Garbage in, garbage out

I get the feeling "science denial" here is arbitrarily-defined in order to push an agenda. Climate change and evolution are the only domains where "science denial" occurs?

Why didn't they look into vaccine refusals, which unlike climate change and evolution denial have real and measurable negative public health consequences?

I guess when vaccine refusals are more common in secular enclaves like Oregon and Vermont and the least common in places like Mississippi and South Carolina there is the fear that the results may undermine the a priori conclusion.

(05-24-2015 04:02 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 11:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 11:34 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Your chart, maybe you haven't really looked at it, shows support for environment regulations, not an understanding of climate change. Most of us equate a gazillion regulations to big government.

Support for environmental regulations doesn't mean support for an absurd number of environmental regulations or big government, you're inserting your own personal views into this chart.

IT doesn't take "an absurd number of environmental regulations" to be intrusive or extremely limiting to business growth one bad regulation can slow down or stop the economy and create a Big Government Bureaucracy.

And supporting environmental regulations doesn't mean you support 'intrusive or extremely limiting' regulations.

(05-26-2015 08:42 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 04:02 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 11:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 11:34 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Your chart, maybe you haven't really looked at it, shows support for environment regulations, not an understanding of climate change. Most of us equate a gazillion regulations to big government.

Support for environmental regulations doesn't mean support for an absurd number of environmental regulations or big government, you're inserting your own personal views into this chart.

IT doesn't take "an absurd number of environmental regulations" to be intrusive or extremely limiting to business growth one bad regulation can slow down or stop the economy and create a Big Government Bureaucracy.

And supporting environmental regulations doesn't mean you support 'intrusive or extremely limiting' regulations.

If I read the linked documents correctly, I believe the question actually asked about support for "more" environmental regulations. That probably does mean "intrusive or severely limiting" regulations, at least from a significant portion of those answering yes. The real problem is that this is too soft an analysis to really mean anything, since at least some of the terms are ill-defined.

(05-26-2015 09:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2015 08:42 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 04:02 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 11:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 11:34 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Your chart, maybe you haven't really looked at it, shows support for environment regulations, not an understanding of climate change. Most of us equate a gazillion regulations to big government.

Support for environmental regulations doesn't mean support for an absurd number of environmental regulations or big government, you're inserting your own personal views into this chart.

IT doesn't take "an absurd number of environmental regulations" to be intrusive or extremely limiting to business growth one bad regulation can slow down or stop the economy and create a Big Government Bureaucracy.

And supporting environmental regulations doesn't mean you support 'intrusive or extremely limiting' regulations.

If I read the linked documents correctly, I believe the question actually asked about support for "more" environmental regulations. That probably does mean "intrusive or severely limiting" regulations, at least from a significant portion of those answering yes. The real problem is that this is too soft an analysis to really mean anything, since at least some of the terms are ill-defined.

I can agree with that, also it's just a single study.

/ googles Assemblies of God


Whoa.

(05-26-2015 11:01 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-26-2015 09:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2015 08:42 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 04:02 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 11:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Support for environmental regulations doesn't mean support for an absurd number of environmental regulations or big government, you're inserting your own personal views into this chart.

IT doesn't take "an absurd number of environmental regulations" to be intrusive or extremely limiting to business growth one bad regulation can slow down or stop the economy and create a Big Government Bureaucracy.

And supporting environmental regulations doesn't mean you support 'intrusive or extremely limiting' regulations.

If I read the linked documents correctly, I believe the question actually asked about support for "more" environmental regulations. That probably does mean "intrusive or severely limiting" regulations, at least from a significant portion of those answering yes. The real problem is that this is too soft an analysis to really mean anything, since at least some of the terms are ill-defined.

I can agree with that, also it's just a single study.

I think you and I would agree on a lot more if you'd actually pay attention to what I say instead of leaping to hyperbolic conclusions about what you think I said.

(05-26-2015 11:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2015 11:01 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-26-2015 09:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2015 08:42 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 04:02 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  IT doesn't take "an absurd number of environmental regulations" to be intrusive or extremely limiting to business growth one bad regulation can slow down or stop the economy and create a Big Government Bureaucracy.

And supporting environmental regulations doesn't mean you support 'intrusive or extremely limiting' regulations.

If I read the linked documents correctly, I believe the question actually asked about support for "more" environmental regulations. That probably does mean "intrusive or severely limiting" regulations, at least from a significant portion of those answering yes. The real problem is that this is too soft an analysis to really mean anything, since at least some of the terms are ill-defined.

I can agree with that, also it's just a single study.

I think you and I would agree on a lot more if you'd actually pay attention to what I say instead of leaping to hyperbolic conclusions about what you think I said.

Eh, fair enough for this thread. Pretty sure I was in a bad mood when I posted earlier and responded unfairly.