Poll: New Hampshire Tea Partiers don't trust scientists

a reply to: Spiramirabilis
VERY TRUE.

Like I said ... I'm just saying that I think the headlines are typically partisan. Others are free to disagree. It's okay. It's not worth a spitting contest over. It's just a conversation.

a reply to: FlyersFan

True - this is what genuine conversation can accomplish. Middle ground

We move forward by meeting in the middle - not the fringe

originally posted by: FlyersFan

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.

From your source:

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

No bias there.

You realize that you criticized science for being a business and then you posted an op-ed in Forbes from a Florida lawyer, James M. Taylor, who is the head of the Heartland Institute's global warming denial initiative? An organization that pays global warming deniers with money from the oil and coal industries? I'm only pointing this out because you seemed to have a real problem with the OP's citing of Mother Jones and you've also made the following statement while (apparently) attempting to discredit climatologists who aren't deniers:

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.

Setting all of that aside. Mr. Taylor, master spin doctor, attacks a single study (Cook's) on the grounds that the poll question is "irrelevant" and "meaningless" (his opinion) though interestingly he concedes, (in his opinion) that "most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming" (creating his own false dichotomy — anyone who disagrees is an 'alarmist') and that there were an indeterminate number of misclassifications of papers as claimed by the "investigative journalists" at populartechnology.net, a right wing blog site.

Let's just pretend that this is all unbiased information. How far off were Cook and the volunteer reviewers at Skeptical Science? Was it more than a reasonable margin of error?

Also from the Forbes op-ed by paid James M. Taylor:

These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.

So there are other surveys? Well hell then, let's just toss out Skeptical Science's "feeble" "survey." What about the studies by Oreskes, Peiser, Doran and Anderegg?

Surely there most be some "surveys" out there that support the opposing position that Mr. Taylor is being paid to promote?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
An organization that pays global warming deniers with money from the oil and coal industries? ...

Ah yes ... the ol' 'deniers' lingo. Funny.

Dude ... keep up with the thread. Everyone is being paid by everyone. The scientists get paid for 'findings' that go a certain way; in favor of man made global warming in this case. Those are the ones that get $$ Funding. And only those who have 'findings' in that direction get published. That's where the money is. So that's what they find. 'Finding's that don't match that, lose funding and don't get published.

So naturally corporations are going to fund studies that show those scientists wrong.

It's a big swampy mess. It's very easy to find 'facts' pointing in one direction or the other. It's very easy to follow the money back on both sides of this ... back to sources that have their own interests in mind.

As I very politely said .... I find the title of this article to be partisan and misleading. Tothetenthpower posted information backing up that position. And as I said ... you are free to think the title is accurate. Whatever.

The important things .... We are wallowing in our own filth and should try to clean up the planet; climate change is natural and humans may/may not be contributing; don't fall for environmental scams by politicians and corporations that are really just opportunists lining their own pockets .. like Al Gores Carbon Credit Scam. Find the common ground that everyone can agree with. Work from there.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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?

No, believing that the Earth is 10,000 years old and not believing evolution requires a lack of understanding of science. I trust science. I trust the scientific method. But I don't see why scientists should be considered more trustworthy than any other group of people, especially when money or ideology is involved. I wouldn't trust Josef Mengele, and I don't trust any scientist that says that the solution to climate change is to give governments more fiat currency.

Would you?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Funny video, part of the problem is now most deniers also don't believe the over 95% of scientist support climate change caused by humans. Climate change is fact but they portray it as theory.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Dude ... keep up with the thread.

You mean fall in line with your attempt to turn this thread into a debate over the Mother Jones headline? No thanks.

The result of the poll question about evolution and the age of the Earth makes it abundantly clear that a majority of self-described "Tea Partiers" who participated in this poll, disagree with science on a lot more than climate change, regardless of their more specific distrust of "environmental scientists."

Your assumption is that not denying a majority contribution by human beings to climate change is an automatic support of Al Gore and carbon credits. Seems like a typical partisan-driven false dichotomy to me. I agree that we need to clean up after ourselves though so maybe we can protect the fragile egos on the right and frame the issue a different way that is less threatening because it hasn't been tainted by Al Gore's involvement. In the case of Tea Partiers, I'd suggest something like:

"Taking care of God's 10,000 year-old gift to man"

don't fall for environmental scams by politicians and corporations that are really just opportunists lining their own pockets

Don't fall for climate change denial scams by politicians and corporations that are really just opportunists lining their own pockets.

a reply to: theantediluvian
Whatever dude. I disagree. But you are welcome to your opinion.

Why would anyone trust an employee who gets big fat paychecks from globalists to help further their tax agenda? Sounds like the Tea Party people are fairly smart and using some common sense.

Just a few things because I'm going to be irritated all day if I don't comment (for the little it's worth around here).

1) The by-line of the article is:
"The "science gap" between traditional Republicans and tea partiers is huge in a new survey of New Hampshire residents."

2) The Cook et al paper is not a hoax. It's an easily, though time consuming, replicable "survey". Anyone can go through the abstracts of the 11K+ published papers on climate change and see that AGW is labeled as the cause in 97% of them. Furthermore, let's apply a little common sense to the notion that there's no consensus... Where is the rest of the ENTIRE body of scientists denying there's a consensus? I know there's a few actual scientists that do actual research that states global warming won't lead to catastrophe but I'm pretty sure they could be counted on one hand. Anywho...

3) Climate scientists don't make a lot of money. For anyone interested here's an article on the subject.

4) Whatever, it's too late to do anything to stop it now anyway.

originally posted by: Fylgje
Why would anyone trust an employee who gets big fat paychecks from globalists to help further their tax agenda? Sounds like the Tea Party people are fairly smart and using some common sense.

(Facepalm)

What about people like me that don't aspire to any political party, but having worked in and around the federal govt for 43 years, I know for a fact desired outcomes as published by direction of the funding stream source will receive more funding the next year with a COLA.

What about people like me that know for a fact, working inside it every day since 1971 that scientists, priests, admirals, and everyone else will always choose the path of least resistance and say or do whatever it takes to maintain the normal flow of a job to get it funded next fiscal year.

a reply to: Kali74

4) Whatever, it's too late to do anything to stop it now anyway.

I guess it's time to make "final arrangements" then ?

Especially if Mother Nature is at the helm.

a reply to: xuenchen

We're fine ish, it's future generations that will be screwed.

Of all places to hear people complain about this poll, this ATS is the last place I would expect much complaining. How many people here trust scientists?

GMOs
Big Pharma
"Global Warming"
and so on.

I don't consider myself a "Tea Partier" but I sure as heck don't trust a lot of scientists, everyone in this world seems to have ulterior motives at present.

I find it funny when people openly disagree with scientists and think science is a load of bologna. If it weren't for scientists we wouldn't have even something as essential in every day life today like the computer, the phone, or electricity for that matter. These people distrust scientists, yet they don't distrust or openly mock the inventions scientists have created over the years that benefit their own daily lives.

But I will say that there are some scumbag "scientists" out there who are not scientists. They'd be more of manipulators. They make up phony garbage (usually when they are paid by a certain corporation/group) to find out the effects of their products/services. Needless to say their so-called "science" usually always backs up what the people are paying them are saying. I wonder why that is?

And due to that, it gives science a bad rep. sometimes. Much like how theologists turn the other cheek when their own members go around doing idiotic things in their name.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg
scientists and learned men for decades swore that smoking was safe
scientists and learned men swear that GMOs are safe
scientists and learned men felt open air nuke testing was safe.
scientists and learned men told everyone thalidomide was safe.
scientists and learned men felt it acceptable to infect humans with various diseases such as syphilis and observe the effects instead of treating
scientists and learned men felt that measuring skull size and topography were grounds for racial persecution

science is one of the most powerful tool in humankinds possession. However, it is conducted by human beings. Subject to personal bias, jealousy, and yes greed.
So when scientists whos funding, career advancement, and self worth is tied to validating a particular theory, don't be in too big a rush to just believe them.
The "elite" and big corporations that leftists and OWS types claim to distrust and hate, are poised to make fortunes that will make oil look like small change, and crush individual freedoms....provided that the world accepts their climate change agenda. How is it that a there are already hundreds of BILLIONS tied up in carbon exchange programs all based on a theory not already proven? Not a formula for cold, dispassionate, and unbiased study and analysis.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Why should you trust them? What have they done to earn your trust? How many times in history has science later proved itself wrong?

I'll tell you why you shouldn't trust them. Anytime someone says 97-99% of any community agrees on any one thing, you should pause and say WTF? When could 99% of anyone believe in anything unless it was fascist in origin.

Just my thoughts.

Recently I've read 3 articles that stated the antarctic ice sheet was going to melt and raise the sea level by 10', 12', and 15'. There was absolutely nothing that could be done to change it. Have you seen any reaction from any Government around this scientific doom porn? NO, you haven't. Have you seen any reaction from insurance companies, devaluation of property along coast lines. No, you haven't. So before anyone says it is only conservatives who believe Global Warming isn't real, then you should look at your local and state governments, and what they haven't done. Or follow the market and see if insurance companies or property managers are relocating their positions to better locations. When businesses start to believe its real, or local governments start planning to how to keep the water out. I'll change my tune.

Just my thoughts. It just don't add up, but who knows they might be right.

a reply to: Stuship

Actually I'm an insurance journalist, and the reinsurance companies have been worrying about global climate change for decades now.

a reply to: robobbob

scientists and learned men for decades swore that smoking was safe

Consensus was that smoking caused cancer. One or two scientists, a bunch of lawyers and 'experts' claimed smoking was safe.

scientists and learned men swear that GMOs are safe

Not enough scientists outside of agri-tech have studied long term effects of GMO consumption. I personally, don't like GMOs (marching against Monsanto on Saturday) but so far what has been looked at, there's no evidence that GMOs are bad for you... personally I don't think enough time has passed to make that judgement.

scientists and learned men felt open air nuke testing was safe.

Same as with smoking, a few scientists... many lawyers and 'experts'. Most scientists were against weaponizing nuclear energy.

In each case it's essentially the same story, a few scientists, many lawyers and 'experts'. No one is ever going to get 'oil rich' and the oil rich will stop accumulating trillions, that's why the consensus on global warming is railed against so hard.