Tea Party vs Republican Comparison on Opinions of Science/Environment

[glenn1]

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.

So says the person whose side on the climate change argument frequently relies on a Pascal's Wager appeal to why we should implement all the changes you support.

 

[Atreus21]

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.

There is some irony, then, that science has been co-opted precisely for its ideological utility. On both sides.

 

[fskimospy]

So says the person whose side on the climate change argument frequently relies on a Pascal's Wager appeal to why we should implement all the changes you support.

I most certainly don't rely on that in any way, shape, or form.

 

[fskimospy]

There is some irony, then, that science has been co-opted precisely for its ideological utility. On both sides.

There is absolutely no equivalence in the case of climate change. Frankly, I can't think of any case where there is such an equivalence. Can you provide an example?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

Believe it or not there is more to science than evolution, and I'm fairly certain I have a decent grasp of that topic. Evolution is a non-issue for me, but you've gone beyond that and insisted that the Tea Party is "wholly" made up of idiots based on the understanding of one topic. It may be "a" metric, however I'd like you to demonstrate a logical connection between evolution and let's say physics based on the information at hand. Idiots they may be when applying "science" as a criteria per the article title I know there's a whole lot to be considered. That's why I said I'd like to see a less biased study, something more intellectual than political.

 

[thraashman]

Believe it or not there is more to science than evolution, and I'm fairly certain I have a decent grasp of that topic. Evolution is a non-issue for me, but you've gone beyond that and insisted that the Tea Party is "wholly" made up of idiots based on the understanding of one topic. It may be "a" metric, however I'd like you to demonstrate a logical connection between evolution and let's say physics based on the information at hand. Idiots they may be when applying "science" as a criteria per the article title I know there's a whole lot to be considered. That's why I said I'd like to see a less biased study, something more intellectual than political.

I am by no means saying they're idiots based on one topic. I am saying they're idiots because they're idiots, we just happen to be talking about one topic. And in this topic, like in EVERY other topic, they're fucking idiots.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I am by no means saying they're idiots based on one topic. I am saying they're idiots because they're idiots, we just happen to be talking about one topic. And in this topic, like in EVERY other topic, they're fucking idiots.

They're idiots. No problem. I was thinking about this in terms of a scientific curiosity perspective and when I see a claim which uses selected bias to reach a forgone conclusion it annoys me somewhat. I was hoping for something more generally enlightening.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I struggle with the word "mainly" caused by human activities and usage of this as a "scientific" litmus test for intelligence...I don't think we really know this with absolute certainty, especially since many, many relatively recent studies are indicating much less sensitivity to CO2 than previously thought.

 

[IronWing]

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

Tea partiers are normal Republicans. The Republicans like to play a bad cop - bat shit crazy cop game amongst themselves but they are still all normal Republicans.

 

[DrPizza]

Believe it or not there is more to science than evolution, and I'm fairly certain I have a decent grasp of that topic. Evolution is a non-issue for me, but you've gone beyond that and insisted that the Tea Party is "wholly" made up of idiots based on the understanding of one topic. It may be "a" metric, however I'd like you to demonstrate a logical connection between evolution and let's say physics based on the information at hand. Idiots they may be when applying "science" as a criteria per the article title I know there's a whole lot to be considered. That's why I said I'd like to see a less biased study, something more intellectual than political.

I see no reason not to suspect that being wrong about very accepted and widely known facts is a pretty good indicator of their overall scientific knowledge. If someone doesn't believe that 2+2=5, it doesn't matter how good they are at doing, say, a geometric proof. I'm still going to consider them to be bad at math.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

They're idiots. No problem. I was thinking about this in terms of a scientific curiosity perspective and when I see a claim which uses selected bias to reach a forgone conclusion it annoys me somewhat. I was hoping for something more generally enlightening.

I wish they had asked these groups what percentage of global warming was caused by mankind instead of trying to manipulate this into something black & white. This gives the appearance that the "researchers" were intentionally trying to skew the result and/or have little or no knowledge of the uncertainties involved.

 

[Subyman]

I'm trying to figure out the bottom graph. So the higher educated tea party members are more likely to disagree with global warming? That's pretty funny..

The best part is how much people think they understand the issue, with 83% of tea party members having a "great understanding" of global warming.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm trying to figure out the bottom graph. So the higher educated tea party members are more likely to disagree with global warming? That's pretty funny..

No...that's not anything close to what the graph says.

 

[feralkid]

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

Can I have your stuff?

 

[fskimospy]

I wish they had asked these groups what percentage of global warming was caused by mankind instead of trying to manipulate this into something black & white. This gives the appearance that the "researchers" were intentionally trying to skew the result and/or have little or no knowledge of the uncertainties involved.

It's hard to think of a less biased way to ask the question than the researchers did. This survey is actually a good example of how to craft excellent questions. More people should look to it. Your quotations around "researchers" is a poor attempt to discredit them and your accusation of bias seems to have no grounding in reality.

Not only are these questions held constant over time, allowing for a longitudinal analysis, attempting to have lay people quantify a specific amount of climate change attributable to humans would 1.) not provide additional understanding of the topic and 2.) probably confuse those being surveyed. Their way was much better.

The questions asked were simple, which do you agree with:

1. Climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities.
2. Climate change is happening now, but caused mainly by natural forces.
3. Climate change is not happening now.

Simple, clear, and easy. That's what you want from a question.

Same goes for the status of the science:
1. Most scientists agree that climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities.
2. There is little agreement among scientists whether climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities.

If you look at the questions, they keep the wording consistent with only the decisive words being changed. This is a good example of how to make a good survey question. I'm sorry if their well made survey tells you things you don't want to hear.

 

[Paratus]

I see no reason not to suspect that being wrong about very accepted and widely known facts is a pretty good indicator of their overall scientific knowledge. If someone doesn't believe that 2+2=5, it doesn't matter how good they are at doing, say, a geometric proof. I'm still going to consider them to be bad at math.

Dr P. You may want to check that last statement. :awe:

 

[fskimospy]

No...that's not anything close to what the graph says.

That's pretty close to what the graph says.

It says the more education a tea partier has, the less likely they are to accept the conclusions of science as to climate change, which is that it is happening, caused mainly by human activities.

 

[Retro Rob]

There's more to science than climate change like there's more to liquids than water.

 

[dank69]

No...that's not anything close to what the graph says.

Not anything close? That's almost exactly what that chart says. The only difference being that is seems to be specifically asking whether man is the cause. Not sure how you get "not anything close."

 

[Zorba]

There is absolutely no equivalence in the case of climate change. Frankly, I can't think of any case where there is such an equivalence. Can you provide an example?

The only thing I can really think of is the PC crowd is pretty against the idea of race/gender affecting abilities, especially WRT intelligence. Which is funny, since it is generally that crowd that strongly believe homosexuality is genetic.

But I have no idea how anyone can be against "Conserving resources." That question, more than any other, I think just shows how lowly the tea partiers are.

The whole survey does show an issue with "equal time debate" on "news" programs to some extent in schools. For example, the idea that volcanoes have more environmental impact the humans, this has been disproven for a long time and it isn't even close, but lie that "one volcano releases more CO2 than all humans ever" gets repeated all the time.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

What is humans > volcanoes?

A bigoted value judgment against ruptured magma chambers.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

But I have no idea how anyone can be against "Conversing resources." That question, more than any other, I think just shows how lonely the tea partiers are.

You never just sit and talk to your gas line?

 

[fskimospy]

The only thing I can really think of is the PC crowd is pretty against the idea of race/gender affecting abilities, especially WRT intelligence. Which is funny, since it is generally that crowd that strongly believe homosexuality is genetic.

But I have no idea how anyone can be against "Conversing resources." That question, more than any other, I think just shows how lonely the tea partiers are.

The whole survey does show an issue with "equal time debate" on "news" programs to some extent in schools. For example, the idea that volcanoes have more environmental impact the humans, this has been disproven for a long time and it isn't even close, but lie that "one volcano releases more CO2 than all humans ever" gets repeated all the time.

I'm not so sure about the race/gender thing, if for no other reason than we can't even decide on a common definition of what intelligence is.

 

[boomerang]

I've had enough Grubering for this life. I'm not entertaining it anymore.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's hard to think of a less biased way to ask the question than the researchers did. This survey is actually a good example of how to craft excellent questions. More people should look to it. Your quotations around "researchers" is a poor attempt to discredit them and your accusation of bias seems to have no grounding in reality.

Not only are these questions held constant over time, allowing for a longitudinal analysis, attempting to have lay people quantify a specific amount of climate change attributable to humans would 1.) not provide additional understanding of the topic and 2.) probably confuse those being surveyed. Their way was much better.

The questions asked were simple, which do you agree with:

1. Climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities.
2. Climate change is happening now, but caused mainly by natural forces.
3. Climate change is not happening now.

Simple, clear, and easy. That's what you want from a question.

Same goes for the status of the science:
1. Most scientists agree that climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities.
2. There is little agreement among scientists whether climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities.

If you look at the questions, they keep the wording consistent with only the decisive words being changed. This is a good example of how to make a good survey question. I'm sorry if their well made survey tells you things you don't want to hear.

I would like to see a 3rd option...Climate change is happening now, caused by both human activities and natural forces.