There may be a scientific answer for why conservatives and liberals disagree so vehemently over the existence of issues like climate change and specific types of crime.A new study from Duke University finds that people will evaluate scientific evidence based on whether they view its policy implications as politically desirable. If they don't, then they tend to deny the problem even exists.“Logically, the proposed solution to a problem, such as an increase in government regulation or an extension of the free market, should not influence one’s belief in the problem. However, we find it does,” said co-author Troy Campbell, a Ph.D. candidate at Duke's Fuqua School of Business. “The cure can be more immediately threatening than the problem.”The study, "Solution Aversion: On the Relation Between Ideology and Motivated Disbelief," appears in the November issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (viewable at http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/107/5/809/).The researchers conducted three experiments (with samples ranging from 120 to 188 participants) on three different issues -- climate change, air pollution that harms lungs, and crime.
I feel I should point out liberals can be just as bad as conservatives when it comes to going against the push of science. Namely when it comes to agriculture and energy.
This is news?
Climate change isn't a "problem." It's a natural occurrence we have to work around.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 07, 2014, 03:49:33 PMQuote from: Camnator on November 07, 2014, 03:48:33 PMClimate change isn't a "problem." It's a natural occurrence we have to work around.A good place to start would be reduced carbon usage.Which might be entirely pointless and wasteful. However, I'm not against reducing pollution with clean energy just because pollution is extremely horrible. I don't need to accept other unproven theories to encourage that.
Quote from: Camnator on November 07, 2014, 03:48:33 PMClimate change isn't a "problem." It's a natural occurrence we have to work around.A good place to start would be reduced carbon usage.
Temperature drives CO2, not the other way around.
Except it can due to the sun's cycles.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 07, 2014, 04:17:15 PMQuote from: Camnator on November 07, 2014, 04:08:14 PMExcept it can due to the sun's cycles. The sun's output simply hasn't been significant enough to cause any sort of exponential warming over the past 30 years. Not to mention, warming has shown itself only in the troposphere. If the sun were responsible for this, we would expect to see the stratosphere also warming, but this simply isn't the case.Plenty of sources suggest it does, though, which is why I hate debating this topic.
Quote from: Camnator on November 07, 2014, 04:08:14 PMExcept it can due to the sun's cycles. The sun's output simply hasn't been significant enough to cause any sort of exponential warming over the past 30 years. Not to mention, warming has shown itself only in the troposphere. If the sun were responsible for this, we would expect to see the stratosphere also warming, but this simply isn't the case.
Denying a problem exists
