Is geekness important in your choice of a Republican candidate? Maybe to the five Republicans who still read Scientific American it is - and progressive scribe Chris Mims is here to outline the science and geek cred of people in a political party he has never voted for and never will. Most Scientific American readers will find his analysis, as one commenter put it, "mildly comforting", because they were never voting for a Republican anyway and this is pleasant enough confirmation bias.
No one knows framing like progressive journalists and Mims does not disappoint; regardless of the fact that there are numerous knobs in the impending climate change disaster approaching us, he uses Greenpeace-speak like "accepts the science on the pace and causes of climate change", which is code for 'you agree with anything environmental activists say or you are anti-science', an attitude that has specifically led to the demise of science journalism in the last decade. Our third world economy today is a direct result of heavy-handed environmentalism - Keystone XL and the solar power boondoggles are perfect examples so a little more science skepticism among Democrats (they practically co-branded ethanol and we saw how that worked out) is as needed as science acceptance among Republicans.
Acceptance of evolution is apparently a big deal to progressives but they mean 'acceptance' the same way here that they do regarding climate change; you accept anything you are told or you are branded a kooky Young Earth Creationist. What 99.9% of atheists who claim to accept evolution actually know about adaptive radiation you can fit in your sock but they are apparently superior because they believe in one less God than 95% of the world.
Mims, unlike others, realizes it is no longer 2006 so he doesn't bother to invoke human embryonic stem cells. When it comes to climate, though, he goes so far as to put words in the mouths of GOP candidates, writing about Rick Santorum "Also, presumably, he meant that climate change is a hoax".
"Presumably?" If Scientific American were still a viable science publication, that would never have gotten past an editor, but that kind of sloppiness is why it's owned by a German family now.
It's in our Cool Links section even though it sounds like a I am being hard on it. Well, Mims is a good writer and we're not shills for a party or an ideology so even if I personally don't agree with the tone, his work is exhaustive and it deserves some attention. 50% of our audience will like it, which won't bring it as much attention as the 98% of the Scientific American audience that agrees with it in in advance, but it's not nothing either.
Gingrich Tops Scientific American's Geek Guide to the 2012 GOP Candidates by Christopher Mims, Scientific American
Like every election where a Democrat is in the field, "presumably" (hey, if he can do it, so can I) no Democrat will get the same treatment that Republicans get here. Every remotely 'I am unsure' claim a Republican ever made is called out but there will be no mention of Obama saying vaccines may be causing autism despite it having been debunked long before he said it, nor will there be mention of his continuation of the Bush policies in restricting hESC research (worse, progressives call it a 'ban' when a Republican is president but now they are just fuzzy quzzy 'guidelines' that tell you what you can't do with federal money, just like Bush), his gutting of NASA, his editing of science reports to match his desired policies and his override of science when it doesn't suit his agenda.
