# Tea Partiers Are Well Versed in Science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 18, 2013, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574 "2013-10-18T13:53:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Bill\_F](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@Bill\_F](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_F)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2013, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/101 "2013-11-09T00:37:45Z")
Nope, any engineer is always in favor of the ECONOMIC solution that leads to greater efficiency in use of any energy. What we are not in favor of is extremely costly solutions that aren’t affordable and don’t actualy solve a problem. LIke massive solar cell farms at 10 times the cost of regular electricity. And why do I oppose this? Because solar is still too inefficient and extremely costly. Recent work, the flexible cell for example, is one of the breakthroughs needed. I would certainly fund research in that area. But multi billion dollar solar factories. Well we saw how well that worked out. Funding fuel cells is also a good idea. Ones that would use Natural gas, well that would be even better. Ones that use hydrogen require an infrastructure that doesn’t exist. Literally, you’d have to make the hydrogen, reforming of natural gas is one way. Electrolysis is another and 80% of our electricity comes from coal… so reallyi… its like burning coal in a car. All of this to avoid hauling 1000 pounds of batteries so we can drive 100 miles. Before charging for 8 hours. Nope engineers like to wait for the economic solution. In the meantime we are making stuff lighter and getting efficiency that way. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2013, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/102 "2013-11-09T00:40:47Z")
> [@Bill\_F](#): > > Gigo, > My long reply got lost because it unlogged me in. > It is clear you didn’t read the post. The Geologist discussed the theories of expanding earth and debunked them. But that would have required reading, which, you didn’t do. Actually I did, It is you who does not see that adding that woo woo is a piece of the overall reason why a source is discredited. I decided he was throwing too many bones to the skeptics of plate tectonics: “Personally, I’m intrigued by the implications in the emergence of theories such as expanding earth when used in a persistent campaign to question the validity of the Plate Tectonics model.” In the end his having it both ways, he does remark that “time will tell” meaning that he still thinks there is something on that woo woo idea. > [@Bill\_F](#): > > Also requiring reading was the left hand of the website which had the site owners thoughts on CO2. You missed that, but didn’t miss the fact that he was employed by the oil industry… for 10 years, as a driller. Should he just commit suicide now? But hasn’t worked for them for 6 years? So your reading skills are apparently limited to searching for things that MAY support your argument and not the entire set of facts. Quite typical of the pseudo science you argue so strongly for. > > I’m going to post this and then continue to debunk. And your arguments here are just tap dancing about the other points mentioned, if he is so capable he needs to publish his research and face his science peers. As pointed before, it you the one that is not reading the whole context in the cites from Skeptical Science anyone can see that you r affirmation that they rely on only one source was very much mistaken. Your source is discredited not only for where he is coming from, but also for getting it wrong. For starters he goes for the most simple and wrong of statements, that the greenhouse effect is not there: > [@](#): > > In the real physics of thermodynamics, the measurable thermodynamic properties of common atmospheric gases predict little if any influence on temperature by carbon dioxide concentration and this prediction is confirmed by the inconsistency of temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations in the geological record. Moreover, when the backradiation “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis of Arrhenius is put to a real, physical, material test, such as the Wood Experiment, there is no sign of it because the “Greenhouse Effect” simply does not exist. This is why the “Greenhouse Effect” is excluded from modern physics textbooks and why Arrhenius’ theory of ice ages was so politely forgotten. It is exclusively the “Greenhouse Effect” due to carbon dioxide produced by industry that is used to underpin the claim that humans are changing the climate and causing global warming. However, without the “Greenhouse Effect”, how can anyone honestly describe global warming as “anthropogenic”? Well, this really puts everything that he claims in doubt for the simple reason that in academic settings this is indeed textbook material already: [http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/140/Syllabus.html](http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/140/Syllabus.html) [http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html](http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html) And we have not yet looked at what has been found after Arrhenius, suffice to say, this geologist should know better. [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2013, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/103 "2013-11-09T00:49:04Z")
Bill, you claim that it’s a problem that climate science has become “too politicized”. But you could say the same thing about evolution, vaccination, chemotherapy, chlorofluorocarbons, and any number of other scientific issues. These things are not politicized because their aim was political (global warming was first explored in the 1950s, far before Thatcher) but because they have very real geopolitical repercussions. If CFCs are destroying the ozone layer and causing increases in UV radiation to a point that it would threaten human livelihood, this is a real problem that needs to be dealt with. However, just because one side of the political spectrum sets themselves up against the overwhelming scientific consensus, uses _incredibly_ bad arguments (like the “scientists predicted cooling” argument\*), and manages to stick their dick in the science does not by any means corrupt the real scientific research presented. It’s like throwing out evolution because some congresscritters are bible-thumping morons. As for your actual arguments… Well, it’s hard to take it seriously. You’re bringing up arguments which are utterly vapid (such as the aforementioned “scientists predicted cooling” argument), and aren’t bothering to cite peer-reviewed papers; rather, you’re offering opinion pieces by scientists who may or may not be trustworthy. > [@](#): > > My response is this. Where did the CO2 come from when we weren’t here, weren’t burning fossil fuels? How did the earth heat up back in the years 800 - 1200? CO2 didn’t do it. Yet it was QUITE A BIT warmer. No one takes that on, because it flies in the face. of what you ‘true believers’ like to spout. It was the sun. Posting again. 800-1200? You mean the period commonly (incorrectly) referred to as the “medieval warm period”, during which Europe and eastern North America was very warm, but overall global temperatures were not? Does it matter? The fact is that using carbon dating, we can actually trace the amount of carbon in the atmosphere that is anthropogenic. And the fact is that the models in physics which demonstrate how atmospheric carbon and temperature interact at the most basic level are extremely solid. \*This one is really funny. Analysis of climatology research in the 70s showed around 49 published papers which took a stance on climate change. Of those, 7 predicted cooling, and _42 predicted warming_. What’s more, those who predicted cooling did so based on the assumption that aerosols which blocked sunlight would continue to increase. What happened? Environmental regulation got its shit together and aerosol emission dropped like a rock! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2013, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/104 "2013-11-09T00:50:02Z")
> [@Bill\_F](#): > > Nope engineers like to wait for the economic solution. In the meantime we are making stuff lighter and getting efficiency that way. It is bad when engineers just refuse to look at the actual costs of doing the same. > **[Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong | William D. Nordhaus](https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/03/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/)** > > The threat of climate change is an increasingly important environmental issue for the globe. At a time when we need to clarify public confusions about the science and economics of climate change, skeptics have muddied the waters. I will describe... > [@](#): > > A final point concerns economic analysis. The sixteen scientists argue, citing my research, that economics does not support policies to slow climate change in the next half-century: > > ``` > A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet. > > ``` > > On this point, I do not need to reconstruct how climate scientists made their projections, or review the persecution of Soviet geneticists. I did the research and wrote the book on which they base their statement. The skeptics’ summary is based on poor analysis and on an incorrect reading of the results. > > The first problem is an elementary mistake in economic analysis. The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary cost-benefit and business economics teach that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits (that is, the difference between, and not the ratio of, benefits and costs). > > This point can be seen in a simple example, which would apply in the case of investments to slow climate change. Suppose we were thinking about two policies. Policy A has a small investment in abatement of CO2 emissions. It costs relatively little (say $1 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $10 billion), for a net benefit of $9 billion. Now compare this with a very effective and larger investment, Policy B. This second investment costs more (say $10 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $50 billion), for a net benefit of $40 billion. B is preferable because it has higher net benefits ($40 billion for B as compared with $9 for A), but A has a higher benefit-cost ratio (a ratio of 10 for A as compared with 5 for B). This example shows why we should, in designing the most effective policies, look at benefits minus costs, not benefits divided by costs. > > This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.10 > > My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities. > > One might argue that there are many uncertainties here, and we should wait until the uncertainties are resolved. Yes, there are many uncertainties. That does not imply that action should be delayed. Indeed, my experience in studying this subject for many years is that we have discovered more puzzles and greater uncertainties as researchers dig deeper into the field. There are continuing major questions about the future of the great ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica; the thawing of vast deposits of frozen methane; changes in the circulation patterns of the North Atlantic; the potential for runaway warming; and the impacts of ocean carbonization and acidification. Moreover, our economic models have great difficulties incorporating these major geophysical changes and their impacts in a reliable manner. Policies implemented today serve as a hedge against unsuspected future dangers that suddenly emerge to threaten our economies or environment. So, if anything, the uncertainties would point to a more rather than less forceful policy—and one starting sooner rather than later—to slow climate change. > > The group of sixteen scientists argues that we should avoid alarm about climate change. I am equally concerned by those who allege that we will incur economic catastrophes if we take steps to slow climate change. The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous or disastrous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. We need to approach the issues with a cool head and a warm heart. And with respect for sound logic and good science. And that was William D. Nordhaus, that was elected as the president of the AEA. So, besides relying on a pusher of pseudoscience you also rely on barely reasoned economical points to be against the changes that are needed. And that takes us back to the main subject: No, Tea Partiers are not well versed in science including climate, geological, and even economical. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/105 "2013-11-10T22:00:49Z")
While confirmation bias may be at work here, it’s been my experience that engineers, who do need extensive background in the natural sciences, tend to skew conservative. It’s not surprising that at least for that subset of scientifically literate people, there would be some Tea Party overlap. Moreover, in any profession there are bound to be some people who will compartmentalize their belief system in order to accommodate contradictory beliefs. A competent EE isn’t about to argue with the equations that describe how electricity works, but he or she can deny AGW, particularly if to do otherwise would run counter to their overall political orientation. Although not to the same extent, I’ve noticed a similar phenomenon among those working in computer science, IT, software, and similar fields. The expression of support for Ron Paul by the likes of [Edward Snowden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_snowden#Political_views) and [Julian Assange](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Political_and_economic_views) suggests a strong libertarian pull in the hacker community. Anyone aligning themselves with the minarchist-capitalist views of Ron Paul is close enough to the Tea Party for me. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/106 "2013-11-13T00:48:11Z")
I’m not surprised that hackers and IT people in general tend to skew more libertarian - they work in an environment that is the least-regulated around. No professional licensing boards, no unions, no extensive government oversight. To someone used to running a business through a web site or selling computer software, the restrictions that are put on brick-and-mortar companies can seem pretty excessive. Can you imagine needing to get a city planner’s approval to change a banner on your web site, and wait a few months for an inspection before being allowed to do that? Brick and mortar business owners face that kind of regulatory micromanagement all the time. Also, because the industry is a bit wild and wooly, it probably selects for people who like working that way. If you’re confident in your skills and your belief that you can compete against others without government protection, you’re more likely to enter this field than, say, teaching. Back to attitudes towards science between the right and left. We have actual data on this, and it doesn’t look good for liberals. Pew: [Many Americans Mix Multiple Faiths](http://www.pewforum.org/2009/12/09/many-americans-mix-multiple-faiths/) From that survey, we find some interesting information that really trashes the notion that liberals are the ones who are ‘reality based’ while Conservatives believe in Woo. For example: **Belief in reincarnation:** Republicans: 17% Democrats: 30% **Believe in the mystical power of Yoga:** Republicans: 15% Democrats: 31% **Belief in “Spiritual Energy”:** Republicans: 17% Democrats 30% **Belief in Astrology:** Republicans: 15% Democrats: 31% **Belief in “Evil Eye”:** Republicans: 12% Democrats: 19% Belief that you’ve been “in touch with a dead person”: Republican: 21% Democrats: 36% **Belief in Ghosts:** Republican: 11% Democrats: 21% **Belief in fortune tellers:** Republican: 9% Democrats: 22% The same basic relationships hold if you use ‘conservative’ vs ‘liberal’. Basically, the more liberal you are, the more likely you are to believe in all of that nonsense. As for the claim that anti-GMO sentiment is equally shared on the right and left, I don’t buy it. I have _never_ seen an anti-GMO demonstration with a right-wing crowd. I’ve seen lots of demonstrations obviously organized by left-wing groups. For example: Here’s [MoveOn.Org](http://front.moveon.org/tag/gmo/#.UoLLwOLww1c) anti-GMO efforts. MoveOn is a pretty mainstream lefty organization. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/107 "2013-11-13T01:08:47Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > While confirmation bias may be at work here, it’s been my experience that engineers, who do need extensive background in the natural sciences, tend to skew conservative. They also have a curious tendency to [embrace pseudoscience](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Engineers_and_woo). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/108 "2013-11-13T01:21:48Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I’m not surprised that hackers and IT people in general tend to skew more libertarian - they work in an environment that is the least-regulated around. No professional licensing boards, no unions, no extensive government oversight. To someone used to running a business through a web site or selling computer software, the restrictions that are put on brick-and-mortar companies can seem pretty excessive. Can you imagine needing to get a city planner’s approval to change a banner on your web site, and wait a few months for an inspection before being allowed to do that? Brick and mortar business owners face that kind of regulatory micromanagement all the time. > > Also, because the industry is a bit wild and wooly, it probably selects for people who like working that way. If you’re confident in your skills and your belief that you can compete against others without government protection, you’re more likely to enter this field than, say, teaching. > > Back to attitudes towards science between the right and left. We have actual data on this, and it doesn’t look good for liberals. > > Pew: [Many Americans Mix Multiple Faiths](http://www.pewforum.org/2009/12/09/many-americans-mix-multiple-faiths/) > > From that survey, we find some interesting information that really trashes the notion that liberals are the ones who are ‘reality based’ while Conservatives believe in Woo. For example: > > **Belief in reincarnation:** > Republicans: 17% > Democrats: 30% > > **Believe in the mystical power of Yoga:** > Republicans: 15% > Democrats: 31% > > **Belief in “Spiritual Energy”:** > Republicans: 17% > Democrats 30% > > **Belief in Astrology:** > Republicans: 15% > Democrats: 31% > > **Belief in “Evil Eye”:** > Republicans: 12% > Democrats: 19% > > Belief that you’ve been “in touch with a dead person”: > Republican: 21% > Democrats: 36% > > **Belief in Ghosts:** > Republican: 11% > Democrats: 21% > > **Belief in fortune tellers:** > Republican: 9% > Democrats: 22% > > The same basic relationships hold if you use ‘conservative’ vs ‘liberal’. Basically, the more liberal you are, the more likely you are to believe in all of that nonsense. > > As for the claim that anti-GMO sentiment is equally shared on the right and left, I don’t buy it. I have _never_ seen an anti-GMO demonstration with a right-wing crowd. I’ve seen lots of demonstrations obviously organized by left-wing groups. > > For example: Here’s [MoveOn.Org](http://front.moveon.org/tag/gmo/#.UoLLwOLww1c) anti-GMO efforts. MoveOn is a pretty mainstream lefty organization. I did not say that there is a good number of leftists that are anti-GMO, only that in previous discussions I found out that there is also a big number of conservatives and independents also against it. Your point here ignores that many of those organizations that are anti-GMO also delight in reporting that many conservatives and independents support their efforts and then there are the polls that reach supernumeraries when asked about labeling of GMOs or for setting new facilities for GMOs. Again, the Almighty NIMBY rules. As for many of the other items that you are claiming to show that the left as having more problems with science you are in reality going out of focus, there is very little equivalency between the extreme left in government compared to what the Tea Partiers and extreme conservatives are doing by actively pushing for creationism, ID, global warming denial. And one has to notice also that on many of those items the differences are not huge, what it counts in this thread IMO is what is the pseudosience that tea partiers are pushing right now and using that to prevent change at the high levels of government. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/109 "2013-11-13T01:32:17Z")
The differences aren’t huge? They show that the percentage of liberals who believe in woo are just about double those of Conservatives. And the numbers aren’t small. If it was 3% vs 6%. I would agree. But according to that survey, a third of liberals believes in astrology, reincarnation, and spiritual energy. In what world is that not significant? And in terms of public impact, I’d say that the left-wing opposition to nuclear energy has been one of the most destructive policy factors we’ve ever had - both in terms of economics and negative environmental impact. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/110 "2013-11-13T01:40:31Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The differences aren’t huge? They show that the percentage of liberals who believe in woo are just about double those of Conservatives. And the numbers aren’t small. If it was 3% vs 6%. I would agree. But according to that survey, a third of liberals believes in astrology, reincarnation, and spiritual energy. Again, the best example from the conservatives is Reagan. My point stands, I’m referring to the ones that do not make much of an effort to separate their beliefs from actual governance. Looking at the current efforts from Tea Partiers to defund or stop new EPA regulations. If you can show me the democrats fighting to fund the Ghost and paranormal research office you may have a good point. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > In what world is that not significant? And in terms of public impact, I’d say that the left-wing opposition to nuclear energy has been one of the most destructive policy factors we’ve ever had - both in terms of economics and negative environmental impact. And again you ignore what I reported before, most of the democratic leadership is in favor of nuclear, in fact there are bills that are set to finance alternative fuels were democrats also included support for nuclear power, **but since many Republicans do not believe that there is any problem with fossil fuels** there is then no need to support the renewables so they do think that it is ok then to dump the nuclear baby with the bathwater. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/111 "2013-11-13T02:06:42Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The differences aren’t huge? They show that the percentage of liberals who believe in woo are just about double those of Conservatives. And the numbers aren’t small. If it was 3% vs 6%. I would agree. But according to that survey, a third of liberals believes in astrology, reincarnation, and spiritual energy. > > In what world is that not significant? And in terms of public impact, I’d say that the left-wing opposition to nuclear energy has been one of the most destructive policy factors we’ve ever had - both in terms of economics and negative environmental impact. Without a measure of variation, e.g. margin of error, these statistics are mostly worthless as you don’t know if they are true differences. That said, it looks like most of them are almost certainly significantly different, “Evil Eye” is the iffiest. And that one’s a cultural thing. The ghosts one really surprises me. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/112 "2013-11-13T02:13:28Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > Without a measure of variation, e.g. margin of error, these statistics are mostly worthless as you don’t know if they are true differences. That said, it looks like most of them are almost certainly significantly different, “Evil Eye” is the iffiest. And that one’s a cultural thing. The ghosts one really surprises me. I think it is not as clear as that, remember that a good number of republicans are turning or calling themselves independent nowadays and there we find the slightly larger picture that shows that: Belief in Ghosts:\* Republican: 11% _ **Independents: 21%** _ Democrats: 21% - Besides Sam missing the independents, it was actually \*\*experiences \*\*with ghosts, it does not mean that the one experiencing it automatically believes or continues to believe when more information is available. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/113 "2013-11-13T03:44:20Z")
Notice they also measured it along liberal/conservative axes without party affiliation, and the result was very similar. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/114 "2013-11-13T03:46:13Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > Without a measure of variation, e.g. margin of error, these statistics are mostly worthless as you don’t know if they are true differences. That said, it looks like most of them are almost certainly significantly different, “Evil Eye” is the iffiest. And that one’s a cultural thing. The ghosts one really surprises me. I believe that data isi in the details of the poll I linked to, and you’re welcome to examine them. PEW is a reputable outfit, and their methodology is generally quite good. They are also non-partisan. ---
**Author:** ![tunerX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/43a26b/32.png) [@tunerX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tunerX)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/115 "2013-11-13T03:51:05Z")
2000 people is not a big enough slice. A larger percentage to include rural, suburb, and metro areas is needed. This would also have to be a double blind study and the information from the 2000 people in the original study would have to be left out of the double blind. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/116 "2013-11-13T03:51:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Again, the best example from the conservatives is Reagan. Seriously? Confronted with real data from recent polling, and you think a more accurate reflection of conservative beliefs is the single anecdotal data point of a wife of a President who was elected 33 years ago? Keep reaching… ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/117 "2013-11-13T03:52:15Z")
> [@tunerX](#): > > 2000 people is not a big enough slice. A larger percentage to include rural, suburb, and metro areas is needed. This would also have to be a double blind study and the information from the 2000 people in the original study would have to be left out of the double blind. 2000 people can be more than sufficient if the sample is selected properly. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/118 "2013-11-13T04:02:30Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Seriously? Confronted with real data from recent polling, and you think a more accurate reflection of conservative beliefs is the single anecdotal data point of a wife of a President who was elected 33 years ago? > > Keep reaching… That was the funny; more seriously, as pointed before, what the Tea party is doing with the EPA, with education, with creationism and for not willing to fund nuclear power when a bill would also fund renewable sources of power does show the most accurate reflection of the conservative beliefs. It is you who is overreaching; again: items like believing in ghosts are not even a blip in the political radar of the democratic politicians, show me the Ghostbuster funded research by the democrats and then you may have a good point. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/119 "2013-11-13T04:03:49Z")
> [@tunerX](#): > > 2000 people is not a big enough slice. A larger percentage to include rural, suburb, and metro areas is needed. This would also have to be a double blind study and the information from the 2000 people in the original study would have to be left out of the double blind. That’s not true. Sample size is not dependent on population size. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574/120 "2013-11-13T04:11:22Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I believe that data isi in the details of the poll I linked to, and you’re welcome to examine them. PEW is a reputable outfit, and their methodology is generally quite good. They are also non-partisan. Yeah, missed the link and I see you summarized. Thanks. > [@tunerX](#): > > 2000 people is not a big enough slice. A larger percentage to include rural, suburb, and metro areas is needed. This would also have to be a double blind study and the information from the 2000 people in the original study would have to be left out of the double blind. Are you joking? In statistics, bigger sample size is not necessarily better (and can be worse in some cases). Unless you did the analysis to determine adequate size… Also double blind? This is a poll, not an experiment. I can’t conceive of how you’d do this double blind anyway? Pollster whispers gibberish into a muted phone, and pollee says a random number? :dubious: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-partiers-are-well-versed-in-science/671574.md?page=7)