Skip to comments.How the science of persuasion could change the politics of climate change
Posted on 04/16/2018 6:22:34 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Jerry Taylor believes he can change the minds of conservative climate skeptics. After all, he helped plant the doubts for many in the first place.
Hes president of the Niskanen Center, a libertarian-leaning Washington, DC, think tank he founded in 2014. He and his colleagues there are trying to build support for the passage of an aggressive federal carbon tax, through discussions with Washington insiders, with a particular focus on Republican legislators and their staff.
Lesson one: Pick the right targets
Political scientists consistently find that mass opinion doesnt drive the policy debate, so much as the other way around. Partisan divides emerge first among elites, including influential advocacy groups, high-profile commentators, and politicians, says Megan Mullin, an associate professor of environmental politics at Duke University.
Lesson 2: Depoliticize the issue
When Taylor sits down across from them, his standard opening goes: I understand why youre skeptical. I probably wrote most of the talking points youve read. But I changed my mind, and let me explain why I did.
Lesson 3: Pick the right policies
Former congressman Bob Inglis, a South Carolina Republican, also argues that the GOP will come around to a carbon tax, particularly if parties can reach a grand bargain that includes the rollback of regulatory efforts like the Clean Power Plan.
Lesson 4: Find areas of common ground
Another strategy that political scientists have advanced for enacting climate-friendly policies relates to the co-benefits theory. The basic concept is that many of the same steps that will cut greenhouse-gas emissions will also promote technological innovation, energy independence, national security, air quality, health, and jobs.
(Excerpt) Read more at technologyreview.com ...
So he basically insults whoever he is speaking to by suggesting that their skepticism is based on his illegitimate "talking points" rather than facts. That'll get him far.
Sounds like the Alinsky playbook. No coincidence l’m sure.
If I want to be a liberal, I’ll be a liberal.
Don’t try to fool me with smooth talking points. They’ll flop.
I’ve seen no evidence to indicate climate change is real - other than the fact liberals believe in it.
Then again, liberals believe in all kinds of things I don’t.
Let’s see if I understand him correctly. He states propaganda works, and works well with beta males and those who go along with the crowd. Implicit is that it does not work with those who think for themselves. Got it.
That was my first thought as well.
Libertarian must mean something different than it did a few years ago. Pushing for a new tax, to increase the power of a centralized government. Nothing is safe from being converged.
Libertarians peddling more taxes and statism...
I thought they were against these things? Silly me.
You tell the big lie. You tell it over & over and resistance to that lie begins to crumble
...or does it...
Do we believe the evidence of our eyes and the actual weather we experience? Do we acknowledge the disconnect between accurately predicting global weather to a tenth of a degree while unable to accurately predict a snow storm or rain in the next 2-3 days? Do we factor in the lies told, the data falsified or hidden with selection biases and fudge factors?
“Climate scientists” pushing global warming/ man made climate change should be drummed out of academia.
If arrogance isn’t a sin, it should be.
Classical liberalism is dead is America.
Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman must be turning over in their graves.
“libertarian-leaning Washington, DC, think tank he founded in 2014. He and his colleagues there are trying to build support for the passage of an aggressive federal carbon tax, “
Libertarians supporting carbon taxes. Now, he’s redefining libertarian to include those that want more taxes and a totalitarian carbon tax. Sort like a century ago when the term liberal, which had previously meant a person who supported free markets, limited government and individual rights was transformed into a person that supports big government and government conferred “rights”.
Apparently, he has forgotten what libertarians stand for, assuming he ever knew in the first place.
Actual libertarians, even the "libertarian-leaning", do not support aggressive taxation of any kind.
That was after 1932.
Before 1932, almost every one was a classical liberal.
The culture always moves left. And resistance to that is difficult, if not downright impossible to maintain.
Anything that is not liberal, will sooner than later be captured or taken over by the Left.
Science uses the scientific method.
Climate “science” does not mean use the scientific method.
What passes for “liberal” today has NOTHING to do with classic liberalism... Going by the classical definition of Liberal most folks are... but what is called LIBERAL today has NOTHING to do with that.
First it was "court-ordered, science-based" in an earlier article, now it's "revenue-neutral tax".
I haven't heard an official announcement, but I'm beginning to suspect today is National Oxymoron Day.
Its changed. Today the Left wants to instruct you, regulate you and tax you.
Freedom has nothing to do with it. The elite can better plan and decide what’s best for you than you do.
The impulse to snuff out freedom is the longest-lasting impulse in human history and isn’t going to disappear any time soon.
And freedom is too much for some people to deal with...
So hes the typical salesman selling ice to eskimos. Great, lets build our economy and set our energy policies based on phony climate science. Target the gullible and greedy Eskimos, I mean Republicans.