20131018_IM

Source: Inquiring Minds

URL: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/10/inquiring-minds-kahan-lewandowsky-communicate-climate

Date: 18/10/2013

Event: Inquiring Minds: How do you get people to give a damn about climate change?

Credit: Inquiring Minds, Chris Mooney, also many thanks to tlitb for transcribing this

People:

• Dr. Dan Kahan: Professor of Law, Professor of Psychology, Yale Law School
• Professor Stephan Lewandowsky: Cognitive psychologist
• Chris Mooney: American journalist, author of The Republican Brain

Chris Mooney: So, with that, let's get on with our show today, debating one of what may be the biggest questions in the science of science communication, which is what we know about what works and what it means, and whether facts are actually good devices to sway people. So let's go to my interview with Dan Kahan of Yale University and Stephan Lewandowsky from the University of Bristol. Dan Kahan, welcome to Inquiring Minds.

Dan Kahan: Thank you Chris, great to be here.

Chris Mooney: And Stephan Lewandowsky, welcome also to Inquiring Minds.

Stephan Lewandowsky: Thank you, great to be here [tremendous exhale straight into mike].

Chris Mooney: Both of you have done what I think is very important research and I'm kinda a junkie and I read it all. I've reported both of, ah, your research in the past. And you know you're both helping us understand this problem of science communication with respect, not only to climate, but also the implications are much broader, they extend to the evolution issue, the vaccine issue, the fracking issue, and on and on; but I wanted to have you on because, based on my reading of the research, an issue's come up where there might be some disagreement. And this is an issue that's kind of an emotional matter for people in science, because it kind of goes to the heart of what they do.

And basically, whether they can hope to live in a reasonable world or not - if I can just not be too melodramatic, ah, the issue here is: do facts work when you're communicating about climate change and other contested issues which is what scientists want to do, or do they not, or maybe to what extent do they work? And so to grasp this issue, I think we should start off talking to Dan a little bit, um about what the case is for why facts might not work and this is the research on ideology. Which seems to be this major thing that interferes with how people accept science, and if they're smart sometimes it might even interfere worse. So Dan maybe you could start giving us the background on why facts sometimes get beaten by ideology.

Dan Kahan: Ok, um, although I do wanna start by saying that, I think that, um, facts not do work but are the only thing in the end that is going to work. Um and the question is then just what kind of conditions do you need in order for people to reliably be able to identify what the facts, um are. And if you think about people have to recognize as known by science, um much more than they could ever possibly um understand the detailed level em, or verify for themselves, um, by they have lots of different kinds of cues and processes that normally reliably lead them, um, to the best available evidence, um, but sometimes, um, those kinds of cues and processes, essentially the science communication environment, um, get disrupted, em, and when that happens then people are going to be confused and they're going to use their reason in ways, er, that wont reliably, um, lead them to what the right facts are, but might lead them, er more reliably to positions that are held within their group. That's the kind of thing we seeing on debates like climate change or nuclear power or the HPV vaccine, positions on those issues, um, have essentially become symbols of peoples membership in and loyalty to groups, um and the stake that people have in the standing in the group um is a very strong one. And in those conditions, people tend to use their reason to extract some information, the parts of it that will help them, er to reinforce the beliefs that are held within their group...

Chris Mooney: Got it.

Dan Kahan: ... those conditions are ones you wanna change, because you want facts to matter. Um, but facts by themselves can't necessarily change those conditions.

Chris Mooney: Got it. Let me just ask Stephan, um do you broadly agree with that? I mean you've done a lot of research showing, Dan said groups, but you could also say, I mean some of the groups are marked by your political or ideological affiliations. You agree that that is clearly getting in the way a lot of the time?

Stephan Lewandowsky: Ooaah! Absolutely! There's no question, particularly when it comes to climate change the um, people's world view, or ideology, whatever you want to call that is is just an overriding variable, ahm, whereby people who are strongly endorsing the free-market, errm are very unlikely to accept the findings from climate science. So yes, I totally agree with that.

Chris Mooney: ... okay. Well now I wanna ask you -

Dan Kahan: Can I say too, that one of the facts that -

Chris Mooney: Go ahead.

Dan Kahan: ...another thing I think [chuckling] not to ruin the show but, um another thing I think Stephan and I agree about is that like "a fact" um essentially that's of critical importance to people, um is what er, people who have expertise in a particular field believe. Um, I mean Steve has done studies like this, and I have too, um that show that on these issues where you kind of have public conflict on decision relevant science, it's not one group saying, "We trust the scientists" and the other saying "Screw the scientists". Those on both sides um tend to believe that the scientists, um, hold the position that's dominant within their group. Um, so that's part of what it is that they're polarised about. And that doesn't usually happen.

Chris Mooney: Mmm, hmm. So let me now just go on to some of Stephan's new research that, you know, might seem to conflict with the idea that ideology is sort of, reigning supreme, um and Stephan I'll ask you to describe this research, where you are actually giving people something that sounds to me like a fact, or it sounds to me like er something like I would expect conservatives to contest, you're telling them - you can explain - you're telling them there is a scientist consensus on climate change, and you're getting a, a response.

Stephan Lewandowsky: Yeees, we do. This was a study where we did exactly that. We told people that 97 out of a 100 climate scientists agree on the basic premise that the globe is warming due to human greenhouse gas emissions. And what we found was that that boosted, er people's acceptance of the er scientific er facts related to climate change. Um by a significant amount. And it did so in particular for people of a free-market world view or ideology. And er, so we found that people were responsive to that message. And it is really not surprising if you consider the background literature on this, it's long been known that people adjust their attitudes and behaviors based on what they think the majority of people do. Ah, there's a veerry, you know people are social animals and they're responsive to social cues and if it is socially unacceptable to, ya know, consume excessive amounts of alcohol then people won't do that. Um, and in a sense this is what we found, that people are sensitive to the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.

Chris Mooney: So that's interesting, so now, it looks like I have conflicting messages if I want to communicate? I mean what do I make of the fact that er, they're some factual statements that just seem to move people but we know that ideology is also big. And I'll get Stephan to answer that and then I'll ask Dan, er to respond to this new research and this new angle.

Stephan Lewandowsky: Yeah, well I think both. They're, they're two components. What we found in the study I've just described is also that ideology or worldview is an overriding variable. The two things aren't exactly in conflict. Um, we find that ideology is predisposing people towards rejection of the scientific evidence in this incidence. And we also find on top of that, that that predisposition is reduced if we tell people about the scientific consensus. So I think there are two variables going on, er, and the findings that Dan has been reporting and my own, I think, complement each other, rather than being in conflict.

Chris Mooney: Dan, what's your, what's your take?

Dan Kahan: Well, I mean first of all, I mean I take another basic thing that Steve and I would agree on, and that's more important than any disagreement we may have about particular studies, um, is that the way to try to sort these things out, is by doing empirical testing. Um and by trying to make the best assessment you can, based on all the evidence that''s available. And I certainly see the kinds of studies that Steve has been doing, as as valid, and something that has to be taken into account, and that we should adjust our views, um, on about how people form their positions on, on science. Um my own view though is that, er, the power of communicating scientific consensus has been tested pretty much in the world. Um the idea that er there's 97% consensus or more was actually a dominant theme of er, the climate communication um that Al Gore and his group engaged in for many, many years. Um and...

Chris Mooney [interrupting]: That - right -

Dan Kahan: ...the claim there's 97% consensus is widespread. The studies that show that do appear on a regular basis, um and they don't seem to make any difference in the proportion of people, um, that actually believe that climate change is caused by humans. And I think the answer, the reason is the one that Steve gave. It's a kind of social influence. Um the social influence they're responding to is what do people like me believe. Um and people like them tend not to believe that that's what most scientists think. Now you can tell them that that what most scientists think, um but they're used to being told things that um they know people in their group don't believe. Um I think Steve got the result that he did in his study, and its very important, and people should try to replicate it, um but my thought is that when people get that kind of message in the world, there are all kinds of other influences that are filtering, essentially, the credibility of that message, um if that would work -

Chris Mooney: Stephan -

Dan Kahan: - I would have expected it to work by now.

Chris Mooney: Yeah, what do you think of that, so in other words it might work in the lab - once you get out into the messy world where Fox News is telling people [chuckling] not to believe this stuff, it doesn't work any more.

Stephan Lewandowsky: Well, I think my answer is that, first of all, our studies were done, some of them, outside the lab, using representative samples, you know with data collected by a professional survey firm. So we have gone out of the lab. Now I, I agree with Dan partially in that erm, yes it would be nice if everybody in the real world knew that the consensus among climate scientists was as high as it is. But our own data from the same experiments, they show that in reality, erm, people, the public thinks that the agreement is far less than 97%. So there is a consensus gap, er, such that what people tend to believe is that only about 60-65% of scientists agree on this issue. When in reality the agreement is far, far greater than that.

So er, to say that well, Al Gore has tried this and and it doesn't work, well what hasn't worked is to communicate the extent of the consensus. But we know from my studies, and they have been replicated, er, including by others, we know from my studies that if you can only tell people ab[laugh]out the consensus then it does make a huge difference to their belief. So they're, they're, they're two issue going on here, and I think the, the really important question to ask is why is there this mis-perception in the public, er about the, you know, that they don't recognize how strong the agreement is. And, and, I mean you've already mentioned Fox News, but I think more generally we have a problem with the way the media and various other interest groups have been portraying climate science, er, in society and that is the real problem we have to address.

Chris Mooney: So what if, you know, I'll ask Dan first, but I'll ask you both. I mean at this point, if you're operationalising any of this you wanna actually make a difference, and communicate. What does it mean, what does this research mean for what someone should go out and try to do?

Dan Kahan: Well, actually, I mean in the same, the same spirit that I [chuckle] started the last answer. I think people should try lots of things. Um and er, there're more plausible er, strategies out there than will actually work. Um, and people should try them. And even if, even if er, if, if, if my, if I don't think that's the most plausible strategy, I'm going to be disappointed, um if nobody's trying it. Because the, the likelihood um, that it's right, um is sufficiently high and the benefit of it would be sufficiently great, that it would be stupid um, to try only something else.

Um but what I would, my view is that what's preventing people from getting the message, isn't that they haven't heard it, um but that they exist in a social environment um, where they don't credit that information. That that social environment is different from the ones that, when I say lab I don't mean like "inside of a laboratory". But inside of a study. Er where somebody is able to give them this kind of message. What I would communicate to them um, is that the consensus um, is people like you um, are orientating themselves with respect to the science in a way um, that shows that it's valid. Um, 97% of people like you. 

And actually, that's true. You just have to find the places where people are engaging that kind of climate science, um in that constructive way. So, if you got places like Florida and Arizona um, not a good idea to run for office saying that you care about climate change. But all over the state they are engaged in stakeholder proceedings um, that are informed by climate science, including what's in the IPCC um, that are aimed at trying to er, contain adverse climate impacts um, on those communities, and you can just show people, people like them um, engaging that information in a positive way. At that point, they're very much open to the usual cues um, that help people to converge on what the best evidence is.

Chris Mooney: But this sounds to me, and I'll, I'll kick the question back to Stephan a second, this sounds to me like "framing". In other words setting up the information so that it resonates with the audience, but what I take Stephan's research to be suggesting, is that this unframed message about consensus might still get through. So I guess I'll ask you now, Stephan, what you would say is the practical strategy; for communicating?

Stephan Lewandowsky: Aaah, well I agree with Dan in many ways. I think there are multiple messages that er, can do the job with, you know, different segments of the audience, aarm, some messages work better than others for different folks. Aarm, that's, you know, I don't have any problem with that, I think that's absolutely profoundly true. Um, from my point of view, I think er underscoring the consensus is a, an arguably successful strategy for most people er, as far as er, we know from the data. I also think re-framing is a very important thing, I mean as some of Dan's work er, shows that if you remind people that one solution to climate change is, you know, business opportunities for new and upcoming technologies, then they think about mitigation very differently from when you tell them that we have to cut emissions. Um, so I think there are ways in which the message can be presented that maximizes our chances of, of it getting through. In, In a lot of different, different ways.

Chris Mooney: Are we better at this now? I mean you guys are both working in a field that's called "the science of science communication", there have been conferences on it um, is there a real progress in terms of messaging because of a lot of research that's gone on in the last 5 or 10 years? Is it really being implemented? Dan, I'll ask you first.

Dan Kahan: Well, um, I that there there's definitely progress in understanding what the mechanisms of consequence are. Um, when you have public conflicts over decision relevant science, um there are lots of different kinds of psychological and social influences that affect how people process information about risk. Um and not all of them are gonna be the ones that matter. Um in this kind of setting. Um and I think that work mainly in the lab has done a good job of identifying what the mechanisms of consequence are. Um and also in suggesting things, that engage those mechanisms in a, in a constructive way.

But the only way for there to be progress is to have then, um people doing things in real world communication contexts, that are informed by that evidence. Um, because anything that Steve and I might show in a study, and for me "lab study" is just any kind of er, a study you do with, with subjects who you recruit to participate in a survey or an experiment. Anything we are able to do there um, is a model. Um you can go into the real world and try to make that kind of thing happen. Um but the way in which you can make it happen in the world um, isn't gonna be something you can just guess. Or that it'll be obvious. You are going to have to have hypotheses and experiments um, I think we'll make a lot of progress um, if people take results from experiments that show things working um, and then see what they can do in the world to reproduce that. And then we can use that information to um, and try to build on it, and see what we're running from it.

Chris Mooney: Stephan, what about you? What dya think is the state of the art? Is the state of the art getting more artful? Because of other research?

Stephan Lewandowsky: I think it is. I think we've learned a lot about the basic principles, and what it is that facilitates acceptance of the science, and what the barriers are to, to acceptance of it. Um, but lemme, lemme add something to, to what Dan has said. And that is erm ... part of the problem we've got - and there's research that points to that - part of the problem we have is just a lack of er, political leadership on this, on this, issue. Aaand, if you're tracking the poll results over the last 6 or 7 years, and, and you try to explain why there is arguably a declining concern amongst the public with climate change; then you know the, the reason for that seems to be lack of political leadership. The politicians have basically, put it bluntly, have abandoned the science. They've abandoned er, the problem. And it's only against the background of this lack of leadership that contrarian voices have got a er, foothold. As much as they have. And and there's work by Brulle et al that shows this. So I think [pause] all the knowledge we have gathered in the lab, over the last 5 or 10 years, is ready to be used, and it is ready to make a difference. But what we need is political leadership on this issue, to to make use of that knowledge that we have.

Chris Mooney: Let me just, lets go to a real world example on this, putting it to use. You know we just had a, gigantic er, rollout of climate science information by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, erm, and I would say that if they were trying to get a message out it was of scientific consensus. Er, I, what the actual message that was heard by people was, as I would suggest, maybe be a very different thing, but you know, did they use what you guys know? Or did they not? Is it, was this successful, or was it not? What do you think?

Dan Kahan: Well actually I think that the science communication is not just one thing. Um [laugh] and I think that er, the communication of the content of the science by the IPCC um, is outstanding, um, that the report is very well crafted, um, and that people who are gonna make practical decisions um, based on the science, are gonna get it. Um and know what its significance is. And that's no mean accomplishment. So I think they did a great job of communication. The problem is thinking that that kind of science communication is the same thing that er is involved in generating a kind of public receptivity um, to the best available evidence.

Um, most people are never gonna read the IPCC report. In fact most people are never gonna even read something written about the IPCC report. Or characterizing it in any kind of way. Um they're getting all kinds of cues from people um, about how to orient themselves towards climate science that are filtered through all kinds of intermediaries. Um, that's the kind of communication um that needs the most work. We need to be creating a science communication environment. Um where people recognise that they should orient themselves in the way that is receptive to best available evidence. But it's a huge mistake to think that that's the job of the scientists who write the IPCC report. This is a kind of failure of leadership, there's gotta be a science communication function, um, and a science communication er, layer um, that's focussed on generating the conditions in which people are gonna, gonna know that it's normal and appropriate to treat what otherwise they would see as the signal of scientific consensus at face value.

Chris Mooney: Stephan, do you wanna add on the actual IPCC rollout or anything?

Stephan Lewandowsky: Er, well again I think the scientists did a splendid job, there's no question. And I also agree with Dan that it's not their job to erm, you know, communicate this to public directly. Erm but I also think the rollout of the IPCC was a prime example of of how erm, people who reject the scientific consensus are very successful at erm, yah know, creating a media environment that is not conducive to people accepting the science. Let's put it that way. Putting it mildly.

Erm, in the lead up to release of the IPCC we had all sorts of leaks of preliminary copies of the report, we had er, reporting by tabloids in the UK, that was just completely er, er, mistaken, erm which was picked up around the world. There was a lot of reporting ahead of time that that sought to frame the release of the IPCC report in a manner that would, would, you know, let people dismiss the implications of the findings. And so again that was, you know, a a basically a political problem. There were voices out there who very cunningly sought to undercut the science, and they were able to do that without too much opposition from er, political leaders or for that matter from other media. So the problem unfortunately is that whatever we do in the lab erm, in reality we're faced with a political situation and scientists aren't the ones who can change that.

Chris Mooney: So let me now, we've talked a lot about climate change, I mean what's the generaliseability of what we're finding here? I mean ideology is not only pertinent on climate, it is absolutely pertinent on: the rejection of evolution, it might be slightly different ideology, but it's an ideology; vaccination, fracking - fracking is probably very similar to climate in a lot of ways - so er are the same lessons applying on all of these hot-button issues?

Dan Kahan: Well, er, I mean, one thing I hope er that we've learned um, from the experience of climate change is that er, it's really just a mistake to kind of assume um that valid science will communicate itself. Um, most of the the issues, um that are relevant to people's lives, that are informed by science, don't generate the kinda conflict that we see over climate change. Much less the perverse effect of people who seem to be even more adept at critical reasoning becoming even more polarised? Um but that's because most of those issues don't have in their career um, some set of influences um, that invest them with this kind of significance, as the symbols of group identity. And we should be, we should be looking at emerging technologies, and trying to prevent that sort of thing from happening when we can.

Vaccines are a really good example um, in fact the United States there's not um anything close to the public controversy about vaccination um, that there is on something like climate change. Um but there certainly is reason why you could worry about something like that happening. Um and sort of understanding what those dynamics are, and having ways in which you can respond to those, to try to minimize the likelihood, that they'll generate this kind of pathological state, um that's a really important thing, getting ahead of these things I think is critical because preventive medicine is always going to be better than the kinda chemotherapy um, that we're kinda puzzling over here with climate change.

Chris Mooney: Stephan, what about you? I mean erm, I'm just thinking if you apply the consensus message to evolution it's gonna be 99.99% of scientists, but I bet you it's still not going to be accepted. What do do you think about these other issues and if the same rule applies?

Stephan Lewandowsky: Well I think, let me touch on the evolution issue; I think you're absolutely right that the consensus message is gonna fail with some people, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't also be effective, overall. And I think we have to tease apart two things here, we have to look at the effectiveness overall of a message across, you know, broad segments of the population on the one hand, versus the isolated effect of that message on subsets of the population on the other. So the two can go together you know, you can tell people about the consensus in evolution, overall I'm sure it would make a slight difference but not for everybody. And I agree with Dan that, that of course we to try and avoid this ideological er, polarisation wherever possible.

And I just published a study last week or so where I looked at a number of different issues, erm, to see you know, whether ideology might go the other way. Might it be the case that there is "a liberal war on science" quote/unquote, that some people have suggested. So I looked at ideology again and political leanings and the effect of those variables on the acceptance of vaccinations and genetically modified foods, GM foods. And what I found is, somewhat to my surprise, that there was no effect of world view, or ideology, on the acceptance of GM foods - that was on a, an American sample. So there doesn't appear to be any polarization on that issue yet. Er and with vaccinations what I found is that there was a very subtle interplay of two variables that basically, more or less, cancelled each other out. So it was a bit more nuanced than I can explain it now on the air, but basically there was relatively little influence of world view on er vaccinations. So, the point is it's not necessarily the case that controversial scientific issues have to become polarized by party lines.

Chris Mooney: Hmm hmm, hmm hmm.

Dan Kahan: And I, I thought that was a very interesting study that Steve did, because there really isn't enough um, good empirically informed understanding of what public perceptions of vaccine risks are um, and he did manage to find some influences that explain variance. Um but if you look at what the variance, what variance was being explained, um there was overwhelmingly positive views - am I right Steve? - about vaccines and er, in the sample. Um so yes there were ...

Stephan Lewandowsky: Yes.

Dan Kahan: ...some people who had less positive views ...

Stephan Lewandowsky: Yeah.

Dan Kahan: ...but you're explaining variance within a range, you know, of people between, who really love vaccines ...

[Someone laughs - Stephan Lewandowsky?]

Dan Kahan: and just really [like or dislike?] it a lot....

Stephan Lewandowsky: Hah! [laughs].

Dan Kahan: ... erm and knowing about the variance is important um, but the, same, well, different groups as he says, right? But the kinda thing we are seeing about climate change is just a whole different phenomenon.

Chris Mooney: So it's bigger? Let me translate this: what you're saying is that on, I mean on climate you have a polarised public, on vaccines you're saying that the broad majority of the public feels good about them and you're talking about a small subset of people that would be in vaccine denial. Are you guys both agreed about that? Is that right?

Stephan Lewandowsky: Yah, certainly overall the, the.. Yes, the distribution is located in a very different place. Yes, that is certainly true...

Dan Kahan: Can I, can I connect that too to the evolution point? Um because, and I'm curious, I bet Steve will agree with this, um but er, if you actually, just the question "Do you believe in evolution?" um it's not actually measuring anything to do with people's understanding of science. Um there's no correlation between whether you say you believe in evolution, or you don't, on the one hand and whether you actually understand mechanisms like natural selection, random mutation, or genetic variance. The, the core of the modern synthesis. Um people who say they believe those things aren't very - who believe evolution - aren't very likely to understand those things - they accept something they don't understand, which is just fine. Because you have to do that.

Um, but plenty of people who say they don't believe evolution, do understand those things, and can be taught those things. And people who have very high scores on science literacy, otherwise, they'll get about 50% on this question "Do you believe evolution?". That's because they're answering a certain question: "Who are you?". That's how they understand that question. And if the issue is, well, should we, do we wish that more would say "I believe in evolution" even if they understand it. I mean, er, that's an interesting question I suppose. But now let's say we go to those people um, and they do have an identity stake um, in taking this position on "I don't believe in evolution", and we say to them 'You know, um, it's also part of your identity to be skeptical about vaccines, and by the way this war on science that you're having, the same thing, that, the same virus that's causing you to erm, deny evolution, that's the one that's causing you to be against climate change, and now it's mutating into something on vaccines.' 

At that point you're starting to, to fill the kind of er, environment in which people are responding to cues, about who believes what in their community with information. That's social influence information. People like you have this kind of position. It's actually false. Um but if we understand the mechanisms better, that people are very responsive to these social influences. The last thing you wanna do, is have anybody um, overstate the degree to which um, there's group conflict about vaccines.

Chris Mooney: Yeah, but, but Dan [unintelligible] I mean it's so impossible to control the information environment that they're getting, where people are, you know, in effect putting spin on every bit of information all the time and polarising people, I mean, it's hard to imagine how you turn down the knobs.

Dan Kahan: Steve, Steve was -

Chris Mooney: Yeah.

Dan Kahan: Steve was saying that we should be expecting and exhorting, um political the political leaders um to do things on climate change, and I agree with him. Um the same, the people I'm talking about here who present these kinds of claims about er, the vaccines um, being connected to evolution and, and climate change, those are actually people who think that they're doing, that what they're saying is true, and that the message that they're, they're promoting is a good one. Um they're the same people who are trying to raise people's awareness of climate change. I don't blame them. I think the problem is they don't have enough information, um about what these kinds of issues are and what they mean. And if they look at Steve's study, um, that will help them to see that those aren't connected issues. Um..

Chris Mooney: [doubtful] Yeah, I don't see those...'kay...

Dan Kahan: ...and if they look at other studies they'll see why that's a mistake to use that kind of rhetoric.

Chris Mooney: Okay, Steve?

Stephan Lewandowsky: Yeah, well I, I agree with Dan I think, you know, the issues aren't necessarily er, connected, but I wanna follow up on one other thing that Dan mentioned which I think is, is erm, the fact that a position on let's say climate change has become almost like a tribal totem, yah know, It's "I am conservative, therefore I cannot believe in climate change". There appears to be this sort of self identification almost that, that, you know, consists of rejecting the scientific evidence. And I think that is true in a lot of other scientific issues: evolution, possibly vaccination, er that, that people's identities are built around that attitude more and more. And again I think to break that what you need is spokepersons from within that community who are saying "Hang on, I am conservative too, and I believe that climate change is a real threat" er, for example Arnold Schwarzenegger, who's been very explicit on this issue...

Dan Kahan: [Chuckles.]

Stephan Lewandowsky: ...and is a, you know, a great advocate and er, has done great work on that. And I think that, that is an important goal is to just break this unnecessary linkage between ones own political identity and acceptance of scientific issues. Erm, so once again, for better or worse, I think it boils down ultimately to politics.

Chris Mooney: Well let me just wrap up then, I mean we do a...

Dan Kahan: By the way I couldn't agree more, with that. That is exactly what I think is the issue.

Chris Mooney: Well I think it is a good note to sort of tie this up and put a bow on it then. I'll just ask, Dan'll go first, and give Stephan the last word [because I gave?] the Dan first. So er, based on all this - I'll ask each of you guys - what is one evidenced based thing that you would like to see happen in the world that would actually make the scientific communication problem a little bit less bad?

Dan Kahan: Well I think that um the evidence based practice um that would be extremely useful, um would be to have some kind of a process um, in the er, the governmental regulatory process that generates um policy um, science informed policy um, that's equivalent to what we do now for cost benefit analysis. Every single regulation um, that is promulgated by any Federal agency gets centrally reviewed in the Office of Management and Budget for the cost benefit analysis. All of these regulations that have any kind of impact on er, the prospects for science informed policy making should have a science communication impact assessment attached to them. Um, there should be some attempt to identify what kinds of er, influences could generate the kinds of connections between identities and positions um, that Steve was mentioning. And to try to head those off because a lot of times those happen um by accident and misadventure um, and I do think that we could actually do something to kind of control that.

Stephan Lewandowsky: Well, I think what we really need is for conservative leaders to remember that the Earth isn't flat.

Dan Kahan [?]: [Snorts.]

Stephan Lewandowsky: And to, yah know, resume a little bit of rational thought. And to recognize that when 97 out of a 100 climate scientists agree on a problem, that, yah know, they're not making this - scientists aren't making this up. This isn't a hoax. This is a real risk. And it's a risk to all of us, including conservatives. And I think, you know, once we have politicians remembering this and er speaking out like Arnold Schwarzenegger, then I think er our job is going to be much easier.

Chris Mooney: Okay, well on that note I wanna thank both of you for being with us on Inquiring Minds.