http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/~weaver/national_journal_2006_04_01_insiders.pdf

The poll asks two questions, one about science, and one about various energy and emissions-related policy options. One take-home message of course is be the sharp partisan difference on what the science says about AGW. What constitutes the “scientific facts” is conditioned by your particular frame.

Looking a little more closely, two additional points jump out at me:

1. As far as the first poll question is concerned (the science question), the democrats are much more certain and unified. Compare percentages (98% vs. 77%) and also confident and/or aggressive language (e.g., “beyond a shadow of a doubt,” “no controversy,” oil and coal-industry funded scientists, etc., vs. “respected scientists from both sides of the issue,” and “a preponderance of evidence in this [presumably human cause of GW] direction”). This is perhaps consistent with the Frank Luntz observations that the window of opportunity to dispute the science (for better or for worse) appears to be closing.

2. When we switch to the second poll question (the policy options question), we find a lot of shared values and room for compromise. For example, increased spending on alternative fuels has very broad support, and it looks like there might also be enough political will to move on higher fuel efficiency standards, whereas a higher gasoline tax appears to be off the radar of both sides for the moment. Roger, I can picture you saying that when you focus on options, and in particular put lots of them on the table, you are likely to identify points of agreement even in an extremely polarized debate. Then you can craft strategies based on this commonality.