Interesting use of language. "The reality and danger", and "actions to mitigate the threat" - this rather than to say "actions to 'mitigate' the perceived threat".
perhaps you did not read the names of the pollsters and their affiliations ... they are all associated with climate change ... the poll has to do with people's perceptions ... your "critique" is clearly irrelevant to their intentions and has nothing to do with proving/disproving climate change or anything to do with the science
perhaps you should make a poll yourself (why don';t you say yea or nay to that?) so we can see your bias
are you biased? yes or no
Most people could be fitted into one or more categories
all statistical analysis comes to this question and it is answered in the study ... so what are you trying to say???
Wrong again. I noted that the language being used in the introduction wrongly implied the existence of "the threat", instead of correctly implying perceived existence, or perhaps "the threat of the threat".
This can only be true if you are biased toward the dismissive category ...
the language would be wrong if there were not considerable evidence for it to be true ... for you it is obvious there is not considerable evidence and therefore the language is wrong
It's a first observation of possibilities for understanding the approach taken, or possible bias expressed. It doesn't mean that they did something wrong inside the actual study work.
THEY ARE ALL IN THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNITY!!!!!
want to buy a clue???
have you read it yet???
so you claim - again providing nothing to substantiate the claim
i think logtroll was referring to your positional remarks hitting almost every TP of the conservative deniers ...
so how about clarifying??? are you a denier or not???
what perfect objects to is the characterization in the report of dismissives
to which you replied
Not at all; you're simply making it up.
but then you stated
I think one could be tempted to assume that answering to the negative, is an indicator of some negative intellectual or ethical characteristic, or quality, to many "progressive" thinkers.
It's being "inflexible", "dogmatic", "unwilling to set aside bias and examine the contrary evidence", etc.
one is not tempted to assume but rather through experience conclude that one may be as described.
this i believe is precisely to what you objected to with the category "dismissive" ... you would rather be viewed as open minded instead of being categorized as an inflexible, dogmatic, intractable denier which i would guess offends your delicate sensibilities
so in order to clarify in my mind that you are not an inflexible, dogmatic, intractable denier but an open minded person of inestimable intellectual capacities, what evidence would be required for you to change your mind?
see below
To change an opinion based on long consideration, would seem to require very compelling, very well documented information, or a devastating hit to a former construct.
so as above i presume you can outline what that compelling, well documented information is
I'll just read through and point out things as I notice them.
not much point as they are in the climate change community
However, it may not be that great a name, in conveying the "spectrum" aspect, of attitudes found. That would be my first check of the categorizations - how they flow semantically, from one side of the gauge, to the other extreme.
semantic flow??? wow please offer your semantically correct categories.
The category name is about as accurate as can be from their perspective ... 90+% of "dismissives" reject climate change so it is accurate description
I may find some technical problem or semantics difficulty later
so may i conclude you will object to anything from the internal bias of the pollsters?
I am not offended by the name of the category as used.
so you are not offended by the name but you may find semantic problems ... i hope it is not the dismissive category
The only critique I would offer is not about the name but about how the categories are made and how they relate. I haven't checked yet so no comment yet, but it's difficult to properly make such categories and have questions that neatly send your answer to one of the baskets.
so basically you will tell the pollsters they did not do the poll the way you want them to (who would have thunk that)
please note that when analyzing polling numbers either the categories account for more than 100% or not and if they account only for 100% they are selected based on some criteria inherent in the process. the only way you would know would be to have the raw data and do the analysis yourself
so may i conclude you are a dismissive and should i "assume" ... would you object if i thought you would object to anything i would say (i am voting yes ... what say you?)
