I'm going to tell you all the things you've done wrong here.
Ooooh! Do tell! :)
1. You've brought more attention to the original topic. While a few posters were giving themselves a handjob over the studies, most were willing to laugh it off and move on, not concerning ourselves with the results. This thread would have been a topic about cookies for a page more at most and then died never to gain much attention. Now you've only drawn more attention to scientific study that can be seen to put your chosen ideological demographic in an unfavorable light.
And what would be the fun of that? In case you haven't noticed, I tend to enjoy a good debate over a topic of some interest. I'm not adverse to the occasional "Here's a cookie!" thread, but this place would be a graveyard of boringness if someone didn't occasionally light a fire.
2. Not only that, but because your refutation is so ridiculous and contains so much blatantly dishonest insertion of speculative reasons for why such results were obtained. This thread--if any of the usual suspects are bored enough--is now going to be all about how incredibly wrong you are and consequently give just that much more validity to the notion that typical conservative leaning individuals are just that much more paranoid.
If by "incredibly wrong", you mean "reading past the title and the first paragraph", sure. Hey! Knock yourself out.
3. You've left yourself without your typical exit. You have already accepted the study as valid source materiel, and so you've completely closed off the "liberally biased results" door.
What part of me stating (twice!) that the whole thing is based on "if" we accept the study itself. I'm not interested so much in the validity of the study as the willingness of some posters to leap to a conclusion that they like while failing to read even the whole linked article.
I just found it interesting that the immediate assumption based on the thread title and the one paragraph that was quoted in the OP was that conservatives act on fear while liberals act on intelligent analysis, when that isn't even remotely close to what the article itself said. And that observation doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the study itself. It's more of an observation about the willingness of some posters to blindly accept something when it happens to appear to align with their own beliefs without bothering to look any further.
Which I suppose actually does support the studies findings. But that's just gravy I guess.
In terms of strategy, posting in this thread with anything but a dismissing jest was an awful idea.
Hah. There's some irony here somewhere. Where could it be? ;)