipped for success in our environment have an average of 2 children.

 

Our mating rituals have also gotten absurd, and the selection process a total cluster f#$%. For mature peacocks, whether or not an individual is passing on its genetic material boils down to whos got the biggest brightest tail - a clear indicator of viability as supporting a heavy tail requires strength, and the brightness of color shows that the rooster is healthy and parasite free. Contrast this process to humans.

 

2 to 18 months of dating, which may or may not lead to marriage, which is no guarantee of reproduction anyways. The woman chooses her mates based on a host of factors ranging from income, physical attractivess, the degree to which her choice pisses off her dad, the desire to be the first of her friends to get married, pressure from parents, and many others. Simply put, choice of partner is often based not on viability but on other frivolous factors.

 

Then we have the trophy wife effect, whereby our most talented and gifted individuals choose semi-retarded trophy wives. Instead of passing on their spectacular traits, they produce talentless offspring that no one likes. This phenomenon is both counter-productive in an evolutionary sense and has also ruined many a private enterprise. Sure, theres the offsetting Cromartie-Henry effect, but the results are still unknown.

 

It is my contention that evolution has ceased for homo-sapiens, or at the very least, stalled.

 

Quoted for truth.

 

The main drive for evolution was the need to conform to enviornment. We have effectivly conformed our enviornment to us and therefore evolution of humans has stalled.

[DC Tom]

Quoted for truth.

 

The main drive for evolution was the need to conform to enviornment. We have effectivly conformed our enviornment to us and therefore evolution of humans has stalled.

 

Only true if "the environment" is static.

 

Thus, you have to believe that global warming is a myth.

 

Thanks for playing, dumbass.

[OCinBuffalo]

talk about strawmen...no scientist i've heard has ever said "the discussion is over" regarding climate change. nor have i heard many conservatives put their stance in such soft terms. it's usually more in the tone of "the science behind this idea is junk" with oblique citations of perceived academic dishonesty and ulterior motives. which side is really more likely to have ulterior motives on this or most any other science versus politics debate? e.g. stem cell research, evolution, genetic engineering, climate change, etc.

Oh Bull. Watch ALGORE, Inc.'s movie. It's only a straw man if we are distorting/simplifying what you are saying, and then arguing against that, and, I am sick to tears of people misusing this fallacy, as though "the first person to say straw man wins". It's like juxtaposed. The minute I hear juxtaposed, I know I am dealing with a weak mind. Same with "out of context".

 

Yeah....that's great, until....those citations of academic dishonesty and ulterior motives go from oblique, to actual, undeniable matters of public record.

 

What you need to ask yourself: if this is all settled, or, if it is close to being settled....why did they need to lie? Why did they put thermometers on blacktop/tar roofs of buildings? You can say that "well everybody does it, even doctors trying to get their new drugs approved", to which I will reply "fine, then we can assume we can sue these people for a multi-trillion dollar recall, can't we?".

look, I've got no problem with people wanting to believe whatever they want to believe in. You can all worship Xenu if you want, I don't care.

 

But don't force what is (IMO) a beyond ridiculous concept such as "Intelligent Design", which is nothing more than an attempt to put a "scientific" spin on the creationisim idea, into a damn science class. You want to teach ID? Fine, do it in theology class where it belongs...

Exactly right. The burden is on the person making the claim. If you can't prove ID in the lab, you can't be allowed to try and legislate it in the school board room, or sue for it in the courtroom.

is that a direct quote from him or are you speaking for him? if he truly felt "the discussion is over" wouldn't he have stopped ater devising "model A" for climate change rather than publishing several more including "model E"? few scientists believe "the discussion is over" on anything. questioning conventional wisdom is at the very core of good science.

Of course he wouldn't. IF there was no model B, then there is no funding for model C. You need 2 more models to get to E. Or, do you really think we need another study to tell us "smoking is bad, mkay"?

what i've generally heard is what i described.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time that we've seen a liberal not know WTF he is talking about on this board. Hell, it wouldn't be the 10,000th.

Edited April 22, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[3rdnlng]

Oh Bull. Watch ALGORE, Inc.'s movie. It's only a straw man if we are distorting/simplifying what you are saying, and then arguing against that, and, I am sick to tears of people misusing this fallacy, as though "the first person to say straw man wins". It's like juxtaposed. The minute I hear juxtaposed, I know I am dealing with a weak mind. Same with "out of context".

 

Yeah....that's great, until....those citations of academic dishonesty and ulterior motives go from oblique, to actual, undeniable matters of public record.

 

What you need to ask yourself: if this is all settled, or, if it is close to being settled....why did they need to lie? Why did they put thermometers on blacktop/tar roofs of buildings? You can say that "well everybody does it, even doctors trying to get their new drugs approved", to which I will reply "fine, then we can assume we can sue these people for a multi-trillion dollar recall, can't we?".

 

Exactly right. The burden is on the person making the claim. If you can't prove ID in the lab, you can't be allowed to try and legislate it in the school board room, or sue for it in the courtroom.Of course he wouldn't. IF there was no model B, then there is no funding for model C. You need 2 more models to get to E. Or, do you really think we need another study to tell us "smoking is bad, mkay"?

 

Well, it wouldn't be the first time that we've seen a liberal not know WTF he is talking about on this board. Hell, it wouldn't be the 10,000th.

 

 

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/forbes-contributor-let-climate-change-skeptics-houses-burn-down

 

Ah, the morally superior

[ieatcrayonz]

If you fail to make the connection between the restricting or perverting of the teaching of "undesirable science" in our classrooms and the lack of quality scientific minds this country puts out, well Jebus help us all...

Hey Baldy I have two questions for you ad neither of them relate to evolution so excuse me for putting them here but this thread started as "science vs politics" not just evolution.

 

Anyway question 1 is:

 

Why are the solutions that are "based in science" always basically communizing everything?

 

Question #2 is:

 

Have you still not thought of a followup question for the big guy upstairs via GvG from the other thread?

[DC Tom]

Oh Bull. Watch ALGORE, Inc.'s movie. It's only a straw man if we are distorting/simplifying what you are saying, and then arguing against that, and, I am sick to tears of people misusing this fallacy, as though "the first person to say straw man wins". It's like juxtaposed. The minute I hear juxtaposed, I know I am dealing with a weak mind. Same with "out of context".

 

Yeah....that's great, until....those citations of academic dishonesty and ulterior motives go from oblique, to actual, undeniable matters of public record.

 

What you need to ask yourself: if this is all settled, or, if it is close to being settled....why did they need to lie? Why did they put thermometers on blacktop/tar roofs of buildings? You can say that "well everybody does it, even doctors trying to get their new drugs approved", to which I will reply "fine, then we can assume we can sue these people for a multi-trillion dollar recall, can't we?".

 

Exactly right. The burden is on the person making the claim. If you can't prove ID in the lab, you can't be allowed to try and legislate it in the school board room, or sue for it in the courtroom.

 

Of course he wouldn't. IF there was no model B, then there is no funding for model C. You need 2 more models to get to E. Or, do you really think we need another study to tell us "smoking is bad, mkay"?

 

Well, it wouldn't be the first time that we've seen a liberal not know WTF he is talking about on this board. Hell, it wouldn't be the 10,000th.

 

My new goal in life is to use "strawman," "out of context," and "juxtaposed" in one sentence and make your head explode.

[GG]

My new goal in life is to use "strawman," "out of context," and "juxtaposed" in one sentence and make your head explode.

You just did.

[/dev/null]

http://www.examiner.com/article/forbes-contributor-let-climate-change-skeptics-houses-burn-down

 

Ah, the morally superior

Heretics! Burn Them!!!

 

And if that doesn't work, lets all get together some night and burn their houses down for them. And break their windows. Nothing says we're right and you're the root of our problems like a night of broken glass...

[DC Tom]

Heretics! Burn Them!!!

 

And if that doesn't work, lets all get together some night and burn their houses down for them. And break their windows. Nothing says we're right and you're the root of our problems like a night of broken glass...

 

Nice...but misplaced. Should have saved it for an OWS reference.

[Jauronimo]

Heretics! Burn Them!!!

 

And if that doesn't work, lets all get together some night and burn their houses down for them. And break their windows. Nothing says we're right and you're the root of our problems like a night of broken glass...

Nothing quite like a good old fashioned Kristallnacht to really bring everyone together.

[birdog1960]

Oh Bull. Watch ALGORE, Inc.'s movie. It's only a straw man if we are distorting/simplifying what you are saying, and then arguing against that, and, I am sick to tears of people misusing this fallacy, as though "the first person to say straw man wins". It's like juxtaposed. The minute I hear juxtaposed, I know I am dealing with a weak mind. Same with "out of context".

 

Yeah....that's great, until....those citations of academic dishonesty and ulterior motives go from oblique, to actual, undeniable matters of public record.

 

What you need to ask yourself: if this is all settled, or, if it is close to being settled....why did they need to lie? Why did they put thermometers on blacktop/tar roofs of buildings? You can say that "well everybody does it, even doctors trying to get their new drugs approved", to which I will reply "fine, then we can assume we can sue these people for a multi-trillion dollar recall, can't we?".

 

Exactly right. The burden is on the person making the claim. If you can't prove ID in the lab, you can't be allowed to try and legislate it in the school board room, or sue for it in the courtroom.

 

Of course he wouldn't. IF there was no model B, then there is no funding for model C. You need 2 more models to get to E. Or, do you really think we need another study to tell us "smoking is bad, mkay"?

 

Well, it wouldn't be the first time that we've seen a liberal not know WTF he is talking about on this board. Hell, it wouldn't be the 10,000th.

c'mon OC, i'm hard pressed to cite an example of a liberal overtly pitting politics against science. you? but i can rip off many where conservatives have. you really believe it's about grant money exclusively to put forth new models and hypotheses? might it not at least occasionally be about searching for the truth? does it not require some humility to admit your first model wasn't quite right. ergo, shouldn't the more appropriate label be "progressives"...and perhaps "apologists" or "ideologues" for conservatives?

 

and no, we don't need more studies to prove to progressive that smoking is bad...just to convince the politicians to regulate it and tax it into extinction and get their dirty hands out of the tobacco conglomerates pockets.

Edited April 23, 2012 by birdog1960

[OCinBuffalo]

c'mon OC, i'm hard pressed to cite an example of a liberal overtly pitting politics against science. you?

I am sure you can operate google on your own, doctor.

 

However, if you must have an example directly from me: here you go. The ethical science guy....lying, stealing, cheating, and then, when caught by a friggin timestamp(and this guy is a McArthur..."genius" ), more lying? Yeah....if this isn't the height of "overtly pitting politics against science", what is?

 

Now, what would happen, doctor, if this was a doctor, doing the same thing with his/her clinical trials? Again, I ask: will we be able to sue these people, no different than suing a pharma company, if their science turns out to be bad? Why can't we get relief from a recall on global warming? Here's how life works: IF these people want to take on the authority of setting trillion $ public policy, and try to gain profit from it, then they, and anyone who supports them, should be prepared to take on the equivalent responsibility if they are wrong/negligent/incompetent.

 

Again, I ask: why do I need to put thermometers on blacktop in parking lots, and on the tar roofs of buildings....if all I care about is doing good science? Either I am a very poorly trained "scientist", or I am trained, but stupid, or I am purposely trying to cook the data. Those are the only conclusions that fit the facts, so pick one. Why do I need to forge documents? Why do I need to demonize anybody who simply raises questions about my data, when, given the blacktop thing, "good science" DEMANDS that it be questioned? Why am I acting more like a politician than a scientist?

 

Why, after seeing others get caught cooking the science, and seeing the damage that does to the overall concept....would one be willing to do it again? Why would one even consider asking "is it OK to lie about global warming", if all one cares about is the science?

 

Answer to all: because while there may be some pure science happening here, so far, it is indistinguishable, and inseparable, from the political science that is happening alongside.

but i can rip off many where conservatives have.

Yes, we are all well aware of the fact that you get everything you "know" from MSNBC. The problem doctor, is that you don't expend the effort to be "informed". Rather, you are only interested in being "affirmed".

you really believe it's about grant money exclusively to put forth new models and hypotheses? might it not at least occasionally be about searching for the truth?

My cousin, the pure science Ph.D? She responds to your question with: "You can't even search for your apartment keys, if you don't have one." Searching for the truth requires money. Acting like they don't go hand in hand, every day, all the time? No. There is what scientists want to believe about themselves, and what they want us to believe, and then there is the reality. I am learning, as my cousin is telling me, that things are somewhat more like what DC_Tom describes, and more like my job(political war, or soap opera, depending on the day, being fought on a technology set, with technology props) than one expects.

does it not require some humility to admit your first model wasn't quite right. ergo, shouldn't the more appropriate label be "progressives"...and perhaps "apologists" or "ideologues" for conservatives?

There's no logic to follow here. I have tried. You have failed. Adding ergo didn't do anything. Try again.

and no, we don't need more studies to prove to progressive that smoking is bad...just to convince the politicians to regulate it and tax it into extinction and get their dirty hands out of the tobacco conglomerates pockets.

Oh, so you admit that taxing something results in less of it? In fact, you go further, and admit that it is not only possible but likely that something can be taxed "into extinction"? Interesting.

[birdog1960]

I am sure you can operate google on your own, doctor.

 

However, if you must have an example directly from me: here you go. The ethical science guy....lying, stealing, cheating, and then, when caught by a friggin timestamp(and this guy is a McArthur..."genius" ), more lying? Yeah....if this isn't the height of "overtly pitting politics against science", what is?

 

Now, what would happen, doctor, if this was a doctor, doing the same thing with his/her clinical trials? Again, I ask: will we be able to sue these people, no different than suing a pharma company, if their science turns out to be bad? Why can't we get relief from a recall on global warming? Here's how life works: IF these people want to take on the authority of setting trillion $ public policy, and try to gain profit from it, then they, and anyone who supports them, should be prepared to take on the equivalent responsibility if they are wrong/negligent/incompetent.

 

i see only a broken link which i presume presents an example of an unethical scientist. do they exist? absolutely and i could provide some examples from personal experience. almost always the motivation is prestige, job security, a better place or occasionally personal wealth (this is fairly rare in academia as most sign off on profits from their discoveries). i doubt it is motivated by scientist's political agendas very often.

 

you gave no examples of liberal politicians overtly dismissing or discouraging scientific endeavors or findings based on their political beliefs. i'm not saying they don't exist but i can't cite one and it appears you can't either. so lets drop it down a notch and agree that this most frequently happens when conservative politicians are involved. why is that? i've advanced some theories. how bout you?

Edited April 24, 2012 by birdog1960

[OCinBuffalo]

i see only a broken link which i presume presents an example of an unethical scientist. do they exist? absolutely and i could provide some examples from personal experience. almost always the motivation is prestige, job security, a better place or occasionally personal wealth (this is fairly rare in academia as most sign off on profits from their discoveries). i doubt it is motivated by scientist's political agendas very often.

Trying link again.

 

Again, when scientists are asking other scientists, "is it ok to lie about science....for the cause?", and concluding: yes, how the F is that not motivated by a political agenda? This "ethics" lead guy doing what he did is bad enough, but then, to have the rest of them defend him/rationalize his behavior? That, by most basic of definition, is A POLITICAL agenda. It's plain as day. If you are too dumb to see it, fine. I'm not going to explain this again: the attitudes by the CLEAR MAJORITY of these people is that they are entitled to say/do anything, as long as its for the cause. That is not science, that is partisan politics at its worst.

you gave no examples of liberal politicians overtly dismissing or discouraging scientific endeavors or findings based on their political beliefs. i'm not saying they don't exist but i can't cite one and it appears you can't either. so lets drop it down a notch and agree that this most frequently happens when conservative politicians are involved. why is that? i've advanced some theories. how bout you?

What are you talking about? See, when I say you are merely affirmed, you are not informed, this right here is the best example. Liberal politicians ignore scientific data that goes against their political beliefs all the time. They also routinely ignore economic, financial, and historical data. But let us stick to scientific: Every single time a study comes out that counters the "consensus", every single time, the liberal politicians and their lackeys at MSNBC immediately either imply, or directly accuse, the study's authors as either being paid off by the oil companies, Koch brothers, Darth Vader...somebody, as a way to further their political views, and protect themselves from being confronted by the facts in the study.

 

I am not going to google and present each instance of this happening over the last 6 years. It's not my job to inform you. You are an adult.

 

The root cause of the scientist's bad behavior: he intended to prove that this tiny organization, with not even 10% of the funding of its green counterparts, was getting gobs of oil money. When he failed to find that, he forged it, and that they were "anti-science". Unintentionally, he exposed the facts: the green orgs get 90% of their funding....from oil/energy companies. (Which is par for the course with the far left, isn't it?)

 

Now, please explain how Republican politicians, have conspired to ignore science....by seeing to it that their "scientific enemies" get funded, massively, by their supposed political best friends.

 

This should be good. You walked right into it...again.

Edited April 24, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

Trying link again.

 

Again, when scientists are asking other scientists, "is it ok to lie about science....for the cause?", and concluding: yes, how the F is that not motivated by a political agenda? This "ethics" lead guy doing what he did is bad enough, but then, to have the rest of them defend him/rationalize his behavior? That, by most basic of definition, is A POLITICAL agenda. It's plain as day. If you are too dumb to see it, fine. I'm not going to explain this again: the attitudes by the CLEAR MAJORITY of these people is that they are entitled to say/do anything, as long as its for the cause. That is not science, that is partisan politics at its worst.

 

What are you talking about? See, when I say you are merely affirmed, you are not informed, this right here is the best example. Liberal politicians ignore scientific data that goes against their political beliefs all the time. They also routinely ignore economic, financial, and historical data. But let us stick to scientific: Every single time a study comes out that counters the "consensus", every single time, the liberal politicians and their lackeys at MSNBC immediately either imply, or directly accuse, the study's authors as either being paid off by the oil companies, Koch brothers, Darth Vader...somebody, as a way to further their political views, and protect themselves from being confronted by the facts in the study.

 

I am not going to google and present each instance of this happening over the last 6 years. It's not my job to inform you. You are an adult.

 

The root cause of the scientist's bad behavior: he intended to prove that this tiny organization, with not even 10% of the funding of its green counterparts, was getting gobs of oil money. When he failed to find that, he forged it, and that they were "anti-science". Unintentionally, he exposed the facts: the green orgs get 90% of their funding....from oil/energy companies. (Which is par for the course with the far left, isn't it?)

 

Now, please explain how Republican politicians, have conspired to ignore science....by seeing to it that their "scientific enemies" get funded, massively, by their supposed political best friends.

 

This should be good. You walked right into it...again.

when the "science" is put out by folks with doctor of divinity degrees, then yes, the results are looked at with an appropriate index of suspicion. there is a pedigreed heirarchy within the science community that while not infallable, is fairly reliable and phd's in divinity are near the bottom of the food chain.

 

your comments on funding are somewhat misinformed i believe. the big grant allocaters like the nih, nsf, etc usually make the decisions on who gets how much. legislators generally only appropriate money to those large organizations. this is by design to stop favoritism or discrimination on a political basis. as we saw during the bush administration this system can be worked around to a degree and when cuts are considered to these big scientific organizations it's usually conservatives pushing them.

[OCinBuffalo]

when the "science" is put out by folks with doctor of divinity degrees, then yes, the results are looked at with an appropriate index of suspicion. there is a pedigreed heirarchy within the science community that while not infallable, is fairly reliable and phd's in divinity are near the bottom of the food chain.

What does this have to do with the above? Nothing.

your comments on funding are somewhat misinformed i believe. the big grant allocaters like the nih, nsf, etc usually make the decisions on who gets how much. legislators generally only appropriate money to those large organizations. this is by design to stop favoritism or discrimination on a political basis. as we saw during the bush administration this system can be worked around to a degree and when cuts are considered to these big scientific organizations it's usually conservatives pushing them.

No, you are misinformed. As if the only people who fund research is the government. As if they only people who fund the arts is government. Go look up how much money corporations donate to both. Legislators have NOTHING to do with this.

 

Again, I repeat that the lion's share of the funding for these global warming/environtology groups is coming from oil companies. I present one, of 100s of articles that YOU can find by putting in next to 0 effort, that clearly states who is putting in what money for global warming research, from the NY times I might add.

 

Meanwhile skeptic groups get 10% of that.

 

Again: Please explain how Republican politicians, have conspired to ignore science....by seeing to it that their "scientific enemies" get funded, massively, by their supposed political best friends.

[birdog1960]

What does this have to do with the above? Nothing.

 

No, you are misinformed. As if the only people who fund research is the government. As if they only people who fund the arts is government. Go look up how much money corporations donate to both. Legislators have NOTHING to do with this.

 

Again, I repeat that the lion's share of the funding for these global warming/environtology groups is coming from oil companies. I present one, of 100s of articles that YOU can find by putting in next to 0 effort, that clearly states who is putting in what money for global warming research, from the NY times I might add.

 

Meanwhile skeptic groups get 10% of that.

 

Again: Please explain how Republican politicians, have conspired to ignore science....by seeing to it that their "scientific enemies" get funded, massively, by their supposed political best friends.

the battle between politics and science is somewhat divorced from private entities funding research. the majority of these instances would be found in govt funded initiatives, i believe. but since you brought up private funding, your link brings up 2 interesting possible motivations for big oil supporting this. their stsaed motivation strongly infers their buying into the concept of global warming. i'll take them at their word. but the moe sinister motive of public relations is put forth. if you believe that then you must infer that big oil sees at least some potential for the theories being valid. either way its a tip of the cap to the concept. either way, it's not an example of the battle between politics and science. to use your words, try again.