A new study released yesterday concludes that conservatives' trust in science has declined "precipitously" since 1974, reports John Hoeffel of the Los Angeles Times. Confidence in science declined most among better-educated conservatives, a "surprising finding," author Gordon Gauchat said. A 2012 Gallup survey found that only 30 percent of conservatives believe greenhouse gases contribute to global warming. Two years ago, 50 percent believed that.
Gauchat said the sharp decline among educated conservatives is due to their extensive knowledge of conservative ideology, which leads to stronger "ideological dispositions" than less educated people. Also adding to the decline is the increased visibility of the conservative movement, Gauchat said. The movement has expanded "substantially in power and influence, particularly during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, creating an extensive apparatus of think tanks and media outlets."
The policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection, Jim DiPeso, said he's tried to move his party to the center on climate change issues, but many Republicans think science is "serving the agenda of the regulatory state." He said most fear scientific conclusions could lead to more "onerous regulation." (Read more)
Using General Social Survey data, the study found two demographics with "a significant erosion of trust in science: conservatives and frequent churchgoers," Alan Boyle notes on msnbc's Cosmic Log. "Why the drop? Gauchat suggested that the character of the conservative movement has changed over the past three and a half decades — and so has the character of the scientific establishment."
Gauchat told Boyle, "There's been an effort among those who define themselves as conservatives to clearly identify what it means to be a conservative," he said. "For whatever reason, this appears to involve opposing science and universities, and what is perceived as the 'liberal culture.' . . . In the past, the scientific community was viewed as concerned primarily with macro structural matters such as winning the space race. Today, conservatives perceive the scientific community as more focused on regulatory matters such as stopping industry from producing too much carbon dioxide." (Read more)
Gauchat said the sharp decline among educated conservatives is due to their extensive knowledge of conservative ideology, which leads to stronger "ideological dispositions" than less educated people. Also adding to the decline is the increased visibility of the conservative movement, Gauchat said. The movement has expanded "substantially in power and influence, particularly during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, creating an extensive apparatus of think tanks and media outlets."
The policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection, Jim DiPeso, said he's tried to move his party to the center on climate change issues, but many Republicans think science is "serving the agenda of the regulatory state." He said most fear scientific conclusions could lead to more "onerous regulation." (Read more)
Using General Social Survey data, the study found two demographics with "a significant erosion of trust in science: conservatives and frequent churchgoers," Alan Boyle notes on msnbc's Cosmic Log. "Why the drop? Gauchat suggested that the character of the conservative movement has changed over the past three and a half decades — and so has the character of the scientific establishment."
Gauchat told Boyle, "There's been an effort among those who define themselves as conservatives to clearly identify what it means to be a conservative," he said. "For whatever reason, this appears to involve opposing science and universities, and what is perceived as the 'liberal culture.' . . . In the past, the scientific community was viewed as concerned primarily with macro structural matters such as winning the space race. Today, conservatives perceive the scientific community as more focused on regulatory matters such as stopping industry from producing too much carbon dioxide." (Read more)
No comments:
Post a Comment