oofrostonoo Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549 Only 6% of Scientists identify themselves as Republicans. 66% identify themselves as Liberal/Very Liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilish34 Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Most scientist are mad scientist too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 (edited) Doesn't really surprise me, I wonder if thats the same study that showed that people with highest (and lowest) level of education tend to be liberal while the middle is conservative. Edited July 10, 2009 by squishyx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Devil Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Of course they do, they is smart. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 And we wonder why they all lie about "Global Warming" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Devil Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 And we wonder why they all lie about "Global Warming" You should really take this act to the stand-up comedy milleu. You'd be a hit! Now remember they're laughing AT you, not with you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oofrostonoo Posted July 10, 2009 Author Share Posted July 10, 2009 (edited) And we wonder why they all lie about "Global Warming" Are they liberals first or are they scientists first? Some how I think they would rather put out legitimate work than contribute to a liberal conspiracy. Jimmy I'm sure you've researched data regarding Global Warming; have any scientific or intelligent reason why it is false? What is accelerating the depletion of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere to keep pace with the exponential increases in their production over the past 100 years? Have any information on that and maybe I'd be able to take the "other" side of this issue seriously. For now I guess the proof lies in anecdotal snowstorms highlighted on drudge report and that entirely credible petition of scientists who doubt warming. Edited July 10, 2009 by oofrostonoo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Pride 26 Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 I'm with JL. I do not believe in global warming. Over the course of history, the earth has went through cold stages and hot stages. I believe we are entering a hot stage, naturally. Global warming is a scare tactic so fools like Al Gore get votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Are they liberals first or are they scientists first? Q- Are college professors professors or liberal first. A- I say liberals. Q- Is the National Organization for Women for women first, or liberals......... A- Only liberal women Q- Is the NAACP for blacks firs, or liberals....... A- Only liberal blacks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsfan26 Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 I'm with JL. I do not believe in global warming. Over the course of history, the earth has went through cold stages and hot stages. I believe we are entering a hot stage, naturally. Global warming is a scare tactic so fools like Al Gore get votes. It's true the planet goes through these hot and cold stages, but the issue with this one (as far as I know) is that the temperature increase is much higher than previous hot stages. I'm not completely sold on global warming, but I'm not totally dismissing it either. I guess neither side has done enough to convince me, but I still think we need to do a much better job taking care of the planet either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Pride 26 Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 It's true the planet goes through these hot and cold stages, but the issue with this one (as far as I know) is that the temperature increase is much higher than previous hot stages. I'm not completely sold on global warming, but I'm not totally dismissing it either. I guess neither side has done enough to convince me, but I still think we need to do a much better job taking care of the planet either way. I agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetsGoDevils Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Scientists go where the money is, no surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oofrostonoo Posted July 15, 2009 Author Share Posted July 15, 2009 Maybe it's just because they are intelligent. Doesn't have to be an secret motive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghdi Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Scientists tend to be good critical thinkers. Republicans on the other hand only react. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Scientists tend to be good critical thinkers. Republicans on the other hand only react. Isn't the stereotypical scientist also out of touch with the real world and prone to believe theory over reality? If so, it would make sense why they would support socialist ideas, because they're great theories, even when they tend not to work as well in practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsadvoc8 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Scientists tend to be good critical thinkers. Republicans on the other hand only react. What an amazingly narrowminded statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oofrostonoo Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 Scientists tend to be good critical thinkers. Republicans on the other hand only react. Isn't the stereotypical scientist also out of touch with the real world and prone to believe theory over reality? If so, it would make sense why they would support socialist ideas, because they're great theories, even when they tend not to work as well in practice. The real world where some people think the earth is 6,000 years old, or that the speak to god? Can you give an example of theory over reality? (An example would not be, "In reality it snowed today, therefore global warming is false) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 The real world where some people think the earth is 6,000 years old, or that the speak to god? Can you give an example of theory over reality? (An example would not be, "In reality it snowed today, therefore global warming is false In theory communism produces great benefits for all it's people. In reality the corruption it breeds overwhelms any good intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyFan42 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Scientists tend to be good critical thinkers. Republicans on the other hand only react. What an amazingly narrowminded statement. Unfortunately, it seems to be true more often than not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oofrostonoo Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 The real world where some people think the earth is 6,000 years old, or that the speak to god? Can you give an example of theory over reality? (An example would not be, "In reality it snowed today, therefore global warming is false In theory communism produces great benefits for all it's people. In reality the corruption it breeds overwhelms any good intentions. A theory that scientists believe, that isn't true in the real world...not a completely unrelated thing. The point that was made was that scientists believe theories instead of reality. I don't know many communist scientists. & Communism is a fvcking stupid theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsadvoc8 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Scientists tend to be good critical thinkers. Republicans on the other hand only react. What an amazingly narrowminded statement. Unfortunately, it seems to be true more often than not. come on Rowdy. For every example you give me, I could give you one for a non-republican. These types of statements are #1 ignorant and #2 add absolutely nothing to the discussion other than baiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matcat1116 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 (edited) Asked which presidential candidate would be best for the economy, only half [of the economists in the survey] responded but most threw their support behind Republicans. Thirty-five percent said Rudolph Giuliani would be best, while 19% chose John McCain and 15% picked Mitt Romney. Hillary Clinton got the support of 8%, while John Edwards was the only other Democrat to register with 4% of the vote. Ron Paul, Michael Bloomberg and Alan Greenspan each got a write-in vote, despite the fact that only one of them is running. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119725543833319010.html If I had to choose based on these polls alone (and not by my personal opinions), considering that the job of the president has a lot to do with economics, I'd probably pick the party that the economists favor. Sorry scientists. Edited July 19, 2009 by matcat1116 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts