Tea Party vs Republican Comparison on Opinions of Science/Environment

[Paratus]

So I came across this article comparing the views of the Tea Party, normal Republicans, Independents, and Democrats on science and the environment.

http://io9.com/the-tea-party-and-the-mainstream-gop-have-different-vie-1666137016

While it mostly shows what I was expecting, it does highlight that the Tea Party significantly differs in their opinions of scientists and the environment vs normal republicans.

Interestingly, while disagreeing with scientists and environmental findings the most they also consider themselves to have more understanding of the subject than the other parties.

It also shows that Tea Partiers disagree more with environmental science the more "educated" they are:

I will admit that I had a good chuckle thinking about certain members of this board in relation to this study. 😉

 

[Brainonska511]

It's a good thing we'll likely have James Inhofe, who thinks MMGW is a giant Hollywood-driven liberal conspiracy, as the head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. As Colbert said, "Remember kids, if you get unhooked on science early, maybe someday you could completely lack any understanding of science, and then grow up to be the Chairman of the Senate Environmental Committee."

But as much as there is profound ignorance with regards to climate change among convservatives, liberals have their own share of individuals living in lala land (see anti-vaccine and anti-biotechnology groups).

 

[werepossum]

Wow, your therapy is paying off! You actually typed "normal Republicans". 😉

 

[Matt1970]

I think Ray Charles had a better chance of reading that than I did.

 

[MongGrel]

Wow, your therapy is paying off! You actually typed "normal Republicans". 😉

Have thought there wasn't a very big difference awhile now.

"normal Republicans" are kinda like "Conservative Democrats" these days I'd a thought.

 

[MongGrel]

I think Ray Charles had a better chance of reading that than I did.

I still think you need a spead redding course or two to begin with.

 

[werepossum]

Have thought there wasn't a very big difference awhile now.

"normal Republicans" are kinda like "Conservative Democrats" these days I'd a thought.

Heh, I'm in Tennessee. "Conservative Democrats" are everywhere!

Although thanks to Obama, they are kinda scarce lately . . .

 

[MongGrel]

News to me...

 

[Zorba]

Sad how few people in general, especially dems appreciate environmental laws. I guess people prefer air you can't see through and water you can't swim in.

"In the environment, every victory is temporary, every defeat permanent." - Thomas Jefferson (supposedly at least)

 

[Jaskalas]

It also shows that Tea Partiers disagree more with environmental science the more "educated" they are

It makes perfect sense actually. In college they'll form clicks around like minded people, and the group-think they'll inherent from their peers is stupider, and less influenced by reality, than the individual.

I'll term it polarizing insulation.

 

[Paratus]

It's a good thing we'll likely have James Inhofe, who thinks MMGW is a giant Hollywood-driven liberal conspiracy, as the head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. As Colbert said, "Remember kids, if you get unhooked on science early, maybe someday you could completely lack any understanding of science, and then grow up to be the Chairman of the Senate Environmental Committee."

But as much as there is profound ignorance with regards to climate change among convservatives, liberals have their own share of individuals living in lala land (see anti-vaccine and anti-biotechnology groups).

It's a disgrace the Luddites that get put onto the various congressional science committees.

As for anti vaxxers and anti GMO zealots on the left in general I hold them in equal disdain as the climate change denialists.

Wow, your therapy is paying off! You actually typed "normal Republicans". 😉

Are you saying you're a normal republican? 😱
I've never had a problem with normal republicans. Based on this research it appears I have problems with Tea Partiers. 😉

I think Ray Charles had a better chance of reading that than I did.

Sorry those were the best pics I could find.
Some highlights since you couldn't read them:

Trust Scientists:
Dem:84%
I:64%
R:55%
T:34%


Humans Evolved:
Dem:71%
I:54%
R:54%
T:37%

Humans now cause climate change:
Dem:81%
I:60%
R:41%
T:23%

Moderate/Great Understanding:
Dem:82%
I:75%
R:70%
T:83%

So the Tea Party is the party of Dunning-Kruger

 

[Paratus]

Sad how few people in general, especially dems appreciate environmental laws. I guess people prefer air you can't see through and water you can't swim in.

"In the environment, every victory is temporary, every defeat permanent." - Thomas Jefferson (supposedly at least)

I agree. We don't need to be like London in the 1880's, Pittsburgh in the 1940's or Beijing today.

It makes perfect sense actually. In college they'll form clicks around like minded people, and the group-think they'll inherent from their peers is stupider, and less influenced by reality, than the individual.

I'll term it polarizing insulation.

That is an interesting insight. :thumbsup:

(Preventing this effect is one of the benefits of diversity in the workplace. Group-think can prevent you from seeing reality as it is and applying an appropriate solution to your problem.)

In some ways I think the Internet can increase that effect by bringing even more like-minded people together.

 

[alcoholbob]

What is humans > volcanoes?

 

[Paratus]

What is humans > volcanoes?

I believe it's stating humans currently contribute more to climate change than volcanoes. That's a true statement that 52% of Dems believe to be true but only 26% of Tea Partiers believe to be true.

 

[sandorski]

What is humans > volcanoes?

I suspect CO2 Emissions

 

[trenchfoot]

Let's have the Tea Party en masse go to China on one of their nastier smog alert days and have the Tea Party'ers hyperventilate on that toxic mist while they're convincing the Chinese that the smog that's choking everyone over there is not man made and that the blinding choking smog they're getting sick from has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

 

[QuantumPion]

Let's have the Tea Party en masse go to China on one of their nastier smog alert days and have the Tea Party'ers hyperventilate on that toxic mist while they're convincing the Chinese that the smog that's choking everyone over there is not man made and that the blinding choking smog they're getting sick from has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

If the choice is between bad pollution or grinding poverty/subsistence living/starvation, I know which one I would chose. And I know which one you would chose too.

 

[soulcougher73]

If the choice is between bad pollution or grinding poverty/subsistence living/starvation, I know which one I would chose. And I know which one you would chose too.

I'd choose starvation etc. Cull the population down to a more manageable size 🙂

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ok, this is an incredibly biased survey even if the results are accurate, and therefore a terrible study.

Teacher time!

Who knows why?

 

[fskimospy]

If the choice is between bad pollution or grinding poverty/subsistence living/starvation, I know which one I would chose. And I know which one you would chose too.

Even if that were true, and it isn't, the solution being bad doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. There was a study about this recently, where if people find a solution ideogically inconvenient they pretend the problem isn't there.

 

[fskimospy]

Ok, this is an incredibly biased survey even if the results are accurate, and therefore a terrible study.

Teacher time!

Who knows why?

What about it is biased?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What about it is biased?

Let me be more specific and correct my point. The article headline refers to "science". What we find out is that what was researched seems to be environment and evolution and therefore we aren't talking about "science" here, but purposefully selected aspects. OK, we knew this back from forever.

What I would like to see is how each selected group performs in terms of overall scientific understanding broadly approached.

 

[fskimospy]

Let me be more specific and correct my point. The article headline refers to "science". What we find out is that what was researched seems to be environment and evolution and therefore we aren't talking about "science" here, but purposefully selected aspects. OK, we knew this back from forever.

What I would like to see is how each selected group performs in terms of overall scientific understanding broadly approached.

I can see how it might be more useful to mention that this was climate/evolutionary science, but I think they are surveying issues at which there is disagreement. Most of science is fairly uncontroversial; people rarely disagree on whether or not electricity exists.

I think this is a somewhat interesting result in that it's thorough and well broken out, especially considering that this board has a fairly healthy climate change denial community. Research consistently shows that the more ideological you are the more you resist science, and this seems to support that.

 

[thraashman]

Let me be more specific and correct my point. The article headline refers to "science". What we find out is that what was researched seems to be environment and evolution and therefore we aren't talking about "science" here, but purposefully selected aspects. OK, we knew this back from forever.

What I would like to see is how each selected group performs in terms of overall scientific understanding broadly approached.

Well if you can't understand evolution you're already failing Biology as a whole.

I think any rational person can easily see that the Tea Party is wholly made up of raging idiots.

 

[glenn1]

Let me be more specific and correct my point. The article headline refers to "science". What we find out is that what was researched seems to be environment and evolution and therefore we aren't talking about "science" here, but purposefully selected aspects. OK, we knew this back from forever.

What I would like to see is how each selected group performs in terms of overall scientific understanding broadly approached.

More like they're using it as a proxy to measure how respondents adhere to the policy prescriptions either side form from the cited "science." Do you really think progressives give a shit if you believe in evolution so long as you're not trying to get "Intelligent Design" into school curricula? Or conservatives care about your "global warming" opinion if you oppose carbon taxes? Hell, plenty of rabidly partisan people believe in all kinds of scientific flimflam outside their party's mainstream; witness how many blacks have very strongly negative and often unscientific attitudes towards homosexuality.