We see clearly in the result of the 2016 presidential election that political outcomes can act as a brake on runaway cultural agendas promoted by activists and elites at
the extremes of public opinion.
Not exact matches
That's why I'm with the other contributors above who seem to share my astonishment at Roger Pielke Jr.'s apparently
extreme belief «that the policy utility
of trying to change
public opinion through the media [is]
of questionable value,» that «the version
of democracy [in which] the
public guide wise
public policy — is not well supported by theory or evidence,» and that he'd «go so far as to say that it is a complete myth.»
If someone holds
extreme or bizarre or clearly baseless
opinions, or receives funding directly or indirectly from corporations with billions
of dollars in profit riding on
public confusion about, or ignorance
of, the scientific facts, or «chooses to spend his time» with propagandists and ideologues known to be dishonest, those are all entirely legitimate — and indeed compelling — reasons to be, shall we say, «skeptical»
of his scientific claims.
Given the perceived «importance
of extreme events as foci for
public and governmental
opinion», «the most valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as possible», in order to «help the cause».
In most areas
extreme care in the wording
of an issue is not that critical, but with something as important and politically charged as climate change where there are powerful interests determined to make sure nothing changes and who freely manipulate
public opinion through corporate outlets every word, every turn
of a phrase, every nuance needs to be carefully considered.
It certainly seems that he has an ideal window by which to do so: After the wave
of extreme weather events last year, the tide
of public opinion is again turning towards accepting climate change — and towards being open to have a conversation about solutions.