Did you read the article that you link to? It goes in great detail to show how flawed or misleading the results are. The title of the article is “Flunking Statistics
The right’s disinformation about faculty bias,” for goodness sake! By linking to that article, however, you make it appears as if the article backs up the statistic, which in fact, the article does not.

Here is some info you left out of your article. I hope this sheds light on how non-scientific this was.

The below responce is from Michelle Malkins’s website. Michelle Malkin • March 23, 2006 04:11 PM.
An anonymous tipster sends some intriguing information …. [ some parts repeated here so I could de-link the text]

The nursery school cited is actually the “Harold E. Jones Child Study Center,” on Atherton St. in Berkeley. It used to have a different name if I remember — I think it used to be called the “Atherton Child Study Center.”

Go to this URL to see their Web site.

If you want proof that this is indeed the school used for the study, go to this URL.

What is so significant about this? Well, the Harold E. Jones Child Study Center is only open to children of U.C. Berkeley faculty and staff:

The University Preschool offers full-day developmental child care for preschool-aged children of UCB faculty and staff.

UC Berkeley faculty was rated the most left-wing in the country: 91% of teachers there were classified as liberal:

“University of California, Berkeley (91 percent liberal).”

? The below responce is from Michelle Malkins’s website. Michelle Malkin • March 23, 2006 04:11 PM.
An anonymous tipster sends some intriguing information about the “whiny kids grow up to be conservatives” study conducted by left-wing UC Berkeley prof Jack Block.
Wondering where the nursery school kids who were the subjects of the study came from? Check this out:
I know exactly which “nursery school” was used as the basis of this study. It is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the 16-page pdf you provided for downloading, but I know because — well, because I know people who were some of the subjects of this study (and of other similar studies). And an extremely important fact about this school renders the entire study false.

The nursery school cited is actually the “Harold E. Jones Child Study Center,” on Atherton St. in Berkeley. It used to have a different name if I remember — I think it used to be called the “Atherton Child Study Center.”
Go to this URL to see their Web site.
If you want proof that this is indeed the school used for the study, go to this URL.
This page is part of the “Institute for Human Development,” which is the department at Cal which runs the school. It is part of and connected to the Child Study Center site link above. About halfway down on this page (search for “Jack Block”) you’ll see that they mention that the data gathering part of this study was done at the Center:
“A renowned longitudinal study of development originated by Jeanne and Jack Block began with children at three and followed them at 4, 5, 7, 11, 14 18, and 23 years of age.”
Compare that to this text from the final study (in the pdf):
Pre-school children subsequently relatively conservative at age 23
The University Preschool offers full-day developmental child care for preschool-aged children of UCB faculty and staff.
(The “Preschool” is a subset of the “Child Study Center.”)
In other words, ALL of the children in that study were the offspring of U.C. Berkeley professors, lecturers, and staff members.
The reason the Child Study Center is so popular is that they offer free/cheap child care/nursery schooling in exchange for the parents allowing their kids to be “studied” by psychologists all day every day.
And here’s the clincher (you probably already saw it coming):

“University of California, Berkeley (91 percent liberal).”

So, we have documented proof that the “whiny babies” in this study were basically ALL the children of liberal parents.

In my view, although this may not be fact, lol., The whiny kids that turned-out to be conservatives in this sham-study were in fact not whining, but screaming in their little voices – “Help me, get me away from these Wackos!” I hope this helps.

Here is your evidence: http://www.animalscam.com/references/peta_elf1.cfm

Don’t let PETA brainwash you guys.”

A one-time donation of $1500 is trivial and probably has a reasonable explanation, but from what I’ve since read, PETA has provided multiple explanations, though where these websites found the explanations remains unclear. Of the answers given, providing travel expenses for a Congressional hearing was the most plausible to me, but who knows.

As a note of clarification, it was donated to the North American ELF, which is the legal press office that posts ELF cell actions. Still not conforting, but it is a distinction.

I was wondering why I didn’t hear about this story previously, and it seems that the only people making the connection are anti-animal rights/anti-PETA/industry lobby groups. The press has largely ignored the story which makes it difficult to figure out what happened.