Republican Tries to Bend Science to Anti-Science Agenda

Republican Tries to Bend Science to Anti-Science Agenda

tonight magazine is reporting that out
representative republican representative unsurprisingly lamar smith is launching
an assault on um… the national science science foundation now they shouldn’t be surprising
republicans hate the national science foundation and the fact that they’re
receiving government money although i’ll tell you how little they receive
government money just a second the recently actually propose something
known as the high quality research act and according to ross stories that’s
high quality research act scraps the an s_s_ uh… socratic peer review process which
solicits the opinions of independent experts as to the
intellectual merit and broader impacts of proposed research uh… instead and you stand on
scientific standards for sci fi b are being proposed that’s for us well we talk about their homes one
science here is yep in black and white no question about it but an actual size has them time dot dam’s sides the guys of the committee of
on science and technology that’s as good a anything besides now whatever just read to you much more stuff not only do i not want to find fund real
signs i’d like a fun things that are real science s interviews you and cheer
when it while you might want to do that could it be to help their donors from
the energy industry who don’t believe in the size of climate
change and how wonder you know they’d be able to take
advantage of that could be called brothers who apparently can’t buy enough
scientists and that’s a great credit to the sides of the world they’d well right nearby aside this may
be a good by a guy in a lab coat but he got from a hole in store changeable of arson at the same ex-cop
peer review and but will call in site so let me jump in very quickly and just reread and very beginning of that
graphic and how it is contradicts itself right high-quality research act scraps and assess current peer review process now but this
is the last this is that now but that’s about one in one-on-one
the clean air act we wanna right whatever everyday whatever they say clean no clear or quality anything you
know that you’re about to get the exact opposite yet dizziness or nineteen
eighty four there’s not a warning sign but i have
two men it’s ridiculous so i’m just to give you
a quick political it’s about what his proposal would do it scraps and that’s that an s_s_ current peer review process
which solicits the opinions are you guys are you know all that and also replaces it with a new set of
non-scientific standards for science funding uh… and at gate will discount
the importance of resurgent duplication an important part of the scientific process scientists cannot be independently
verified spare mental results from other laboratories so the anderson when it’s so important ’cause the cobra others as an example
will buy off someone right and they’ll say okay i will pay you but to order a five thousand on through to
study the decide is like jesus meadows light twenty guys ros-lehtinen four and these
are all exaggeration but he had a right at but the problem is they can’t get
anybody else to verify that guy’s results so this then says their french for her
father they there well i gotta go and he says clarence page it doesn’t exist in dvd
resisted would rock that’s this whole thing is about may
hate the fact that government funding is going toward something that goes against
their agenda out there probably a legend of their problem will
call agenda and it you know they always make these ridiculous arguments about
how spending way too much money on eighty six ninety and remember we did
that a story about how foxnews always shows like this rental running on a uwi
or something like that well weep spend so little money comes
decides when you look at the grand scheme of things in fact the grand total
that we’re gonna spend twenty fourteen is seven point six billion dollars
sounds like a lot but when you look at the federal budget it’s only zero point
two percent of the three point seventy seven
trillion dollar federal budget so look i’d read this before the
republicans have a war on science they were warned reporters they have a war on universities and professors the sir why did they always go after these people because they keep track speak it’s the way they’re propaganda they want to pay people to do propaganda and so if you hear from a scientist of
the here from a teacher we hear from someone and journalist trying to bring
you faxed that all her to conservative costs and the reality is if you have to be
that way doesn’t have to be concerned liberal thing it says the conservatives have been
duped into believing that they should serve the corporate
interests corporation doesn’t have to be a science
you know and as much as we have issues with monsanto for other things they had they use science and and and they have increased the food supply
and demand that other problems aside or but what is the corporations don’t have
to be if he signs but if it suits their agenda and they
wanna make more money well they think the bolivian decides and a paper that propaganda and litigator from the republican party
and find the necklace by larger point this is my frustration with the media take all of this crap it’s not even we have it what democrats
or horrible have and such as a show in the country that beats up on the devil rays more
than we do certainly not any show there doesn’t with substance of the facts you
know they’ve boxes and they’re crazy stuff against them right we bring facts here weeks when what
they’re doing wrong but the republican party is disingenuous paddack core it’s not been slapped representing
conservative positions it’s representing corporate positions but they have been bought and pay to represent so when the washington press corps side
well the democrats say that’s in the republics and that as a lamar smith
would like to be destroy size of the country i’m sorry were is still really
concerned about the budget so if you’d like to reduce the national
size foundations budget disease word about that is not so worried that he’s
gonna takeaway trillions in tax cuts from the
red chicago dot then is not the sort of it he’s not so concerned that is like a
sort of the trillion dollar war but my god it’s point two percent of the
budget we got a hack away at it that’s not why
and if you go cover the fact that lamar smith is a
sellout person who is doing the bidding of the
stories exclusively then you start your job you’re not
reported the real news the funny thing is when i say this and they say the people washington they think how this goes to bias bison because he’s got all the facts in
the sporting about that so route that’s a real response call the
republicans on-the-spot will gentleman who are have attempted to suggest that being
right and other you’re right a lot of was attacked

Comments (100)

  1. LOL the man who finds the cure for cancer will also steal work from every medical researcher that came before him. Its how science works we stand on the shoulders of giants and so we can see further then they could. Its hard to find a field in science no one has touched but you can improve on the work of those that came before you or you can prove them wrong.

  2. There is a difference between improving on someones work and actually discovering something and compiling their works and claiming credit for it, einstein did the latter.
    There is no discoverable cure for cancer, only wannabe science tards who watch minutephysics would actually think that is even possible.

  3. It's intellectually dishonest to say there is no discoverable cure for cancer.

  4. Well of course the incentive falls on accumulating capital, because that's how we've devised our society to work. Socialism, however, requires a different social schema that revolves around popular development, rather than individual development. In order for socialism to work, ideals, goals and concern for others has to be the incentive, which is currently not widely the case.

  5. "Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist."
    Could you maybe abridge it through tinyurl or something of the sort?

  6. "The Reference Frame: Richard Feynman" google this. published march 5 2005.
    And did you take away the parenthesis?

  7. Destruction of individual incentive leads to societal collapse and destroys what billions of years of evolution has lead to. Humans are individuals wanting to benefit from collectives, not the other way around. George price explained this using evolutionary stable strategy and game theory and proved it right using differential geometry. He committed suicide when he figured out what he had done– proven religion and altruism wrong.

  8. What you said will never happen. I will nor will anyone else I know, let go of their own self for a collective, I want gains for myself not for others.

  9. Discoverable being the key word here. Nobody can discover a cure only invent it. If there were a discoverable cure, someone somewhere would have had it used upon them by chance– probability predicts there is not. The only way to cure cancer is to use nanotechnology and improve computer processing– something a totally unrelated private sector field does much better than any involuntary collective society or government.

  10. You're making it sound as though you're aware of all the possibilities the world, nay, the universe has to offer, which, excuse my insolence, I find to be bullshit on the fact that you're a human in the 21st century – you don't know everything.

  11. That's you speaking for yourself and the people you seemingly know but that's not the entire world, is it? Nor is it a prognosis for the future of mankind.

  12. Of course I did.

  13. That's why, for example, firefighters can give up their lives for a person, who is not even practically a remote relative to even argue that he's sacrificing himself for the greater good of protecting his genes.
    Don't forget we're talking about humans, not other animals. There's more than a few differences that set us apart from every other animal. Their altruism is not always like ours.

  14. Lets go back to Flat Earth Geocentrism and dump that Evilutionism and that silly Big Bang nonsense. All the science real Republicans need can be found in The Bible or on Fox News

  15. Did you get the link yet?

  16. Communism literally means every fuckng person wants a collective. If one person does not– that shitty rule is void.

  17. I don't. I just know that socialists and communists and leftists in general know a lot less.

  18. Believe it or not, Max Planck found "science" in the bible.
    He created quantum theory.

  19. Believe whatever you wan't. Science still contradicts this. ESS, Game Theory and Differential Geometry stand as valid fields proven again and again using reason and counter intuitive logic. Socialism, Communism, Morality, Religion, and Altruism are all faith related matters which state "no no no, it has not been tried correctly yet, give it another chance!".

  20. What you said is on par with what intelligent design would sound to you.

  21. Norway = oil money
    Sweden = /watch?v=FNtyV0CXfzU
    Belgium = tourism and other non conventional methods which do not work for real economies.
    Canada = oil money / uranium money / gold / not socialist

  22. No, it's not void – see Lenin's collectivism for more reference. In essence – you can choose to not be part of the collective, but you will not benefit from it.

  23. Now you're just acting like a kid.

  24. Care to present a source for your statement?

  25. Just because we have differences that set us vastly apart from other species does not make us the creation of a god(s) and/or aliens. Acknowledging that we are very different is not acknowledging that we are "intelligently designed".

  26. Nothing of what you referenced contradicts reality and science. Again, you're acting like a kid, and instead of refuting my arguments, you're just asserting things.

  27. The economy is not the only aspect of socialism. Things like free healthcare, free education, etc are socialist policies.

  28. Really? Please tell me more. Like where in the Bible? Where did you read this?

  29. I have trumped everyone I met in life in terms of intelligence/mathematical capability.

  30. Not true. This would mean all ceos and corporations can just say, *** your collective.
    That cannot happen if socialism were to succeed because the state will confiscate their property and redistribute their vast resources– it shouldn't.

  31. "Under these circumstances, there is no wonder that the atheist movement (Gottlosenbewegung), which declares religion to be just a deliberate illusion invented by power-hungry priests, and which attaches to pious faith in a higher Power nothing but words of mockery, eagerly makes use of progressive scientific discoveries and in a presumed unity with them increasingly expands its own destructive influence among all nations of the earth and among all social classes. "
    Max Planck
    He was a priest XD

  32. > States religion and socialism do not contradict reality and science.
    > Says I am acting like a kid.
    > Both of which go out to state that: Altruism is weakness. The altruists die out while the selfish survive. All forms of social collectivism and religion are based upon altruism.
    > I am not asserting shit, you have no arguments.

  33. "Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view."
    Religion and Natural Science (Lecture Given 1937)
    My great grandfathers brother was a priest and he met max planck giving a "bible lecture".

  34. They are only socialist policies if they are actually free, free healthcare and education involve taking capital and goods out of the private sector and putting it in the public.
    Free information, IE education is not socialist, khan academy is an example of capitalism at work, so is the internet (no regulation, no tax, etc.).

  35. To add icing to the cake, planck was part of the german peoples party, a right wing organization focused on liberal economics and laissez faire markets.
    It is the successor of the modern "free democratic party". Google it if you wish.

  36. More like in terms of douchebaggery and conceit.

  37. You should stop downvoting the comments you're responding to, it's not ethical.

    Well, you're simply wrong, and history has proven it to be a viable system, so long as the people have the mindset for it, which was my original argument.
    Lenin had quite the success with collectivization during his years of governance. He managed to reduce costs and increase efficiency and would've continued to do so, had he not died too early.

  38. I could care less about what you cited, I wanted a source for your statement where he found "science" in the Bible. And then you referred to his quantum theory, which I would presume is connected to your previous statement.

  39. So? What does that have to do with anything?

    Nikolay Semenov, a Soviet scientist, won a Nobel Prize in chemistry.

    Again, what does that have to do with anything?

  40. You know what, forget, don't reply to me. You're wasting my time with idiocy. I advise the rest of the Youtubers to not waste their time as well.

  41. You two are idiots!

  42. He stated the bible inspired him to science and that both science and religion are the same thing.

  43. Nobody had a mindset for communism in russia, especially the rich people who owned the land they were killed and slaughtered, oh wait I thought they would be let to own their land?

  44. > Guess you cannot comprehend what you say either "Nothing of what you referenced contradicts reality and science" — I referenced religion along with altruism.
    > Look back at your previous ad hominem posts.
    > Ad hominem.
    > Ad hominem.
    10/10 won argument, would win again

  45. The difference is that nikolay semenov has semen in his name.
    There I used your logic.

  46. This is not true about all republicans. But okay we get it TheYoungTurks are far left.

  47. just the ones in control…

  48. Science organizations are controlled by pro gay liberal-socialists

  49. 1984 a how to manual that's funny

  50. Nice paper, now the Authors argue in their conclusions that "Irreversible climate changes due to carbon dioxide emissions have already taken place, and future carbon dioxide emissions would imply further irreversible effects on the planet, with attendant long legacies for choices made by contemporary society." It seems like they themselves advocate for reducing carbon emissions now to prevent further irreversible change instead of betting of the ability of a "future richer society" to cope.

  51. If it's not peer-reviewed, it is NOT "real" science. Peer review is an essential part of the scientific method. If you are unsure about this, watch?v=KHLyrc-uoIk&t=10m5s

  52. Peer review is what removes errors, omissions, fraud, and other true garbage from scientific research. Without peer review, science would devolve into hearsay, belief, faith, and funded propaganda. This new bill meets both the corporate lobbyist and religious control mandates of modern America. Definitely not a step in the right direction.

    It won't be long and we'll see religion and corporations tying themselves together as well. What kind of world are we trying to create here?

  53. If that's the way to have proper, independent science, then so be it.

  54. well i do not think peer-review is working

  55. I am one of those really dumb christian . So i have a question if anyone can answer . Is the T-Rex an ancestor of the chicken?I know everyone else knows the answer to that ,but i do not.:(

  56. So which scientists do i need to believe ?Jack Horner Believes they are . There are so many websites says they are. Seems to me there is no peer review . Just innuendo to make people think evolution has backing fact when indeed it does not.Just a reminder that scientists also say a meteor killed the dinosaurs.

  57. here is a quote from F. Varga "The first analysis of protein extracted from dinosaur bones confirms that birds today are closest descendants of the dreaded Tyrannosaur or Tyrannosaurus rex (T. rex), according to a study published in the journal Science published Friday.". Now that is misleading or just flat out lying

  58. Here is another :"Proof that fearsome T-Rex evolved into a chicken
    Last updated at 14:38 17 April 2007

    Palaeontologists have long accepted that birds are a form of dinosaur.
    Now the theory that the most feared dinosaur of all, Tyrannosaurus Rex, evolved into the modern-day chicken has been given scientific backing with the discovery of some pre-historic collagen

  59. I linked another. Should i keep going ?OR am i right about Evolution being nothing more then Innuendos to make it look like evolution has facts when they do not

  60. I do not know enough . So i figured i would look into evolution . Then i see one says this and another says that but everyone agrees evolution is true and fact base. I may be a stupid christian ,but at least i know that is not fact . That is just putting ideas in peoples head to make it look like it is fact. If i say blue you will think blue . So you put out 1000 articles that says chicken is descended of t-rex . Then when someone says that does not match you oh we did not mean that

  61. How is that peer -reviewed again? or is that just a cpl of over paid scientist to get you to believe.Kinda hard to dispute when the truth is all over the internet. to bad there will not be 10000 ads over the internet pointing this out

  62. The first analysis of protein extracted from dinosaur bones confirms that birds today are closest descendants of the dreaded Tyrannosaur or Tyrannosaurus rex (T. rex), according to a study published in the journal Science published Friday.This one actually says the journal science April friday before the 26 2008

  63. If you want to change a christian to believe in evolution ,Or you want make everyone to know science in form of big bang and evolution is peer reviewed and fact based then come up with with something tangible where we can see it . Instead of posting 100000 ads saying one thing trying to put idea in peoples head. That would make more since to me atleast.

  64. Conspiracy huh? I was talking to a friend of mine that believes in evolution .He was telling me about the chickens and t-rex . So i asked him how could that be when they were killed in a meteor . He said i was dumb and science will figure it out soon. so i went online to see and this is where i learned where he got his info from .Who is smarter? Him believing that a bloodline that dies can still have ancestors ? Or me knowing better?

  65. And you all call us stupid

  66. How can i think it is a conspiracy if i am showing you all the proof . I actually have facts backing up what i am saying . It is not something you cannot see for yourself . It is not hear say . It is actual facts. PLEASE show me i am stupid or misinformed of that my facts are not facts. I am more then willing to listen

  67. I *take it you cannot dispute the facts i have presented then .

  68. I just wanted to know if evolution had any facts to back it up .If it did then yes i wanted to learn all i could . Yet this is what i see .

  69. I hope you read all of my post. Not just the ones you wanted to point out!

  70. Love how you just point out 1 thing and not the facts i list . If you believe peer-review works so well ,explain to me how in 78 the earth was 7 billion years old then in the 80;s it was over 11 billion years old , and now it is 14 billion years old ?SO if instead of saying we assume the earth is this age we say this is peer review science saying this is how old the earth is.

  71. Center for Scientific Creation has this on their website today!"In the late 1920s, evolutionists believed that the universe was 2 billion years (b.y.) old. Later, radiometric dating techniques gave much older ages for certain rocks on Earth.1 Obviously, a part of the universe cannot be older than the universe itself. This contradiction was soon removed by devising a rationale for increasing the age of the universe." Do you see anything there that would make you think something is wrong?

  72. If i was to teach your kids 2+4=9 untill they was 8 then teach them 2+4 =8 til the was 14 then teach them 2+4=6 . You all would think i was a complete idiot and ask congress to change it . But when science does it . IT is perfectly ok .

  73. Oh sorry i forgot you can use examples but we have to be precise.IN the 1920"s you believed the universe was 2 billion years old and now you believe the universe is 13.72 billion years old

  74. i will pull out my science books and get the facts i just do not remember #'s . I do remember 1 book that said the earth was millions of years old and now it says the earth is billions of years old . i will get actual books so you can see for yourself give me time

  75. Pay the fraud with the degree to cook up the agreed upon results $285,000 out of the 3 million government grant that real science doesn't get.

    Do you have to look for an underlying motive? Corporation win-win-win. USA lose-lose-lose.

    We're on the road to Oligarchy. You can have an owner or be a stray like any other dog.

  76. Do you think that human understanding doesn't change or that idiots never chose the contents of school books? Go see shat kids in Texas public school get in their books. Find out what a lot of home-schooler's learn.

    Back when there was a real education budget we learned to verify or disprove "facts" through critical thinking. Critical thinking has been under attack by the GOP, the hate, fear and mind control party, since 1981. That's why there's enough idiots to make the Tea Party.

  77. High School science books are never up to date on understanding. The 1920's was a time of change in understanding, of discovery that didn't make it into the CHILDREN'S BOOKS YOU RELY ON until much later.
    And btw, discoveries since then have changed and refined theories, but with things like orbital satellites and having gone to the moon you might expect that unless you're a head-up-your-ass earth-centered creatard.

  78. Are you really that stupid?

  79. And there it is…. you're a creatard!

  80. "Do you see anything there that would make you think something is wrong?"

    Adjustment of idea when new evidence was found…
    No, nothing wrong at all.
    That's what science does

  81. Not a thing. Science revises its stance on things as new evidence becomes available. That's what science is. A theory arises, research is done to determine its factual correctness, when an experiment shoes the theory is at odds with reality the theory is revised or replaced with a new one that fits the newly-known facts.

  82. So you agree . I lie today so you believe in it and as others point out we lied we revise it to fit the lie so you can go on believing ! hmm. sounds like they have the perfect scenario.

  83. Although the essence of what you're saying is true. Everything is a belief and is a kind of faith, even knowledge is a belief, it's just a belief based on minimum needless presumptions that dilute the chances of being right.

  84. The difference between knowledge and belief is that knowledge exists within reality. Real knowledge is predictable, repeatable, testable, and reliable and leads to further increased knowledge. Beliefs have none of those qualities.

  85. You seem to have your own definition of belief.

  86. I'm not the one making things up here.

  87. If you look up the definition of "belief" nowhere will you find it being described as something inherently wrong, or that it is necessarily different to knowledge.

    In that sense, you are making things up.

  88. You feel free to call belief what you want. I merely corrected you on what knowledge actually is. Your definition of knowledge was hideously incorrect.

  89. I don't think you understood what I meant, but meh.

  90. Oh dear oh dear.

    Science isn't about lying, it's about devising the best explanation for the currently available information and repeatedly testing that explanation against new facts as they become available. If the facts don't gel with the current explanation then that explanation is revised or replaced and the process begins again.

    This is what's known as progress.

  91. Do you not agree you should not teach kids with false info?if you do then you should agree they should not teach our kids on something they have no clue on! if they think they is earth is 4 billion years old great keep it to yourself till you know for sure.then teach it. now that is using common sense and no need in peer review!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  92. Cenk falls for it every time, he thinks there is a difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. No there is NO difference between them, so quit arguing sides. All there is are politicians and their main goals are to make themselves and their constituents filthy rich. They don't care about the people, that part is just an illusion and lies they tell the public to keep the public ignorant to their actual activities. The sooner everyone realizes it the sooner we can stop it.

  93. Peer review is the most important process we developed to make sure something is as objective and error free as possible.

    Not wanting peer review can just be explained by one wanting to spread misinformation without being challenged.

  94. This is extremely dangerous for humanity and risks throwing us all into the dark ages, or at least the US. Americans should do whatever it takes to stop this. The politicians are already completely corrupt, if science becomes corrupted…. it's the end of modern American civilization. You'll be reduced to the level of Saudi Arabia.


  96. Bush put more money into science than any other president. Republicans are against climate science, which has been debunked multiple times

  97. I would much rather live in a greedy corporate world instead of the psychotic "You disagreed with me, I am offended and need to go to a safe space" lets let men dressed as women have full access to the womens bathrooms and showers coo coo for coco puffs socialist world the left is trying to bring in.

  98. wow 3 years later we have a anti science president.

Comment here