Look: What an ordinary individual believes about the “facts” on climate change has no impact on the climate.
What he or she does as a consumer, as a voter, or as a participant in public debate is just too inconsequential to have an impact.
No mistake she makes about the science on climate change, then, is going to affect the risk posed by global warming for him or her or for anyone else that person cares about.
But if he or she takes the “wrong” position in relation to his or her cultural group, the result could be devastating for her, given what climate change now signifies about one’s membership in and loyalty to opposing cultural groups.
Kahan advises climate worriers to try to engage in public discussion in ways that are less “culturally assaultive.” This assumes that climate worriers care more about climate policy than about asserting their moral and intellectual superiority over conservatives. The most charitable I can be is to say that I am willing to wait and see whether that is the case.
And if “she” happens to be CEO of a power company, or chairman of a firm of investors. or a state regulatory official, do we assume the importance of her viewpoint is equally inconsequential?
Of those, yes.
Unless they are angel investors in solar or nuclear, and even those are sketchy.
Aren’t regulators supposed that follow the law?
This issue IS about the cultural group known as electioneering.