Poll: New Hampshire Tea Partiers don't trust scientists

a reply to: FlyersFan

Global warming information being accurate or not has nothing to do with the title.

Didn't say it does

What I'm trying to say is - if the Tea Party members don't trust climate scientists - then they don't trust science. Unless you're willing to say that anyone specifically studying climate change is not a real scientist

Which scientists do they trust then - and why?

They're cherry picking. You might as well just come out and say that climate scientists are not REAL scientists

Go ahead - I know you want to

:-)

A bit misleading. The sample population for the 'tea party' isn't actually good is it?

The study states that 2/3 of ALL respondents, trusted scientists.

Only 12% did not.



I actually think these two charst are far more telling:





And this one for the win.



One thing I noticed, there is bi-partisan support for GMO labeling.

~Tenth

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
Their title is correct - at least according to their figures.

What I said was that the title was partisan and misleading ... because it was. The left wing Mother Jones was trying to make it sound like Tea Partiers don't believe scientists in general ... when in fact it was actually focused in on Tea Partiers don't believe environmental scientists ... and in particular the information on global warming being man made. So I stick with the title being misleading. Global warming information being accurate or not has nothing to do with the title.

You are free to see it differently, of course.

If 67% of poll respondents also don't believe in evolution and believe the Earth is roughly 10,000 years old, doesn't that lend a substantial amount of credibility to the Mother Jones title? My opinion is that you're doing the same thing that you claim Mother Jones is doing — cherry picking to support your own partisan position.

Please provide your argument for the following:

Oh .. before someone quotes the 97% of Scientists Agree thing .. that's a hoax. So don't

I'm just interested to see if you've come up with something new that I don't know about since I last saw you make a similar claim in the the ATS global warming poll thread?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
if the Tea Party members don't trust climate scientists - then they don't trust science.

No ... that's a generalizing with a broad brush ...

Not trusting science would mean all science ... all of it. And obviously that's not true.

Not trusting environmental scientists on man made global warming means just that ... not trusting environmental scientists on man made global warming.

To put the blanket statement that 'Tea Party Members Don't Trust Scientists' is partisan and misleading ... it's the left trying to insinuate an idea into the heads of readers that Tea Party Members dont' trust ALL science. The word 'all' isn't there ... but it's insinuated.

I've heard a poster or two here claim that's the kind of tactic the GOP likes to do .. plant snide ideas in peoples heads that aren't true. Well, here's a case of a left wing media doing exactly that. (and yet those who I have heard complain about the GOP doing it are now endorsing when the left wing media does it. Hypocrisy - and no that wasn't aimed at you Spiramirabilis.)

An HONEST headline would have run differently. But we are talking about the media with a political agenda. So no surprise.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Please provide your argument for the following:

Already Did And as always ... you are free to agree or disagree. I have no skin in the game. It's just a discussion.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
One thing I noticed, there is bi-partisan support for GMO labeling.

Check this out -
ATS Thread 1/2 of Americans Believe in Medical Conspiracies
And those that do believe are slapped with some pretty heavy psycho-labels.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Well the GMO thing is legit. We should know whats in our food, period. Nothing to do with science propaganda, which I admit there is a lot of.

The problem these days is that science is now a business. It was one of the only institutions that didn't have a profit motive till Al Gore showed up basically.

Now it does and Fox news among others reap the benefits.

~Tenth

a reply to: FlyersFan

An HONEST headline would have run differently.

An honest headline would have said: It appears that Tea Party Members don't trust Scientists that believe in man-made climate change - but they still mostly trust other scientists that believe in other stuff

:-)

It is what it is Flyers - and there is plenty of spin to go around - true. My first post in this thread pretty much says it all: doesn't matter anymore. To debate this borders on insanity. What people believe is one thing - but facts is facts

We can call these facts into question however much or often we wish - but this is already what science does best - with or without a popular blessing

Unless - you don't trust science

To suggest that so many professionals are in cahoots over some kind of ginormous worldwide scam seems (at least to me) to be a little nutty - and self-delusional

Just a little bit

:-)

a reply to: tothetenthpower
Oh man you said it so well. I wish we had applause to hand out. Science has become a business. Those who have 'findings' that are in line with what corporations want ... they are the ones to get the grants ... and those scientists are the ones who get to be published. Dissenting findings and views are hidden away.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
To suggest that so many professionals are in cahoots over some kind of ginormous worldwide scam seems (at least to me) to be a little nutty - and self-delusional

As I said ... You are more than welcome to have that opinion. However, please take a look at what Tothetenthpower posted, and my response. It's all about money. Grants. Who gets published. Al Gores carbon credit scam. Politics. And which companies politicians are personally invested in. That's my opinion at this time. We can have opposite opinions on the matter and still be civil. No problem.

This is one of those topics of "why did we need a poll for this"?

Of course Tea Partiers don't trust science...I'm not sure why anyone would even try to argue against that, it is pretty much part of their party platform.

It's not just "climate science" that they don't trust as some are trying to suggest. It's no secret the Tea Party is extreme Christian Right Wing. We don't need a poll to know the following, they come right out and say it.

1. They don't trust geologist, because the world isn't older than 6000 years according to them
2. They don't trust astronomers or astrophysicists, because the universe isn't older than 6000 years old according to them
3. They don't trust paleontologists, because dinosaurs didn't really exist.
4. They don't trust biologists, because evolution doesn't exist.
5. And finally, they don't trust climate scientist, because they don't think massive amounts of pollution have any effect on our climate.

This is just a small sample set, I'm sure there are many other areas of "science" that they don't agree with.

Oh wait...if the last election is any indicator...they don't believe in mathematics and polling either...because they were sure Obama was going to lose by a landslide despite what the polls indicated.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Not trusting science would mean all science ... all of it. And obviously that's not true.

Not trusting environmental scientists on man made global warming means just that ... not trusting environmental scientists on man made global warming.

To put the blanket statement that 'Tea Party Members Don't Trust Scientists' is partisan and misleading ... it's the left trying to insinuate an idea into the heads of readers that Tea Party Members dont' trust ALL science. The word 'all' isn't there ... but it's insinuated.

Again. What about the 67% who believe the earth is about 10,000 years old and do not believe in evolution? You're choosing to only address the one question from the poll because acknowledging the other contradicts your own assertions.

Believing that the Earth is 10,000 years old and not believing in evolution requires a pretty broad distrust in science.

How is that not an inescapable conclusion?

a reply to: FlyersFan

At the end of the day here's the two issues I see with Climate Change.

1. The climate is going to hell in a hand basket.

2. We pollute the earth at an ever increasing rate.

We contribute to the trend of worsening climate. We are certainly NOT the cause of it. Nor do we need a system that rewards some and penalizes others for pollution based on the ideas of economists and law makers.

What we need is a consensus that pollution is bad Mkay. As well as a plan to not only work on solutions to overcome our polluting ways, but also a way to help stabilize the climate if at all possible.

Scientists ALL agree, regardless of which side they are one, that the climate is a problem. We need to focus less on who to blame and more on what to do about it.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

The problem these days is that science is now a business.

Or, business has learned how to cash in on science

I know that's splitting hairs - but I think it's an important difference

Art and artist are not exactly the same thing - and a product is up for grabs once it exists

In all of this - politics and money will always be there to muddy the waters

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

The scientists are as guilty as the corporations who fund them IMO.

I can't for the life of be believe that the kind of intellectuals that conduct this research are oblivious to the political and economic game being played.

Corporations have all the money and research costs a bunch of money. We've basically set it up so that Corporations have the only true voice in all of our society.

Politics, science, religion and the list goes on and on.

~Tenth

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: tothetenthpower
Oh man you said it so well. I wish we had applause to hand out. Science has become a business. Those who have 'findings' that are in line with what corporations want ... they are the ones to get the grants ... and those scientists are the ones who get to be published. Dissenting findings and views are hidden away.

- Science has become a business for deniers too has it not? Doesn't the Heartland Institute pay for opinions?
- Is this the same justification you'd use for 67% of TPers disbelieving evolution and believing that the Earth is about 10,000 years old?

a reply to: FlyersFan

What is it that convinces you to trust the big money energy giants (among others) over environmental scientists?

Sincere question

Al Gore rubs a lot of people the wrong way - as do environmentalists in general

Who stands to make the most money off of which end of this argument?

Anyhow, the reality of all this will become more and more obvious - while our opportunity to try and mitigate the effects of any of this will pass us by while we argue about how much we hate Al Gore...

a reply to: theantediluvian

Is this the same justification you'd use for 67% of TPers disbelieving evolution and believing that the Earth is about 10,000 years old?

Ken Ham has made a living as a " Creationist Scientist ".

So yes, it works on both sides of the aisle.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I can't for the life of be believe that the kind of intellectuals that conduct this research are oblivious to the political and economic game being played.

As a friend of mine here so often says - follow the money

Someone is bound to make some green off the green movement - true. Capitalism at it's finest - and all that

But, in the bigger picture - I'm not seeing a world full of 1 Percent Scientists

:-)

But, maybe I'm just naive...

a reply to: tothetenthpower
There ya ' go .... common sense.

Common sense ... we need to stop wallowing in our own muck.
Common sense ... climate change happens naturally. We may or may not contribute to it.
Common sense ... try to clean up after ourselves.
Common sense ... the planet is over populated and we don't have enough resources.
Common sense ... dont' buy into politicians pushing gimmicks like 'carbon tax credits'

All common sense.