Solfeggio, it is of supreme irony that your thread title asserts that “conservatives” have an “anti-intellectual ideology” when you apparently didn’t even bother to read and understand the study that is being written about in the article you linked to. I mean, what’s more “anti-intellectual” than that?

Apr 3, 2012 -- 10:01PM, rangerken wrote:

A lot of us who are conservatives, AND also scientists, separate science and religion easily.

I think Gauchat’s paper inadvertently says something extremely unflattering about the group of people today who self-identify as “liberal” or Democrat. As Gauchat makes clear in his extensive irrelevant discussion, of the the three political groups, it seems to be self-identifying “liberals”/Democrats who, for some reason, wish to perceive themselves conforming to “science” to a greater degree than do “conservatives”/Republicans. But this is precisely what Gauchat’s data do not show.

I suspect that similarly educated people who identify under (or as) various political ideologies would demonstrate about the same scientific literacy, especially on subjects such as physics, chemistry and biology.  

Apr 4, 2012 -- 3:16PM, mindis1 wrote:

Apr 2, 2012 -- 5:01PM, vra wrote:

The data here is really not new at all as studies that I saw back in the '60's and since pretty much saying the same thing.  

Well, the data that are the subject of Gauchat’s study, from the General Social Surveys from 1974 to 2010, do indicate a change in the opinions expressed (at least using Gauchat’s method of analysis). Specifically, in the earliest surveys, people self-identifying as “conservative” or Republican expressed the highest degree of confidence in “the people running the institutions” of “the Scientific Community,” compared to people identifying as “moderate”/”independent” and “liberal” or Democrat. There is no significant difference in the answers to the question asked between “conservatives”/Republicans and “liberals”/Democrats until well into the 1990s; and “moderates”/”independents” show no difference with "conservatives"/Republicans after 1998. See Figure 1:  www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/...So, if one were to use these data to conclude something derogatory about self-identifying “conservatives”/Republicans today, then certainly one needs to conclude the same derogatory thing about “moderates”/”independents” and “liberals”/Democrats throughout most of the period of these surveys. Does one conclude from these data that “conservatives” have an “anti-intellectual ideology,” as the thread title claims? Then an “anti-intellectual ideology” is what “moderates” and “liberals” have had throughout most of the period from 1974 to 2010.

The thing is that the question asked really has nothing to do with a person’s degree of “intellectualness” or beliefs about “science” or conclusions drawn using the scientific method. The question concerns a person’s “confidence” in “the people running the institutions” that are claimed to represent “the Scientific Community”. Indeed, expressing blind faith in public personalities is, to my mind, about as far from expressing something akin to a scientific attitude as one can get. Gauchat doesn’t say who were “the people running the institutions” that were asked about. I might not express “confidence” in the people that were asked about. Who are the people “running the institutions” that supposedly represent “the Scientific Community” today? Name names. Who are the people “running the institutions” of “the Scientific Community” whom you have a high degree of confidence in?

The other biggie problem is that Gauchat really had to assault the numbers in order to get a statistically significant group-specific change over time. His first two methods for specifying the time variable did not yield a statistically significant change over time among the groups. He doesn’t bother to give any detail of the method he eventually used to get a statistically significant group-change result. His only statistical test seems to be a determination that the time variable was auto-correlated.

The fact of the matter is that there has without any doubt whatsoever been global warming over the last century that has been verified by hard data (actual measurments and not estimates), and the researchers are 90-95% certain that it is mostly due to higher levels or CO2 in our atmosphere.

I am sure that someone who abides by the principles of the scientific method would not just throw out “facts” or “statistics” that s/he cannot substantiate. On the basis of what evidence did “the researchers” arrive at this 90-95% certainty that “global warming over the last century. . .is mostly due to higher levels of CO2 in our atmosphere”? Can you link to this evidence that provokes such terrific certainty?

When you say that “global warming over the last century . . . has been verified by hard data (actual measurements and not estimates),” are you claiming that what the IPCC calls data that have been “adjusted” for “inhomogeneities” are “hard data” or “estimates”?  

If it were true that data that have not been “adjusted” for “inhomogeneities” demonstrate “global warming,” then why does the IPCC only use data that have been “adjusted” for “inhomogeneities”?

Let’s look at some of the raw, “unadjusted” data of the Global Historic Climate Network (GHCN). See Figure 4 here:  wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoki... Why doesn’t that smoothed red line show warming from 1880 to 2000? I think Australia has been part of the globe for the past 120 years.

More importantly, how do you explain why that smoothed red line doesn’t at least track the ever-increasing atmospheric CO2 levels of the 20^th century?

There's nothing in the above worth responding to other than this short response largely because the data is out there through reputable scientific sites like NASA, Scientific American, the National Academy of the Sciences, the Rio Conference, etc.  If one wants to cherry pick other sites, that's their choice, but I've been viewing studies from the above sources and plenty more for several decades now, and I don't need those with political and/or religious agendas to try and tell me what I've long seen. 

There's terrific importance for the peer-review process, which is not at all an attempt for conformity but a process of building and/or tearing down as the evidence allows.  Non-scientists may prefer their own sources, but I'll stick to what the evidence, cross-checked through peer-review sources, is telling us.

Apr 4, 2012 -- 3:57PM, mindis1 wrote:

Apr 4, 2012 -- 3:47PM, vra wrote:

Apr 4, 2012 -- 3:16PM, mindis1 wrote:

Apr 2, 2012 -- 5:01PM, vra wrote:

The data here is really not new at all as studies that I saw back in the '60's and since pretty much saying the same thing.  

Well, the data that are the subject of Gauchat’s study, from the General Social Surveys from 1974 to 2010, do indicate a change in the opinions expressed (at least using Gauchat’s method of analysis). Specifically, in the earliest surveys, people self-identifying as “conservative” or Republican expressed the highest degree of confidence in “the people running the institutions” of “the Scientific Community,” compared to people identifying as “moderate”/”independent” and “liberal” or Democrat. There is no significant difference in the answers to the question asked between “conservatives”/Republicans and “liberals”/Democrats until well into the 1990s; and “moderates”/”independents” show no difference with "conservatives"/Republicans after 1998. See Figure 1:  www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/...So, if one were to use these data to conclude something derogatory about self-identifying “conservatives”/Republicans today, then certainly one needs to conclude the same derogatory thing about “moderates”/”independents” and “liberals”/Democrats throughout most of the period of these surveys. Does one conclude from these data that “conservatives” have an “anti-intellectual ideology,” as the thread title claims? Then an “anti-intellectual ideology” is what “moderates” and “liberals” have had throughout most of the period from 1974 to 2010.

The thing is that the question asked really has nothing to do with a person’s degree of “intellectualness” or beliefs about “science” or conclusions drawn using the scientific method. The question concerns a person’s “confidence” in “the people running the institutions” that are claimed to represent “the Scientific Community”. Indeed, expressing blind faith in public personalities is, to my mind, about as far from expressing something akin to a scientific attitude as one can get. Gauchat doesn’t say who were “the people running the institutions” that were asked about. I might not express “confidence” in the people that were asked about. Who are the people “running the institutions” that supposedly represent “the Scientific Community” today? Name names. Who are the people “running the institutions” of “the Scientific Community” whom you have a high degree of confidence in?

The other biggie problem is that Gauchat really had to assault the numbers in order to get a statistically significant group-specific change over time. His first two methods for specifying the time variable did not yield a statistically significant change over time among the groups. He doesn’t bother to give any detail of the method he eventually used to get a statistically significant group-change result. His only statistical test seems to be a determination that the time variable was auto-correlated.

The fact of the matter is that there has without any doubt whatsoever been global warming over the last century that has been verified by hard data (actual measurments and not estimates), and the researchers are 90-95% certain that it is mostly due to higher levels or CO2 in our atmosphere.

I am sure that someone who abides by the principles of the scientific method would not just throw out “facts” or “statistics” that s/he cannot substantiate. On the basis of what evidence did “the researchers” arrive at this 90-95% certainty that “global warming over the last century. . .is mostly due to higher levels of CO2 in our atmosphere”? Can you link to this evidence that provokes such terrific certainty?

When you say that “global warming over the last century . . . has been verified by hard data (actual measurements and not estimates),” are you claiming that what the IPCC calls data that have been “adjusted” for “inhomogeneities” are “hard data” or “estimates”?  

If it were true that data that have not been “adjusted” for “inhomogeneities” demonstrate “global warming,” then why does the IPCC only use data that have been “adjusted” for “inhomogeneities”?

Let’s look at some of the raw, “unadjusted” data of the Global Historic Climate Network (GHCN). See Figure 4 here:  wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoki... Why doesn’t that smoothed red line show warming from 1880 to 2000? I think Australia has been part of the globe for the past 120 years.

More importantly, how do you explain why that smoothed red line doesn’t at least track the ever-increasing atmospheric CO2 levels of the 20^th century?

There's nothing in the above worth responding to other than this short response largely because the data is out there through reputable scientific sites like NASA, Scientific American, the National Academy of the Sciences, the Rio Conference, etc.  

I believe the reason you have not answered any of my questions is because you cannot substantiate what you've claimed, which is in direct contrast to someone who abides by the principles of the scientific method.  Obviously there is nothing "unworthy" about responding to the questions I asked.   

Well, even the evidence you're supplying with the above statement suggests to me that you are so willing to jump to any conclusion that suits your fancy.  Secondly, a blog, such as you posted above, is not peer-reviewed and certainly not a recognized scientific source.  Thirdly, believe in what you want, but I have no interest in arguing with blogs and other politically-motivated nonsense, so I'd much rather discuss science with those who actually are willing to deal with science. 

There is always conflict between science and religion. 

Science deals with material realities, whereas religions occupy themselves with intangible issues. 

In other words, religions are based on faith and personal experiences which cannot be objectively verified, but science rejects statements not supported by facts.

Religions preach dogma, whilst science is always progressive in its theories.

And, of course, religions always look backward, when scientific thinking looks to the future.

Then, you've got religions claiming that moral set values that never change, whilst scientists would argue that of course they do.