But such views are often based
largely on assertion and anecdote.
Not exact matches
While conceding that there is «some basis» for concerns about «the negative social effects of globalization», it contends that it is «not true that globalization is an overwhelming supra - national force that has
largely usurped national policy autonomy...» It asserts that «national policies can, and should, give priority to mitigating negative effects
on globalization» of financial markets), and the desperate and helpless attempts by the national regimes to come to grips with the soaring unemployment situation in the face of the continuing onslaught of the «supra - national» financial markets, the above bland
assertion about «national policies» has an air of unreality about it.
In 1981, my Harvard colleague, political scientist Steven Kelman surveyed Congressional staff members, and found that support and opposition to market - based environmental policy instruments was based
largely on ideological grounds: Republicans, who supported the concept of economic - incentive approaches, offered as a reason the
assertion that «the free market works,» or «less government intervention» is desirable, without any real awareness or understanding of the economic arguments for market - based programs.
But as far as his biblical
assertion goes, Pruitt's words reflect a wider trend among American evangelicals, who
largely have not embraced scientific thought
on environmentalism or global warming.
Keep in mind, also, that the data are measured over a time period that
largely predates the polarization related to global warming — so using that study as a way to confirm
assertions about the impact of the climate wars
on public trust in scientists is motivated reasoning in its purest form.
Almost
on cue, I received a comment linking to the Koch - funded CATO institute, and over
on Facebook the discussion started with the
assertion that evidence for climate change is
largely «made up».