Mod this up for the MF truth.

Mod this guy up!

Amazing how the kind submitter was unable to place this in the fine summary, and that as of this posting - yours is the first comment to remark upon his behavior.

I guess the submitter did not read the actual question posed in the poll: “The GSS asked respondents the following question: “I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them [the Scientific Community]?”(page 172) The confidence in “people running these institutions” was being measured, not “Science”.

Mod this up. This is what conservatives are distrustful about - how the results were obtained.

But those points are not mathematics - those are data interpretations. Is statistics a math? Yes. The interpretations? No. A salient point, nonetheless.

Don't ask me - ask California - instead of just teaching, they are adding in teaching WITH sexual orientation requirements.

I wonder if they are able to name the great LGBT scientists, or explain how evil Western Culture is today, or demonstrate how to properly apply a condom to a banana. I understand this is an article bemoaning the fate of the UK - but it is coming to the States, and we happily grease the tracks for the train.

You were right! He's already been 'scrubbed' from the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics page! Those evil deniers are so sneaky!

http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml

It was there four days ago, according to google’s cache. Has he resigned/been fired already?

I did not know that the actual scientists were one monolithic bloc. Thanks for that. Oh - this is where you tell me anyone who disagrees is funded by the BIG Oil, PHARMA, Koch Brothers, et cetera ... right?

Quote from the very same HuufPo article you link to:

See that part where he solicited and received additional materials directly? Try that with your local financial institution. Try that with an insurance company.

Dan Rather was up front in what he was proffering to the public. Gleick didn't break this story with his name attached from the start. Rather put his career on the line; Gleick hid behind his 'courageous whistle-blowing.'

The memo is the document that purports the Heartland Institute is going to 'bad things' to the Environment. All the other documents are sourced and authentic. They also reveal personal information about employees and donors. To blithely dismiss it as "one memo" is to be disingenuous, ignorant, or deceptive.

Can you explain why the shareholders of Chrysler were bypassed in favor of the UAW, who just coincidentally are thick as thieves with SEIU? "The central issue is that the funds feel Chrysler's post-bankruptcy remuneration plans have unfairly cost the funds a great deal of value by putting unsecured debtors such as the UAW ahead of the funds' claims. They are fighting the bankruptcy by alleging that the government's TARP disbursal to Chrysler was unconstitutional and that the subsequent events amount to a covert reorganization, not Chapter 11." Yeah, no union favoring there .... Obamacare: Just curious - does your insurance company force you through legislation to buy their product? Simply because you breathe? Or has the federal government done such a thing? GM: As of January, 2012, the US government's Troubled Asset Relief Program had about $25 billion invested in GM. Break even for the government was figured at $53.98 v. the then-current share price of about $25.