Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Perhaps liberal bias in the scientific community is for real:

Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is alienating scientists to a startling degree.

Only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. By comparison, 23 percent of the overall public considers itself Republican, while 35 percent say they're Democrats.

The ideological discrepancies were similar. Nine percent of scientists said they were "conservative" while 52 percent described themselves as "liberal," and 14 percent "very liberal." The corresponding figures for the general public were 37, 20 and 5 percent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/1 ... 29382.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So? Scientists are the least dangerous constituency: they can't expand the deficit or enact Obamacare.

They can think great thoughts, but they can't tie their shoes. That's truthiness.

Ivytalk wrote:So? Scientists are the least dangerous constituency: they can't expand the deficit or enact Obamacare.

They can think great thoughts, but they can't tie their shoes. That's truthiness.

THREE words:

CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

Total bullshit, the guy who sits in the desk in front of me is always on Drudge Report, FoxNews, scours the interwebz for guns/gun videos and still wants to see Obama's 'real' birth certificate. But out of all the scientist I know, he's the only one who breaths through his mouth and drags his knuckles across the floor... So maybe there's something to this PEW poll.

JMU DJ wrote:Total bullshit, the guy who sits in the desk in front of me is always on Drudge Report, FoxNews, scours the interwebz for guns/gun videos and still wants to see Obama's 'real' birth certificate. But out of all the scientist I know, he's the only one who breaths through his mouth and drags his knuckles across the floor... So maybe there's something to this PEW poll.

Incidental evidence aside, there were SIX percent who identified themselves as conservative....perhaps he's one of them?

AZGrizFan wrote:

JMU DJ wrote:Total bullshit, the guy who sits in the desk in front of me is always on Drudge Report, FoxNews, scours the interwebz for guns/gun videos and still wants to see Obama's 'real' birth certificate. But out of all the scientist I know, he's the only one who breaths through his mouth and drags his knuckles across the floor... So maybe there's something to this PEW poll.

Incidental evidence aside, there were SIX percent who identified themselves as conservative....perhaps he's one of them?

Re-read the last line... I have no problem with this finding and having been around groups/meetings of scientist that have denigrated Bush for everything he did to science while praising Obama for the support that he has given it. Like I said, he's the only mouthbreathing scientist I know; so I find this report unsurprising and agree with it.

Ivytalk wrote:So? Scientists are the least dangerous constituency: they can't expand the deficit or enact Obamacare.

They can think great thoughts, but they can't tie their shoes. That's truthiness.

I'll tell Lady Di you said hi.

Just when I thought this day on CS couldn't get any better...a DJ sighting!!

Grizalltheway wrote:Just when I thought this day on CS couldn't get any better...a DJ sighting!!

Why is it so hard for you people to believe that there are those out there with ethics and professional responsibility, who would not allow their personal politics to effect the integrity of the scientific process?
You all may have no ethics, but some people do.

When government grants are the lifeblood of their research, those principled researchers are compromised.

Not many folks will conclude results that will dry of the funds to continue their research (and livlihoods).

OpieGSU wrote:Why is it so hard for you people to believe that there are those out there with ethics and professional responsibility, who would not allow their personal politics to effect the integrity of the scientific process?
You all may have no ethics, but some people do.

YEAH.......JUST LIKE THIS JUDGE. He's got a cock in each hand, one up his ass and one in his mouth (usual fri nite at the legaleagle household) but is allowed to rule on a case having to do with bundles of sticks getting married.

citdog wrote:

OpieGSU wrote:Why is it so hard for you people to believe that there are those out there with ethics and professional responsibility, who would not allow their personal politics to effect the integrity of the scientific process?
You all may have no ethics, but some people do.

YEAH.......JUST LIKE THIS JUDGE. He's got a cock in each hand, one up his ass and one in his mouth (usual fri nite at the legaleagle household) but is allowed to rule on a case having to do with bundles of sticks getting married.

What are you blathering about. Man, you are a joke. Stick to the topic, rube.

JayBilasBitesPillows wrote:When government grants are the lifeblood of their research, those principled researchers are compromised.

Not many folks will conclude results that will dry of the funds to continue their research (and livlihoods).

Plenty of scientists/researchers work in the private sector. The pharmaceutical industry comes to mind.

OpieGSU wrote:

citdog wrote:

YEAH.......JUST LIKE THIS JUDGE. He's got a cock in each hand, one up his ass and one in his mouth (usual fri nite at the legaleagle household) but is allowed to rule on a case having to do with bundles of sticks getting married.

What are you blathering about. Man, you are a joke. Stick to the topic, rube.

you say that people don't allow their personal politics to effect their integrity..I say they do.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage_trial

Grizalltheway wrote:

JayBilasBitesPillows wrote:When government grants are the lifeblood of their research, those principled researchers are compromised.

Not many folks will conclude results that will dry of the funds to continue their research (and livlihoods).

Plenty of scientists/researchers work in the private sector. The pharmaceutical industry comes to mind.

Not too many pharmaceutical researchers are involved in global warming research, are there?

In related news, more than 6% of liberals are really annoying people (no names mentioned) that make it easy to hate their cause.

Judge Malloy in Missoula.

JayBilasBitesPillows wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Plenty of scientists/researchers work in the private sector. The pharmaceutical industry comes to mind.

Not too many pharmaceutical researchers are involved in global warming research, are there?

Petroleum industry. People are more likely to bend their ethics for money than they are for politics. That said, I think that most scientists have enough integrity to not let either skew their findings.

OpieGSU wrote:

JayBilasBitesPillows wrote:
Not too many pharmaceutical researchers are involved in global warming research, are there?

Petroleum industry. People are more likely to bend their ethics for money than they are for politics. That said, I think that most scientists have enough integrity to not let either skew their findings.

In many cases they are one in the same. I have much less faith in people to do the right thing if it means swimming against the mainstream cuurent they find themselves in.

Study mob mentality, and you can better understand my suspicion.

Grizalltheway wrote:

JayBilasBitesPillows wrote:When government grants are the lifeblood of their research, those principled researchers are compromised.

Not many folks will conclude results that will dry of the funds to continue their research (and livlihoods).

Plenty of scientists/researchers work in the private sector. The pharmaceutical industry comes to mind.

JBBP's perspective comes from his science friend who sails boats and slacks off... Or something like that.

There's a thing called peer review that ensures that all published work/grant proposals are correct, ethical and legal. Plenty of scientist don't get federal funding for a variety of reasons.

Scientist work on theories, not preconceived, orchestrated notions. They may have theories about what they think is going on, but they don't assume that is correct until they do they experiments and see what the data tells them. Sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong. There's plenty of controversy in science, people publish things others don't agree with all the time.

Climate's changing JBBP, the average scientist doesn't give a dicks shake about politics. Didn't a repub prez nominee come out and acknowledge man made climate change? Uh oh.

JayBilasBitesPillows wrote: Study mob mentality, and you can better understand my suspicion.

See this messageboard.

OpieGSU wrote:

JayBilasBitesPillows wrote: Study mob mentality, and you can better understand my suspicion.

See this messageboard.

There you go again. And you have the audacity to wonder why you got kicked off the FCS discussion board on AGS. Are you retarded, slow, or just stupid?

AZGrizFan wrote:

OpieGSU wrote: See this messageboard.

There you go again. And you have the audacity to wonder why you got kicked off the FCS discussion board on AGS. Are you retarded, slow, or just stupid?

"Audacity?!" Yeah, that post was so audacious of me. haha. Did someone get a Roget's for his birthday or something? Try proper usage next time.

OpieGSU wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
There you go again. And you have the audacity to wonder why you got kicked off the FCS discussion board on AGS. Are you retarded, slow, or just stupid?

"Audacity?!" Yeah, that post was so audacious of me. haha. Did someone get a Roget's for his birthday or something? Try proper usage next time.

How about "fuck you and the horse you rode in on", you pompous motherfucker. There's nothing wrong with the usage, you redneck fucking ambulance chaser. You're well on your way to being the first fuckstick ever banned at cs.com.

Congratulations, dumbass.