Political Ratings of Colleges

College Search & Selection
81

<p>when did cleaning up the environment ever prove to have an adverse effect?
and also, your argument against modern science which points to global warming is that old science said there might be global cooling. </p>

<p>so would you disagree with all modern psychology because there was once a movement in psychology that lumps on your skull were an indication of your intelligence and personality?</p>

<p>or would you discard all of modern chemistry because at one time scientists believed that the atom was the smallest possible particle?</p>

<p>All of science has a history of being wrong at first, then asking more questions, finding more answers, and then being correct. </p>

<p>Scientists never come to a unanimous conclusion about anything, but the unanimty of the opinion about global warming is greater than it has been on any other scientific principle. The evidence is overwhelming, to pretend that just because scientists were once wrong about something you can disregard wholly all the evidence which conclusively says "you are wrong, rufio" is to stick your head in the sand.</p>

<p>Why would you want to go to a university and pay tuition to fund a professor to have a job if all hes going to to do with it is come up with evidence of something that you are going to refuse to believe in?</p>

<p>besides, this isnt an argument about global warming, its an argument about the right of professors to have an academic opinion about something. If a scientist comes up with evidence suggesting that cigarettes arent harmful or that the earth is flat or that global warming is a myth or whatever else would lead a scientist to support the political party which endorses policy which supports his or her findings, then Im not going to say to that person "shut up because you are conservative."</p>

<p>This is not a chicken and the egg argument.
the science and study of academia has led them to support the liberal party. David Horowitz, Sean Hannity, et. al. are trying to get you to believe that scientists are born liberal, then make up scientific evidence to support their previously held beliefs. Too bad for them that this is not how academia, science, or the whole of the real world works.</p>

82

<p>lol benz, i was just pointing out that job growth isn't the only thing that matters, it has to match the population growth - when Bush says 37,000 new jobs were created, it isn't that great if the working population increases by a higher percentage</p>

<p>I wasn't trying to make you upset, but I guess I did lol</p>

83

<p>


</p>

<p>The link is in post #67</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Trust me, I'm trying my hardest to avoid it. My parents nearly refuse to pay to send me anywhere on the left coast, and due to recent issues with Ward Churchill I have been temporarily banned from CU-Boulder as well. I found a good fit down at Rice, and it's decently conservative but also a good academic school. Hopefully I will get in so I'm not forced to choose which liberal faculty to support.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>I would have to disagree that science and study of academia has led these people to support the 'liberal party,' if there is one of those. Liberals simply become teachers and scientists so that they can preach to our youth (me included) without being interrupted by anyone. Additionally, scientists and teachers are often receiving federal grants for their research (in any state institution), and therefore are more supportive of 'big government' as a result. </p>

<p>OTOH, Conservatives are making more money manipulating the capitalistic economy, as anyone is able to, and because they have an optomistic view of life, and have fewer Phd, MDD, etc. titles, their voice is not as important to the media.</p>

<p>Simply put, anyone (with a decent reputation) who comes up with a theory that has a negative outlook and a call toward action in the liberal agenda will have its own 60 Minutes episode and be considered fact, no matter how incorrect the statistics backing it up are.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Agreed, sorry we hijacked the thread guys.</p>

84

<p>
[quote]
"well, weve only studied it for 50 years"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's a very good opinion. Who is one to say that this isn't the natural progression of nature? No one. Do you think if we were around and had cars, etc. in the Ice Age that the scientists would blame the Ice Age on us? Of course. But we all know that it was the natural progression of the Earth to go into the Ice Age and not any animals who caused it. For every scientist you provide that has the theory of "global warming" I will be glad to provide one for you who doesn't believe in that theory.</p>

85

<p>heres the quote.. from this weeks New Yorker (liberal media, to be sure, how dare they publish an in depth report on anything!)
its extremely long, and im really sick of typing in long messages, but oh well...
"In the seventeen eighties, ice core records show, carbon dioxide levels stood at about two hundred and eighty parts per million. Give or take ten parts per million, this is where they had been two thousand years earlier, in the era of julius caesar, and two thousand years before, in the time of stonehenge, and two thousand years before that, at teh founding of the first cities. When, subsequently, industrialization began to raise CO2 levels, they rose gradually at first - it took more than a hundred and fifty years to get to 315 parts per million, and then more rapidly, by the mid 1970s, they had reached 330 ppm, and by the 1990s, 360 ppm. In the past decade, they have risen as much as they did during the previous ten thousand years of the Holocene. </p>

<p>For every added increment of carbon dioxide, the earth will experience a temperature rise. [my note: notice, nothing at all about the ozone layer, global warming is all to do with CO2 and greenhouse gases, not the ozone layer].. if current trends continue, atmospheric CO2 will reach 500 ppm around the middle of teh century....the last time CO2 levels were that high was during the Eocene, some fifty million years ago, when crocodiles roamed colorado and sea levels were nearly three hundred feet higher than they are today."</p>

<p>This is all, of course, the opinion, the scientific opinion, told by one man. Of course this one man happens to be a nobel laureate, but those scandinavians are just pushing a liberal agenda anyways. </p>

<p>i cannot believe you said "Liberals simply become teachers and scientists so that they can preach to our youth (me included) without being interrupted by anyone."</p>

<p>go to any grad school in the country and ask the students, say, two days before their finals, why they want to be a Ph.D. ... im pretty sure that none of them will say "so i can support the democratic party and principles of liberalism"</p>

<p>but ask any Ph.D. why they are a liberal, and im sure they will be more than willing to give you all kinds of evidence from their field which liberal ideas reinforce and conservative thoughts reject.</p>

86

<p>I was wondering why UW-Madison was not on the schools list? Excellent poli-sci and history depts and interersting school similar to some others on the list.</p>

87

<p>anyways guys, ive now grown officially sick of this argument.</p>

88

<p>ha everyone's arguing i see, i guess i kind of started it, but to the guy who had the global cooling Newsweek article, I would DIE for u to post a link to it or whatever</p>

<p>O and everyone read State of Fear by Michael Crichton to understand where I'm coming from on global warming, he documents everything.</p>

89

<p>I agree with TheCity, this agreements a downer. Why can't we all just be happy in our Hummers and Ferraris?</p>

90

<p>I didn't realize Michael Crichton was qualified to give expert advice on global warming. Do they teach global warming at Harvard Medical School now?</p>

91

<p>Lol its realistic fiction, its sources are real</p>

<p>plus its a good book</p>

92

<p>glad to see i just had an intellectual argument, where my side was based on a scholarly article and interview with a nobel laureate, and the other was based on a book of "realistic fiction."</p>

<p>Granted, I enjoyed Jurassic Park very much, but michael crichton is a clown.</p>

93

<p>andromeda strain is better than all though</p>

94

<p>I agree. Jurassic Park is a novel idea (no pun intended) but I just loved the Andromeda Strain.</p>

95

<p>And next from the amazing world of Michael Crichton: watch him single-handedly build a spaceship to explore the farthest depths of the universe! And when he comes back from that expedition he will sit down and develop a cure for HIV.</p>

96

<p>"It's a very good opinion. Who is one to say that this isn't the natural progression of nature? No one. Do you think if we were around and had cars, etc. in the Ice Age that the scientists would blame the Ice Age on us? Of course. But we all know that it was the natural progression of the Earth to go into the Ice Age and not any animals who caused it. For every scientist you provide that has the theory of "global warming" I will be glad to provide one for you who doesn't believe in that theory."</p>

<p>Come on that isnt a valid argument at all. You could do the same with any theory including those regarding UFO's. It depends on the scientists if a Nobel prize winning scientists believes in global warming its a lot more valid than a prof at some Community college or state school</p>

97

<p>lol, benz, are you patronizing us for liking Micheal Crichton? You seem to make fun of/scorn everything possible, even if it doesn't contradict what you say</p>

<p>Unless its all in good fun, then its ok</p>

98

<p>Haha, I like Michael Crichton; he is a good author. However, I wouldn't really cite him for scholarly debates.</p>

99

<p>"But by and large, most top universities are reasonably liberal."</p>

<p>Oh, look! An oxymoron. ;)</p>

<p>(PS. UT Austin is in the People's Republic of Austin and is generally considered pretty liberal by any standard. :D)</p>