Is science really on the liberal's side?
Is science really on the liberal's side?
Oliver Edwards
Other urls found in this thread:
ncdc.noaa.gov
ncdc.noaa.gov
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
esrl.noaa.gov
journals.ametsoc.org
nature.com
nature.com
sciencedirect.com
nature.com
journals.ametsoc.org
journals.ametsoc.org
journals.ametsoc.org
journals.ametsoc.org
journals.ametsoc.org
youtu.be
ncdc.noaa.gov
iopscience.iop.org
ipcc.ch
ds.data.jma.go.jp
twitter.com
Dominic Reyes
Yes but meme magic is on ours
William Wood
>Is science really on the liberal's side?
Absolutely fucking not. Feminism, the LGBT community, and their global warming meme show their complete and total disregard for science.
Jose Ramirez
no, but scientists are
Nicholas Parker
Not really.
The sciences are being invaded by those who would want to misrepresent data and facts in order to prove their liberal viewpoints but my hope is that someone comes up and smacks some sense into them.
Christopher Cruz
90% of scientists are libshits
but 90% of libshits choose to ignore science
¿¿¿¿¿¿¿
William Howard
no. they heavily suppress politically incorrect findings or get some liberal arts community management pr retard to spin the shit out of it.
You literally can not believe in concepts such as evolution AND argue that people are 'equal', that men and women are 'equal', that being transgender or homosexual is 'normal.
Gabriel Turner
No. They deny science when it suits them
The easiest example is egalitarianism. It's clear there are significant biological sex and race differences, but these are denied. In fact if you try to bring them up, you will be silenced, and probably lose your career.
Levi Green
Science is on no one's side.
You can be on its side, but it will never be on yours.
Cameron Lopez
Yes. Science is factual. Facts are not the alt right's friend.
Kevin King
Science is hard evidence, and evidence often indicates they're wrong, so... no.
Angel Russell
>liberal science
>if a man cut his penis off turns into a woman
>31 genders
>a fetus is not a living being
>global warming is real
Jaxson Sanders
That's bullshit.
Austin Ward
>Yes
Wrong.
>Science is factual
Correct.
>Facts are not the alt right's friend
You couldn't get more wrong.
Luis Moore
No.
People who said killery would win 98% and claim to be scientist are though.
What makes someone a scientist? I think about politics so I must be a political scientist. So if I said 100% of all scientist agree that 99% of killery supporters are retarded then I can't be wrong since I'm a political scientist right?
Justin Davis
>There are 37 genders and you can change your gender at any time.
No
Brody Scott
Nice argument.
>Feminism
It undermines human nature, refuses the idea of sexual dimorphism, and promotes anti-science in the furthering of liberal ideas in the greater interest of "liberating women" in numerous ways, see abortion alone.
>LGBT community
It promotes the idea that homosexuality is neither a choice nor a mental illness despite a clear mutation in the brain leading to an abnormality in their behavior, and suggests that a malformed brain makes you a different gender than what matches your biological sex. When they add pedophilia, which we know is coming, they'll promote bullshit to fuck kids.
>Global warming meme
The Earth constantly undergoes extreme cycles and has gone through multiple ice-ages before. The change in climate is not the result of human interference, but the continuation of Earth's natural cycles. Sure, we need to be more environmental for our own sustained existence over a long period of time, but our impact on the climate and the transitional phase of Earth through our emissions is -- plain and simply -- a cunt-hair compared to everything else.
The left lost the appeal to science long ago.
Connor Morgan
No, not really. Though it depends on the topic. Scientists often are on their side, though. Present a subject and liberal opinion on it that conservative side disagrees with and I'll tell you who has it right.
Christopher Myers
Most scientists I know are blue pilled.
I'm not but there are a decent amount of conservative scientists.
>PhD in genetics here
Brody Brown
>and their global warming meme
christ cucks at it again.
Elijah Gray
Not a Christian; If you believe in global warming, you're fucking retarded. See:
Brody Brooks
Anecdotal but I don't think this is true. Most scientists I know either don't talk about it at all or are a bit shocked by the current crazy of the left. The most we care about politics is who is going to fund us
Charles Gutierrez
Science is for globalist cucks
Camden Barnes
Only science that sounds good to them.
>Scientists are liberals
>Engineers are conservatives
Jason Myers
Holy fuck you are unbelievably stupid.
Levi Wright
>I don't know how to argue with those sound facts, so I'm going to say how I literally cannot even right now
Alexander Stewart
Let's take a brief look:
>muh over 31 G O R I L L I ON genders
>biological sex is not real
>race doesn't exist and IQ isn't a valid measure of intelligence because it proves that race exists
>climate change is humanity's fault
>gender is a spectrum because there was that one xer who had super XXXXXYY kleinfelters syndrome
They also tolerate Kang science like pic related. No it is not on their side where it matters.
Chase Torres
>97% meme is bullshit
>every scientific climate change prediction has been dead wrong
>left denies mental illness of transpeople
>left denies racial differences
fucking hell no
Kayden Collins
Dude, look at his flag, you're speaking to a retard
Josiah Gomez
>genders
when did scientists say anything about genders? gender is mostly studied in social sciences which don't really count as science
>race doesn't exist
when did scientists say that race doesn't exist? saying racial differences are negligible isn't the same as race doesn't exist
>IQ isn't a valid measure
IQ is part of social sciences so it doesn't count as science
>climate change is humanity's fault
when did scientists say that? they said its influenced by both humanity and external factors
Camden Johnson
Okay.
ncdc.noaa.gov
ncdc.noaa.gov
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
esrl.noaa.gov
journals.ametsoc.org
nature.com
nature.com
sciencedirect.com
nature.com
journals.ametsoc.org
journals.ametsoc.org
journals.ametsoc.org
journals.ametsoc.org
journals.ametsoc.org
I have more just let me know when you're done.
Grayson Ortiz
Gonna.. well, not play even a devil adocate as somewhat correct your statements.
>Feminism
In general you're correct but I remind you that in its pure, initial form it was a decent movement, even if even some first feminists were in it for power rather than equality, as most humans tend to be. It's the third, modern take on it forward that's - ironically - sexist, hateful shit full of misandry and virtue signalling. But it's not really a science, not even among liberal arts.
>LGBT community
Homosexuality is a choice to some degree, but not completely. There is strong inidicator that most of sexuality is shaped through expieriences and associations from first developing years onward - though those cannot be really steered well, and possibly even shouldn't. Any genetic predisposition is only that and not really good or bad by itself. Whether it's mental illness depends on how you classify one, nowadays it seems more like preference. I do not know of any shared brain "abnormalities" that only homosexuals have nor its effect on perception of sex. Sex and gender aren't the same thing thogh one stems from the other and most people with diassociate themselves with either do it because they're overly sensitive to stereotypes either carries.
>global warning
You're mostly correct though it is also worth noting that current human effect on the environment did affect the natural cycle and currently it is different than how it was in previous cycles. It however doesn't mean it's an immediate disaster like how media wants people to believe, merely a thing that has to be taken into consideration during planning for future developments.
I think it's a common theme among leftist approach to science. A lot of what they say may just have a small kernel of truth, but instead of pursuing it they take it and then build whole theory around it to fit their narrative.
Elijah Sullivan
No, science doesn't take sides, it's just science, it tries to uncover reality, that's it. Forming a narrative is higher level thought prone to stupidity and anti-reality and what humans do.
t. Right Wing Ethnofash Quantum Information/Computing Physicist
Christopher Parker
>focusing on the last century rather than the bigger picture
>still not demonstrating how this is the result of humans as opposed to the natural cycle of extremes that led to the last several ice ages on Earth
Fuck outta here, leaf.
Ryder Cook
On global climate change it is. Other than that I don't think so.
Noah Young
>gender is mostly studied in social sciences which don't really count as science
I wish the rest of society viewed the social sciences in the same way. Unfortunately the left doesn't and they will cite people like this man (?) as fact youtu.be
I wish we could define our problems away too user.
Nathan Nelson
>focusing on the last century rather than the bigger picture
You didn't read any of the studies did you?
>still not demonstrating how this is the result of humans as opposed to the natural cycle of extremes that led to the last several ice ages on Earth
Again, didn't even read the studies or look at the picture. Bravo.
Here I've got more, like I promised. Actually read them this time.
ncdc.noaa.gov
iopscience.iop.org
ipcc.ch
ds.data.jma.go.jp
Why is it that people who have no actual scientific background try to pretend they know anything about scientific topics?
Jacob Morgan
Well appreciated, famalam.
>On Feminism
It still promotes anti-science, and has been since the second generation of its own movement. While I like the ideas of many of the first-wave feminists, I still deny the idea that feminism was -- at its core -- a good movement. While I blame 19th century law for being largely responsible for the division along gender lines between the sexes compared to prior centuries, the merits of suffrage and otherwise on an individual (and gender/ethnic) level as opposed to a familial, land-owning level is debatable. Still not tied to science, though.
>Sex and gender aren't the same thing
While I acknowledge what the intended difference is supposed to be, that whole school of thought on them being separate entities started from an anti-science child-molester's hair-brained experiments and abuse of twin boys, which was a failure.
>Global warming
I mostly agree, though our impact is still a mild one in the grand scheme of things.
Henry Carter
No, modern liberal beliefs are based on the rejection of science and facts.
Right on the money user.
John Howard
I'm convinced folks in this thread are just salty because they failed 10th grade physics or something and want to blame the science boogeyman for all their problems. It's pretty sad.
Levi Scott
>denies race realism
>denies sexual dismorphism
>denies obvious conclusion we get from evolution and natural selection.
>but muh climate change deniers
Ethan Johnson
>You didn't read any of these studies did you?
Did you? These sources and the prior listing focused on changes within the last 100-200 years.
>Again didn't even read the studies or look at the picture. bravo
Wonderful. The long-debunked 97% figure. You're doing a great job on these sauces, syrup-nigger.
Could you be any more of a faggot? Personally, I was a top student in scientific subjects throughout secondary education, though earth-space science and biology were my strongest suits.
Alexander Ross
I got 90 you nigger. Sorry not everyone can be white.
Jaxson Ramirez
>the merits of suffrage and otherwise on an individual (and gender/ethnic) level as opposed to a familial, land-owning level is debatable. Still not tied to science, though.
You are correct, the topic needs more pursuing, and I don't think myself educated sufficiently on it to make any statements here. I am merely pointing out that the thing wasn't outright cancer from the get-go. It mutated into one.
>While I acknowledge what the intended difference is supposed to be, that whole school of thought on them being separate entities started from an anti-science child-molester's hair-brained experiments and abuse of twin boys, which was a failure.
I really am unaware from where certain theories stem and only can comment on the science behind them. Thus my differentiation. Sorry I cannot really agree or disagree with you on that. Maybe I'll read about it some more one day.
>I mostly agree, though our impact is still a mild one in the grand scheme of things.
Here I can fully agree. The media scare isn't proportional to the effects though I guess I can understand the reason behind it - as a side effect of sensationalism it did raise awareness of the potential problems that may arise in the future should we allow things to get worse in this regard. People shouldn't however freak out over the whole thing and preaching how The End is Nigh is plain silly, just make sure we'll be doing better. Though it may be wise to not just try to pull in another direction but carefulyl manage the whole thing. A real ice age would be as bad as melting polar caps and droughs.
Anthony Robinson
I'd definitely look further into the matter and muse on it if I were you, user. Both the implications of the first-generation of feminism and the origins and science behind the sex-gender divide. It's rather enlightening, as well as disturbing.
Anthony Garcia
Absolutely not