{"id":30573,"date":"2010-10-24T00:29:29","date_gmt":"2010-10-24T08:29:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.discovermagazine.com\/gnxp\/?p=7403"},"modified":"2010-10-27T02:56:38","modified_gmt":"2010-10-27T10:56:38","slug":"a-relationship-in-attitudes-toward-global-warming-evolution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/2010\/10\/24\/a-relationship-in-attitudes-toward-global-warming-evolution\/","title":{"rendered":"A relationship in attitudes toward Global Warming & evolution?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In my post earlier in the week<\/a> I mentioned the possible relationship between attitudes toward evolution and the causes and likelihood of Global Warming. I haven’t seen any survey data myself relating the two, so naturally I wanted to poke into the General Social Survey<\/a>. Two variables of interest showed up, both from 2006:<\/p>\n

1) GWSCI, “Understanding of causes of Global Warming by environmental scientists.” A five-point scale, from understanding “Very well” (1) to “Not at all” (5).<\/p>\n

2) SCIAGRGW, “Extent of agreement among environmental scientists.” A five-point scale, from “Near complete agreement” (1) to “No agreement at all” (5).<\/p>\n

I paired these up against EVOLVED, which is a simple True vs. False answer in relation the question as to whether “Human beings developed from animals.”<\/p>\n

Tables below.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Each row<\/em> in the following set of tables adds up to 100%. In other words in the first row 55% of Democrats think that environmental scientists understand the cause of global warming “Very well.”<\/p>\n\n\n<\/col>\n<\/col>\n<\/col>\n<\/col>\n<\/col>\n<\/col>\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Environmental scientists understand cause of global warming<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nVery well<\/strong><\/td>\n
\n<\/strong><\/td>\n
\n<\/strong><\/td>\n
\n<\/strong><\/td>\n		Not at all<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Democrat<\/td>\n55<\/td>\n24<\/td>\n14<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Independent<\/td>\n44<\/td>\n21<\/td>\n28<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Republican<\/td>\n39<\/td>\n21<\/td>\n29<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Liberal<\/td>\n56<\/td>\n24<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Moderate<\/td>\n51<\/td>\n21<\/td>\n25<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Conservative<\/td>\n33<\/td>\n25<\/td>\n27<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Evolution True<\/td>\n53<\/td>\n26<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Evolution False<\/td>\n43<\/td>\n18<\/td>\n28<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Extent of agreement on global warming among environmental scientists<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nNear complete agreement<\/strong><\/td>\n
\n<\/strong><\/td>\n
\n<\/strong><\/td>\n		No agreement at all<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Democrat<\/td>\n17<\/td>\n36<\/td>\n36<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Independent<\/td>\n19<\/td>\n27<\/td>\n38<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Republican<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n26<\/td>\n41<\/td>\n14<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Liberal<\/td>\n17<\/td>\n38<\/td>\n31<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Moderate<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n29<\/td>\n44<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Conservative<\/td>\n14<\/td>\n27<\/td>\n39<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Evolution True<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n36<\/td>\n32<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Evolution False<\/td>\n17<\/td>\n29<\/td>\n39<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Now we’ll switch the columns, but again, the rows add up to 100%. So of those who think that environmental scientists understand the cause of global warming “Very well,” 55% accept that humans developed from animals.<\/p>\n\n\n<\/col>\n<\/col>\n<\/col>\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nEvolution is<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nTRUE<\/strong><\/td>\nFALSE<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Environmental scientists understand cause of global warming<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Very well<\/td>\n55<\/td>\n45<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\n58<\/td>\n42<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\n36<\/td>\n64<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\n28<\/td>\n72<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Not at all<\/td>\n38<\/td>\n62<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nEvolution is<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nTRUE<\/strong><\/td>\nFALSE<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Extent of agreement on global warming among environmental scientists<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Near complete agreement<\/td>\n50<\/td>\n48<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\n56<\/td>\n44<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\n46<\/td>\n54<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\n52<\/td>\n48<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
No agreement at all<\/td>\n47<\/td>\n54<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Finally, a set of regressions. Since the ones for Global Warming have a 1 to 5 scale I just used a linear regression, while for evolution I used logistic regression (since it’s a dichotomous response).<\/p>\n\n\n<\/col>\n<\/col>\n<\/col>\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
GWSCI<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nBeta<\/td>\np<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
POLVIEWS<\/td>\n0.158<\/td>\n0.01<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
PARTYID<\/td>\n0.087<\/td>\n0.144<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
AGE<\/td>\n0.053<\/td>\n0.293<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
GOD<\/td>\n0.114<\/td>\n0.058<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
BIBLE<\/td>\n-0.028<\/td>\n0.654<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
WORDSUM<\/td>\n-0.082<\/td>\n0.152<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DEGREE<\/td>\n-0.021<\/td>\n0.748<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
SEI<\/td>\n-0.116<\/td>\n0.069<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
R-squared = 0.118<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
SCIAGRGW<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nBeta<\/td>\np<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
POLVIEWS<\/td>\n0.085<\/td>\n0.185<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
PARTYID<\/td>\n0.062<\/td>\n0.325<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
AGE<\/td>\n0.032<\/td>\n0.557<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
GOD<\/td>\n0.035<\/td>\n0.558<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
BIBLE<\/td>\n0.095<\/td>\n0.156<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
WORDSUM<\/td>\n0.031<\/td>\n0.609<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DEGREE<\/td>\n-0.103<\/td>\n0.132<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
SEI<\/td>\n-0.138<\/td>\n0.043<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
R-squared = 0.053<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
EVOLVED<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nB<\/td>\np<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
POLVIEWS<\/td>\n0.158<\/td>\n0.003<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
PARTYID<\/td>\n0.075<\/td>\n0.03<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
AGE<\/td>\n0.016<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
GOD<\/td>\n0.549<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
BIBLE<\/td>\n-1.144<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
WORDSUM<\/td>\n-0.03<\/td>\n0.402<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DEGREE<\/td>\n-0.091<\/td>\n0.174<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
SEI<\/td>\n-0.008<\/td>\n0.04<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Pseudo R-squared = 0.255<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Weird things happen when I try and relate the Global Warming variables to evolution. Since I gave you the names of the variables I invite you to replicate. I see some relationship in the 2006 GSS, but not a strong one. The dependence of attitudes toward evolution on religious views is pretty direct as expected. Not as clear with the Global Warming issues.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In my post earlier in the week I mentioned the possible relationship between attitudes toward evolution and the causes and likelihood of Global Warming. I haven’t seen any survey data myself relating the two, so naturally I wanted to poke into the General Social Survey. Two variables of interest showed up, both from 2006:
\n1) GWSCI, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,281,7,767,56],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30573","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-data","category-data-analysis","category-evolution","category-global-warming","category-gss"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30573","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30573"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30573\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":30990,"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30573\/revisions\/30990"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30573"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30573"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30573"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}