follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing

What Is the "Science of Science Communication"?

Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

'Ideology' or 'Situation Sense'? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment

A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines

Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

Making Climate Science Communication Evidence-based—All the Way Down 

Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law 

Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus
 

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Science Literacy and Climate Change

"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction 

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-Cultural Experiment

Fixing the Communications Failure

Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change

The Cognitively Illiberal State 

Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study

Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology

Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical Examination of Scott v. Harris

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy

Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in "Acquaintance Rape" Cases

Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect

Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk

Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk

« Believing as doing . . . evolution & climate change | Main | America's two "climate changes" »
Friday
Feb192016

Replication indeed

 Where have I seen this before?...

 


 

Oh, right ...

 Click here to see for yourself.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (65)

Dan -

==> @Joshua--

I'd say I'm struggling to see how you discerned a "5% increase" except clearly that's not *your* fault... It's the authors', for deceptively reporting what they measured.


The change in the direction towards responding "I believe that global warming is mostly caused by human activities" as seen in the movement from 4.57 to 4.81 on that 7 point scale. That said...

==> 3. The 0.24 change in mean on the 7-point measure in question is not practically different from zero. If you drew two overlapping probability density distributions for the values here -- one for the before &one for the after -- you'd see that they two are nearly perfectly overlapping.

A somewhat different way of looking at the % of change, but point taken.

==> Your "5%" is-- I'm guessing -- 0.24/4.5. That's not a meaningful thing to do here, b/c the scores of 6000 (or 1000 or 100) subjects on 7 point likert measure will not be distributed uniformly across the scale. If you want to figure out a meaningful way to compare the differences in how scores in the "before" & "after" relate to each other, you need to compare the area under the probability density distributions I referred to.

Again, point taken.


==> The y-axis prominently featured in the paper truncates the 7-point response scale to 0.3 points. That is, & is universally understood to be, a deceptive way to report empirical data.

I got that. A ligit criticism, IMO. Again, point taken.

However, with the "deceptive" and the Fox News analogy, you're adding something extra.

Given that you aren't actually in an position to address intent, or to know what is the result of "motivated reasoning" which leads people to make biased arguments without speaking to their intent, and given that you think that identity-threatening rhetoric materially increases the toxic polarization related to climate change, I don't understand why you gravitate towards gratuitous rhetoric (i.e., the something extra). You can make your criticisms about the methodology without going there.

So in the end, I would ask you how are you measuring the net effect of your rhetoric? What is your intent? Is it to advance the dialogue, or to score points in your own corner of the climate wars?


The same goes for the rest of your methodological criticisms, which for the most part seem perfectly valid to me - except to the extent that you affix to them, what appears to me at least, rhetoric that falls into the identity-protective category of exchange.


==> A straightforward way to figure out effect size would be to calculate what pct of the *variance* in the subjects' responses on the 7-point scale is explained by the experimental treatment (the "msg"). Try to do that; be prepared to calculate a number with many 0's after the decimal point.

Point taken.

==> 4. I myself would say "who cares" given the genuine meaningeless of what they are measuring, but if the authors wanted to help anyone understand the experimental effect, they'd show the raw data, not the mean change. It's perfectly conceivable that the tiny increment of change occurred as a result of shifts in the responses of subjects who were already "above the mean" in the scale...

But seriously, who cares?

I don't care much, but I would think that since you're arguing, repeatedly, that "consensus-messaging" materially adds to the toxicity related to climate change, that you should provide the kind of data you're saying would be convincing in supporting your claim. Where is your evidence that "consensus-messaging' actually explains the polarization around climate change, and to what degree it is explanatory?

February 23, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

@AndPhysics--

Yes, you are right.

The question instructs subjects who don't believe that climate change is happening-- including the 50% of Republicans who when polled say there is no evidence of temperatures increasing in recent decades -- to "assume global warming IS happening..."

That's the counterfactual state of mind they are asked to put themselves in when they report their "belief" level in AGW.

I'm sure you realized that was true before you finally read the paper, which you've now confirmed you hadn't done prior to your 400th comment.

And now that you have read it, you apparently agree with the authors that there's no problem in characterizing the shift from 4.6 to 4.8 for "conservatives" (the effect reported on the zika-virus infected 0.3 point y-axis) as evidence of the effect of the msg in "increasing" these conservatives' "belief" that "humans" are "causing" the thing they don't actually believe is happening at all. (As far as I can tell, you *still* haven't noticed that the only value on the weird 7-point counterfactual-belief "level" scale that indicates "belief" that humans are the primary cause of global warming is "7"; what does *that* say about how "closely" you even read this blog?)

No problem for you, just as there was none for these highly ethical "science communication" scholars, to characterize the survey item as measuring an "increase" in "belief" in human-caused climate change w/o stating the actual survey wording in the text, which is (for sure) a "replication" of a *published* study that omitted the survey wording altogether from either the text of the published article or what was described as the 'on-line supplement'.

Again, if you can't comprehend the problem here, that's fine with me -- & certainly not a surprise!

I'm not addressing you. "Debating" you, or whatever it is you think my bothering to respond to your various comments would amount to, appeals to me about as much as having oral surgery w/o anesthetic.

I'm addressing people who are interested in & capable of making sense of empirical evidence relating to science communication.

But I am glad you are here commenting away -- your contributions will definitely make it clear to those people what this is all about.

February 23, 2016 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

@Eli--

So your prediction about how likely a conservative who doesn't believe in climate change is to change his or her mind in response to the "97% msg" is, "Who cares."

I can see why you like the study, since that is clearly the authors' attitude too.

February 23, 2016 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

Dan -

One more comment, then I'll give up (for now!)....

So give me a prediction: what is the probability a conservative repoublican who doesn't believe in global warming says that he believes in AGW after AAAS msg?
100%
50%
25%
0.5%
0%

What?

I wouldn't exactly say "So what?"...but I would question how much you think that anything much will change what a conservative Republican says about his/her belief in global warming - no matter what method of science communication is employed - .as long as the issue remains, in a general sense, polarized, and until such time that the "signal" of changes in the climate (and aCO2 contributions to such) are just about completely unambiguous in a day-to-day kind of way.

IMO, the only ways that we are likely to make much movement on policy development to address climate change are: (1) the signal becomes really fucking unambiguous...something that it seems to me the science says won't happen for decades, if not more than a century into the future or, (2) policy implementation begins to take place in a de-politicized context of stakeholder dialog where participants have bought in to ownership over outcomes and where participants are committed to investigating their own "motivated reasoning/cultural cognition" and where participants are committed to differentiating polarized positions from shared interests.

Of those two possibilities, I see the odds as about 100 to 1 in favor of the first...

If all "consensus-messaging" were to disappear completely, it wouldn't alter the trajectory of policy development in a measurable way, IMO (in either direction).

BTW, just got reacquainted with Orwell's term of "doublethink"...

...the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination.

Sound familiar?

February 23, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

@Joshua--

On "you first":

I've made it very clear that I view even an *internally valid* version of this experiment to be *externally invalid*: that is, I don't think that showing experiment subjects a "97% msg" & measuring their response to be modeling the real-world dynamics that explain why in fact consensus messaging has failed in the real world. Indeed, I think "messaging" has been shown -- in various settings, w/ various methods -- to reflect an incorrect view of real-world dynamics.

I do think one can get information from experiments that give one more reason or less to expect certain forms of discourse to excite identity-protective responses rather than the sort of "knowlegdge aquisition/use" form of reasoning that generates constructive collective decisionmaking.

Some of the recent posts present evidence that, unlike "climate science literacy" items that measure what people (of diverse political outlooks) *know* or *feel* about climate change, "97% consensus" msgs & survey items on "scientific consensus" *measure* the cultural identity associated with opposing climate-change positions.

That's evidence that I think bears practical weight. In my view, it counsels against the "your team is a fucking bunch of idiots" "here: let an 8 yr old tell you" style of messaging that is in fact what "conensus messaging" *is* in the real-world.

You've asked several times for "evidence" & I keep pointing you toward that. There you go; you decide, using your own reason, what inference to draw & act accordingly.

*This* post is about researchers behaving in a deceptive fashion. I wouldn't draw any practical inferences from studies that have this form, but I think it's clear from the convoluted questions, the humungous sample sizes, the hidden wording of survey items, & the use of graphic formats featured in every "how to lie with statistics" book that we can infer the probability that the AAAS pie chart would cause a conservative who doesn't believe in climate change to say "I have changed my mind now & believe in human-causedc climate change" is pitifully small.

I've already told you that the probability a conservative will say that he believes the AAAS pie chart msg is equivalent to the probability that he will say he believes in human-caused climate change-- & *lower* than the probability that he'll say he already accepts that there is scientific consensus on AGW.

I would think you could predict *my* own hypothesis even more easily than make your own at this point.

But obviously, if you think that *I* think "motivated reasoning" means there's nothing people can do to enable constructive engagement with the best available evidence in communities 1/2 of whose members have a cultural identity associated with "disbelief in climate change," then even you aren't reading as closely as you should be!

February 23, 2016 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

@Joshua--

& yes, does sound familiar on "double speak..." I don't think you were thinking of this but on the connection with "cognitive dualism," I'd say this.

February 23, 2016 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

Dan,


I'm addressing people who are interested in & capable of making sense of empirical evidence relating to science communication.

But I am glad you are here commenting away -- your contributions will definitely make it clear to those people what this is all about.


I guess that says it all. I will leave you to continue engaging with those who are capable of making sense of what you're saying and will slink away to my intellectually trivial world of physics and astronomy. This has been quite useful. Thanks.

February 24, 2016 | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Dan,
I really should go away, but I'm interested in something. I realise that I've probably annoyed you, but why does that justify misrepresenting me? For example, this


I'm sure you realized that was true before you finally read the paper, which you've now confirmed you hadn't done prior to your 400th comment.

is not true. You can read my comment again to check for yourself.

I didn't say this either


And now that you have read it, you apparently agree with the authors that there's no problem in characterizing the shift from 4.6 to 4.8 for "conservatives"

So, I'm quite happy to accept that I may not be your intellectual equal, but it's quite hard to do so when your argument appears to require misrepresenting what others have said. Presumably, you can do better?

February 24, 2016 | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

@Dan

Three observations:

1. Why do you focus so much on the wording of the belief in human-caused global warming question? The authors seemingly find similar patterns across all other questions - which appear to be measured in a more straightforward way? Look at the question for belief that global warming is happening, or how much people worry about the issue? I think you may mislead your own audience here by zooming in on 1 oddly worded item and leaving out the rest.

2. In the Table 1 you refer to, the authors provide a standardized measure of effect size (Cohen's D) that most social scientists are familiar with. The effect of the intervention is clearly presented in the Tables (in addition to the Figures) along with the pre-test means for all measures (Table 2) as well as indicators of effect-size...this seems incredibly transparent to me? I don't understand why you would accuse these researchers of deceptively reporting their results, all of the pre-treatment values, change scores and effect-sizes are clearly reported in the document.

3. I think you have a warped understanding of effect-sizes. There is a nice paper, written some time ago, called "when small effects are impressive". This article highlights that it is misleading to just focus on the statistical nature of the effect . Small effects should be considered impressive and important as a function of either (a) how minimal a manipulation of the independent variable is required to produce an effect and (b) how difficult to influence the dependent variable is. Both are indicators of the value of a psychological process. It seems that this study passes both tests with flying colors. Showing people some type of pie chart just once appears to be quite the minimal intervention to me, the fact that it produces any kind of reported change at all seems impressive, especially in the face of (b) a difficult to influence dependent variable, people's belies about climate change.

http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/millerd/docs/1992psycbull.htm


I like to think I'm a reasonable observer here and it seems to me that your characterization of the authors' work is not fair and not entirely accurate either, maybe even deceptive and misleading, but I don't presume to know your motivations, its interesting nonetheless that you presume to know what motivates others.

February 24, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterJames

When Eli pointed out that one of the effect of consensus messaging is to move the Overton Window away from outright denial, even for those with quite right wing views, Dan K replies

So your prediction about how likely a conservative who doesn't believe in climate change is to change his or her mind in response to the "97% msg" is, "Who cares."

Now some, not Eli to be sure, might think this simply Dan's plea for mercy to avoid having to confront a serious problem with his thesis about consensus messaging. Messaging does not only have to convince, it can limit the response of opponents. In the case of the spherical earth consensus, there is little purpose in claiming the Earth is flat. We have fine evidence that it is not and this labels those who claim it is flat to the kook korner.

Time need not be wasted proving to the flat enders that the world is spherical (actually a bit pear shaped, somewhat like Eli), they can simply be dismissed while the rest of us get busy constructing GPS systems. Oh, GPS you say, well, if you use a GPS system you believe in both flavors of relativity, although there are some dead enders there too, but they can simply be dismissed or giggled at.

Climate change is real and carries with it potential serious problems. We need to get past denial to start dealing with the problems and if consensus messaging moves the Overton window, well goody.

February 24, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterEli Rabett

@James:

1. I focus on the wording of the item in question b/c it is the one the authors mischaracterize repeatedly leading readers to draw a mistaken conclusion about what the authors measured. It is the wording they omitted from the previously published paper that purported to find “increased belief” in AGW after exposure to the msg.

This is deceptive behavior. It's a pattern of it, in fact. That is what this post is about.

2. But if you want to discuss what sorts of conclusions a critical reader would draw:

a. The authors didn’t find similar patterns of results. The only item that showed a meaningful effect size was change in percentage of scientists estimated to be in “scientific consensus” after subjects were told “it’s 97%.” The cohen’s d for the other items is trivially small –hence resort to the *deceptive* truncated y-axes.

b. The increase in estimated pcts of scientists in consensus after being told "the answer is 97%" is not an important result. It's an embarrassment that the authors don't recognize or discuss the confounding impact of "anchoring" on labile estimates of quantities like this.

c. That the huge effects on estimated percents of scientists *don't* translate into meaningful changes in the putative beliefs that "perceived pct" is supposed be driving shows that the numerical estimate in question is *not* a mediator. The evidence presented, in other words, is inconsistent with the hand-waiving "gateway belief" claim (scholars know the path models featured in this work don't support any inferences about causation). It's embarrassing to observe this sort of non-reasoning.

3. Yes, small effect sizes can be impressive when they are. They are not impressive when they aren’t. What’s impressive about the one featured here?

In my own view, "effect size" in the abstract is not particularly useful. Effect sizes have meaning in relation to the inferences they support, something that depends on some reasonable theory about what sort of effect one would expect to see if one hypothesis rather than another were true.

I've explained multiple times why the effects here -- whether or not "significantly different from zero, p < 0.05" & regardless of reported Cohen's d = 0.14, 0.09 (tiny, by conventional terms) or whatever--are not *practically* meaningful.

So go ahead & tell me what practical inferences are supported by these studies.

4. It’s simple: the hypothesis is that exposure to the msg changes the minds of those who don’t accept AGW. So report the percentage who accepted w/ & w/o exposure (between subjects) or before & after (within). The authors repeatedly fail to report that—but write as if that is what they measured.

5. Now you tell me: Why do you shrug your shoulders at truncated y-axes, selective reporting of data & the like? Would *you* do what the authors here did in their published paperto obscure from readers the counterfactual-belief item wording? Would you report minuscule effects on a 0.3 point portion of a 7-point axis, as they did in replication?

You've said, "enh, who cares" on the substance-- on which I think you are manifestly wrong.

But how about on the appropriateness of this style of presenting study findings? Do you not care about that either?

February 25, 2016 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

Dan,


This is deceptive behavior. It's a pattern of it, in fact. That is what this post is about.

I notice you've ignored my earlier comment. Just to be clear, is your pattern of deceptive behaviour meant to simply be an illustration, do you not realise you're doing it, or do you think it's okay for you but not for others?

February 25, 2016 | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Dan -

==> I don't think that showing experiment subjects a "97% msg" & measuring their response to be modeling the real-world dynamics that explain why in fact consensus messaging has failed in the real world.

I agree.

==> Indeed, I think "messaging" has been shown -- in various settings, w/ various methods -- to reflect an incorrect view of real-world dynamics.

Not sure I get what you're saying there. Messaging is effective in all sorts of contexts involving real-world dynamics. The interesting question, IMO, is whether and how what kind of messaging is effective in the real context of people formulating opinions about climate change. Or somewhat more generally (but directly related) what kind of messaging is or isn't effective in a polarized context where large segments of the public are ideologically-identified and prone towards identity-protective cognition.


==> I do think one can get information from experiments that give one more reason or less to expect certain forms of discourse to excite identity-protective responses rather than the sort of "knowlegdge aquisition/use" form of reasoning that generates constructive collective decisionmaking.

Sure. But measuring causality in that process is not simple, it seems to me.

==> Some of the recent posts present evidence that, unlike "climate science literacy" items that measure what people (of diverse political outlooks) *know* or *feel* about climate change, "97% consensus" msgs & survey items on "scientific consensus" *measure* the cultural identity associated with opposing climate-change positions.

I really do get this. I make sure to indicate that I get it in my comments to you, but my questions about the conclusions that you're drawing stand on top of acknowledging that pattern in the evidence that you've collected.

Basically, what it amounts to is that I'm asking you for evidence that speaks to causality (which is what you assert) as distinguished from correlation. What I don't understand about your answers is that they don't, it seems to me, to speak to that basic and foundational distinction. I don't understand why, someone much smarter and better able to analyze data than I, fails to deal with such a fundamental problem of teasing out causation and correlation. Is it because you have presented evidence in support of conclusions about causation, but I'm just not smart enough to understand those data? Could be, I guess. Is it because for some reason you're just not dealing with the insufficiency of your data to support the conclusions that you're drawing? Well, it seems that way to me thus far. But if you're content that you have sufficiently collected data to explicate causality, that's fine. I may still ask you for an explanation, so as to better understand why you think your conclusion is warranted.


==> That's evidence that I think bears practical weight. In my view, it counsels against the "your team is a fucking bunch of idiots" "here: let an 8 yr old tell you" style of messaging that is in fact what "conensus messaging" *is* in the real-world.

I agree with all of that, but even though you have repeated similar answers, I don't see how it answers my questions about what evidence you use to conclude causation. I don't get why you keep repeating such answers when I keep explaining that I don't see how your answers actually answer my questions.


==> You've asked several times for "evidence" & I keep pointing you toward that. There you go; you decide, using your own reason, what inference to draw & act accordingly.

Yes. Well, of course. The inference that I draw is that you haven't explained your stated conclusion about causality. You have identified an interesting correlation.

==> *This* post is about researchers behaving in a deceptive fashion. I wouldn't draw any practical inferences from studies that have this form, but I think it's clear from the convoluted questions, the humungous sample sizes, the hidden wording of survey items, & the use of graphic formats featured in every "how to lie with statistics" book that we can infer the probability that the AAAS pie chart would cause a conservative who doesn't believe in climate change to say "I have changed my mind now & believe in human-causedc climate change" is pitifully small.

Right, well, I agree. And I keep thinking I make it clear that I agree. Yet you keep saying stuff like that to me as if you don't think that I agree. So again, your response confuses me.


==> I've already told you that the probability a conservative will say that he believes the AAAS pie chart msg is equivalent to the probability that he will say he believes in human-caused climate change-- & *lower* than the probability that he'll say he already accepts that there is scientific consensus on AGW.

Again, I agree. And I'm confused as to why you think that's germane to my question to you which was about what evidence supports your assertions of causality. The pattern repeats, and I don't get why.


==> But obviously, if you think that *I* think "motivated reasoning" means there's nothing people can do to enable constructive engagement with the best available evidence in communities 1/2 of whose members have a cultural identity associated with "disbelief in climate change," then even you aren't reading as closely as you should be!

??? I have no idea why you think that I think that's what "motivated reasoning" means... Where does that come from?

This is all just pretty weird, IMO. As I see it, I keep asking you a rather specific range of questions,on a couple of different issues, and you answer with a fairly wandering set of, basically, non sequiturs.

And although I question whether it will do any good, I will repeat another point I was trying to make. I don't understand why you engage in the form of, what appears to me, to be an identity-aggressive manner. Personally, I think that such an approach indicates a proximal goal of something other than an open exchange of ideas, because identity-aggressive engagement doesn't produce an open exchange of ideas - just more identity-protective cognition. It's particularly perplexing to me to see you engaging in such behavior because much of your work is focused on explaining that very dynamic

You seem to indicate that your identity-aggressive manner is explained by a sense of outrage of how other people fail to meet certain standards. Well, my first inclination is always to be skeptical about that kind of moral posturing. There is no reason why you can't make your criticisms of someone else's analysis clear w/o that kind of moral posturing. The question becomes what do you see as the desired goal? Is it to engage in mutual identity-protective cognition? Or is it to exchange views in an open dialog? Of course, removing the identity-aggressive overlay in an exchange won't guarantee that your interlocutor will likewise not engage in identity-aggressive exchange, but when you adopt an identity-aggressive stance you are more or less guaranteed that you will get an identity-aggressive response. If your ultimate goal is to get an identity-aggressive response, then it makes sense to adopt an identity-aggressive posture. But basically, one way of engaging has the potential to produce open exchange and the other doesn't, so then your choice of posture may well indicate what your goal is.

February 25, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Dan seez here

And of course ask them why a real-world $300 million social marketing campaign that featured the 97% msg didn't work, which is the *external validity* test for this hypothesis (we are discussing "internal validity" only of these experiments).

and Dan seez there

Indeed, the “scientific consensus” message figured prominently in the $300 million social marketing campaign by Alliance for Climate Protection, the advocacy group headed by former Vice President Al Gore, whose “Inconvenient Truth” documentary film and book both prominently featured the 2004 “97% consensus”

Dan got the link right, but did a Trump on the strikeout, because, let us be honest bunnies, that was 2004. Of course the opposition to Gore's message consumed a few bucks too.

February 29, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterEli Rabett

As I recall (not currently having the link) the paper from which the graphs at the top of this post were taken also discussed the finding that many people were unaware that there was a scientific consensus on global warming.

This could be because the merchants of doubt have been highly effective. Or, it could be that people are not really paying attention. Answering that one gets one's news from Fox (or MSNBC) could be a response based on one's expression of identity and does not necessarily reflect the actual amount one might be tuned into the messaging, on this particular topic, at those sources.

Despite what people may profess to believe, if we look at actions and changes in lifestyle, damn near nobody gives a damn about climate change.

Thus, responses to a friendly pollster might not evoke a hostile reaction. And responses could be variants of what is really: “Yeah, sure, fine, whatever!” transposed onto the available choices.

And when anger regarding slights to one's tribe gets deep enough, who wants facts, anyway? http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/01/technology/john-sculley-donald-trump/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

Polls are so yesterday. What you really need is data from a social media platform like Facebook. Complete with emoticons.


Policy changes happen as a result of politics. In the US two party system nearly all significant policies map out to the D or the R side. Which don't really necessarily relate to the dictionary definition of “conservative” or “liberal”, although we all pretty much know what we mean. But shouldn't preserving the New Deal be seen as “conservative” by now?

The balancing act for the two political parties is to build a strong base (or coalition of several bases) of people who have strong feelings about particular issues that will build party loyalty. And still manage, after putting enough of these bases together, to project a party image outward in a more moderated way to include people who do not strongly identify with those issues.

Political candidates need funding. Fossil Fuel corporations have been, directly and through various intermediaries sources of such funding.

I think that the politicians need to demonstrate their loyalty to their funders on this issue. In my opinion, they can project this to their constituency in a manner that shows that the politician is on their side.

Thus, in my opinion, climate change denial is not necessarily itself a closely held belief itself, but one that can be used to sort out which do matter to the individual involved. And thus which of two "lesser evil" politicians to support. Perhaps those have more to do with environmental laws, or property rights. Matters perhaps seen as current issues not future ones.

March 8, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterGaythia Weis

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>