Mainstream Conservatives And Teabaggers Live On Different Planets When It Comes To Science

It's poetry in motion

And now she's making love to me

The spheres're in commotion

The elements in harmony

She blinded me with science

"She blinded me with science!"

And hit me with technology

Although there are still fringe extremists and dyed-in-the-wool racists in Congress whining that it's time to shut down the government again, that the GOP-written report about Benghazi was a coverup, and that impeachment should be on the table, the Republican Establishment has ruled out doing anything more than humoring them-- if they can. Boehner doesn't have enough votes to keep the government open without help from Pelosi. And instead of impeaching Obama they're going for this cockamamie impeachment-lite strategy-- censuring him. It's just a way to placate the Hate Talk Radio zombies and the congressional tea baggers and gives all of them an opportunity to vent-- like 8 year olds... even if the constitutionality of the move is dubious and isn't likely to be taken up by the Senate, despite the increased number of fringe loons in that body starting next month. It would certainly be a tough vote for Obama-district House members and for Republicans in non-Confederate states who are up for reelection in 2016, particularly Mark Kirk (R-IL), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Ron Portman (R-OH), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Roy Blunt (R-MO) and could even be uncomfortably divisive for Marco Rubio (R-FL), Richard Burr (R-NC), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), maybe even McCain (R-AZ) if he makes it through a likely primary.

The problem for Republicans stems from a mindset of racism, anger, and frustration that is easily fed by ratings-hungry right-wing media and turned into an alternative view of reality. This week, Chris Mooney continued his fantastic work at the Washington Post, this time delineating how right-wing extremists-- he calls them Tea Partiers-- differ from more relatively mainstream Republican conservatives. The way the two factions look at basic science is just astounding and makes you worry that these people are allowed to vote on the future direction of the country.

[I]f a new study just out in the journal Environmental Politics is correct, the conflict between "Republicans" and the scientific community may really boil down to a conflict between scientists and today's so-called Tea Party. The paper suggests that on a large array of scientific topics, members of the Tea Party diverge markedly from more traditional members of the GOP.

"There are greater differences on environment and science questions between Tea Party supporters and non-Tea Party Republicans than there are between non-Tea Party Republicans and Independents," says sociologist Lawrence Hamilton of the University of New Hampshire, who co-authored the paper with his university colleague Kei Saito. "As far as I know, that hasn’t been found before, and we found that standing out in our data analysis."

The study unpacks responses from a series of science questions that have been asked of New Hampshire residents from 2010 to 2014 as part of the Granite State Poll (New Hampshire residents are not a perfect proxy for the U.S. as a whole, but they're "pretty close," according Hamilton).

The questions concerned anything from beliefs in evolution and the human causation of climate change to the following: "Would you say that you trust, don't trust, or are unsure about scientists as a source of information about environmental issues?" and "How much do you feel that you understand about the issue of global warming or climate change? Would you say a great deal, a moderate amount, only a little, or nothing at all?"

In the surveys, mainline Republicans were distinguished from Tea Party followers based on a simple question that asked whether they "support, oppose, or are neutral" about "the political movement known as the Tea Party." Republicans who answered "oppose" or "neutral" were considered non-Tea Party members of the GOP.

In a series of graphic depictions, he shows how the fanatics and the conservatives differ on one issue after another. The extremists are much less trusting of science and of anything demonized by hucksters and frauds like Limbaugh, Beck, James Inhofe, or the Fox "News" team. Example, when asked if they trust environmental scientists, 84% of Democrats, 64% of independents, 55% of traditional Republicans all say they do. But just 34% of the Tea Party fringe does. Another question was whether or not basic climate is changing and if human activity is responsible. Same pattern: 81% of Democrats, 60% of independents, 41% of traditional Republicans but only 23% of the Tea Party nuts answered in the affirmative.

The study also examined how beliefs change, across these four political groups, as people become higher in their levels of education-- from holding a high school diploma all the way up to holding a postgraduate degree. Fascinatingly, with increasing education, every group except Tea Party supporters becomes more accepting of the idea that climate change is happening now and mainly caused by humans. But Tea Party supporters move in the opposite direction.

So in sum, we have a picture of a Tea Party whose members are both more distrusting of scientists and what they have to say on major issues of scientific consensus, like evolution and climate change -- and also quite sure they're right in their beliefs, and unswayed even with higher levels of education.

In fairness, polling questions about "trust" in scientists have recently been problematized. "There's debate among researchers on the value of self-report 'trust in science' measures. There are a wide variety and none has been validated in any systematic way," says Yale opinion researcher Dan Kahan, who argues that he's not sure that measures of whether people "trust" scientists can be separated from their simple issue positions on scientific issues like climate change.

The University of New Hampshire's Hamilton agrees to some extent that "trust in scientists" and one's views of climate change are "wrapped up" with one another. But he adds, "I don’t think they’re the same thing. My thinking is that if you don’t like a solution, you’re going to reject that the problem exists, and in this case, that means finding reasons not to trust the scientists on the topic."

Issue of trust notwithstanding, though, it is at least clear that large majorities of Tea Party members do not believe what scientists say about climate change and evolution.

They believe Rush Limbaugh and Ted Cruz instead-- and they're the activist base of the party that is insisting on one of their own as the 2016 presidential nominee. No wonder Jeb Bush is gnashing his teeth so loudly.

Bush also offered some tough love to the incoming Republican majority in Congress that seemed aimed at heading off a showdown over the federal budget that could lead to a repeat of last year’s government shutdown.

Quit trying to “make a point,” Mr. Bush said, and forge compromises to pass legislation. Stop seeking to repeal the Affordable Care Act, he suggested, and offer alternative health-care proposals.

“We don’t have to make a point any more as Republicans,” he said. “We have to actually show that we can, in an adult-like way, we can govern, lead.”

Mr. Bush said he disagrees with President Barack Obama ’s decision to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation through executive action that bypasses Congress, but he cautioned Republicans to take the lead on the issue “rather than have their heads explode.”

Jeb hasn't weighed in yet on the congressional Republicans newest scheme-- preventing President Obama from delivering the State of the Union address next month. What a party of repulsive racist pigs they are!