The cornerstones of the Republican Party: money over the environment and a disregard for science they disagree with. @GOP
-
-
-
Don't get me wrong, I agree. But let's not kid ourselves that the left doesn't also have issues with anti-science views with respect to nuclear energy, GMOs, and vaccines
-
Anti-vaxxers aren't predominantly left or right tbh. That particular idiocy is apparently fairly distributed.https://www.vox.com/cards/vaccines-facts-measles-autism-dangers/anti-vaxxers-liberals-conservatives …
-
Absolutely fair point & great article. I would also argue that libs can't call themselves the "science party" when they also fall prey to misinformation Libs distrust science that helps industry (GMOs and nuclear), while GOPs tend to distrust science that helps environment
-
But do you not see that 'science which helps industry' has a conflict of interest? The environment doesn't bribe scientists to reach helpful conclusions. The profit motive is inherently poisonous to scientific progress.
-
A lot of science helps the industry. You can't really make blanket statements about it. Science can be incidentally beneficial so that doesn't worry me What worries me is public divestment from science, so scientists have to use corporate funding, which I think is more sketch
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
My neighbor is active in a movement trying to bring wolves back into rural Japan. We used to have them, and now the deer population is increasing unchecked each year bc of our very restrictive hunting laws and the majority of farmers in my community want them back.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No, his academic reputation is not in shreds. That happens when e.g. you falsify data, stick to unsupportable ideas, steal research ie things that are important to academics. He showed results that were inconvenient to powerful people.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
When Twitter described the article using the tagline "outspoken scientist facing critics in wolf politics," I thought wolf politics was a metaphor. Then I scrolled down to the actual article and it's literally about wolves
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wolves > Cows
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wolves only kill what they need and should be protected.
-
That’s actually not true. Just ask the elk population that’s down 80 percent since these 31 wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone.
-
That's because the elk had overpopulated and killed a bunch of flora and their food sources without check, and that ruined the root systems and thus waterflow and rivers. Now the elk population is kept in check and can no longer overpopulate and cause damage.
-
My point is — the argument that they only kill to eat is false.
-
Are they leaving the kills or eating them
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The truth shouldn't be about popularity. Shame on his denouncers.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
