From DUKE UNIVERSITY and the department of Mannian screaming and insults, comes this attempt to yet again, find the perfect message to sway climate skeptics.
Messages that conflict with audience’s partisan identity fail, exacerbate opposition
DURHAM, N.C. — Political advocates who support action on climate change have long sought “the perfect message” for swaying skeptics. If the issue can be framed correctly, they believe, the battle can be won.
A new Duke University study suggests it may be more complicated than that.
“Because climate change has become polarized along party lines, it’s no longer just an issue of finding ‘the right framing’ to convey relevant facts,” said study author Jack Zhou, who will graduate with a Ph.D. in environmental politics next month from Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment. “It has become a matter of political identity, particularly the political party we feel closest to.”
Even efforts to frame climate change around seemingly win-win issues such as economic growth, national security or poverty alleviation are likely to backfire, Zhou’s study finds, if the communication conflicts with the partisan identity of the targeted audience.
“These efforts don’t just fail in terms of being unconvincing,” he said. “In most cases, they actually trigger a significant negative effect — or backfire — that polarizes the audience even further.”
Zhou published his peer-reviewed study this month in the journal Environmental Politics.
In a 2014 survey experiment, Zhou asked more than 470 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents to read one of four randomly assigned messages that framed climate change as an issue society needs to deal with and is worth caring about.
One message framed climate change as an economic issue; one as a national security issue; one as a moral justice issue; and one as a natural disaster issue. The first two messages were written to tap into Republican identity; the last two targeted Democratic identity. To further test the power of partisanship, the four messages were then randomly attributed to one of two sources: a fictional Republican congressman or a fictional Democratic one.
The hypothesis, going in, was that Republicans would be more open to an in-party message from an in-party source and least receptive to on out-party message from an out-party source. Instead, Zhou found that regardless of the source, all eight vignettes backfired when compared to the control group, who were asked to simply think about climate change as a political issue.
The study also showed that Republican respondents, after exposure to framing, became more opposed to governmental action on climate change and less willing to take personal action on the issue.
“When asked to read information that clashed with their partisan identities, respondents reacted with motivated skepticism,” he said. “Not only was there greater opposition after reading the framed messages, there was also less attitudinal ambivalence. This means that people dug in and became more sure of their negative opinions.”
These backfire effects doubled or tripled in size among individuals who reported a high personal interest in politics, which functions as a measure of intensity of political identity. These individuals make up roughly one-third of the respondents in the study and one-third of all U.S. Republicans.
“I want to be clear: This reaction is not a matter of intelligence or education. It’s not totally irrational. It’s just a natural reaction — people want to justify and defend their identities,” Zhou stressed. “I would expect if I asked Democrats to read framed messages about how climate change is a hoax, I would also see strong backfire effects.”
The take-away message for climate communicators, he said, is that to avoid backfire, they need to take care to target their audience’s values and understand how polarization affects their evolving sensitivities and identities.
“I’m not saying it’s totally impossible to frame climate change across party lines but it might take more time and resources than advocates imagine, and a much greater degree of care,” Zhou said. “Communication that doesn’t work perfectly — if such a thing even exists — could polarize these audiences further from where you want them to be.”
###
Funding for the study came from the Duke University Kenan Institute for Ethics.
CITATION: “Boomerangs Versus Javelins: How Polarization Constrains Communication on Climate Change,” Jack Zhou. Environmental Politics, April 19, 2016. DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2016.1166602
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Start by listening.
The GW / CC crowd are ones that need to shut-up and start listening.
How many times do we have put up with GW / CC Lies like: 97% Consensus, Earth is a Greenhouse, man-made CO2 is sole cause, increases in CO2 have runway, catastrophic (aka exponential) end-times effect, models are correct – real-world wrong, pause didn’t happen, sea levels rising, Ice Caps have nearly melted away, we will never see snow again, coral reefs are nearing extinction do to GW, satellite data was right but now bogus, … ?????
1st Stop thinking of conservatism in thoughts and actions as a Negative Opinion
2nd Accentuate all aspects of both sides of the debate even the positive aspects of the opposing side point.of view
3rd Demonstrate the benefit of action to prevent proposed possible problems from occurring is far less costly than the benefit of mitigation of those same problems once the true volume of their actual impact is known
Yes, I meant that Zhou should start by listening. It seems pretty stupid to try to frame the message for an audience before you find out what and how that audience is thinking.
Right now the American people’s minds are on our sketchy national security and economic doldrums caused, in large measure, by the sittting Administration’s policies of the last eight years. The ones who wring their hands about the increasingly absurd prognostications of these “model-makers” are those who confine their thought to the Progressive echo-chamber; IOW, they only read each other. Most are literature and PR types who know little to nothing of hard science, let alone economics. This is no coincidence. The NGO’s play to their drama-feeding emotions with breathless stories about how Everything Is In Jeopardy, and those used to receiving information uncritically from authority literally buy it. The rest–are voting for TRUMP, whose speech yesterday made them look like the useful idiots they are.
I think that they should start by telling the truth instead of trying to tell us Grimm’s Fairy Tales.
+10000
When the alarmists do tell the truth, it does not help them.
The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-%e2%80%9cclimate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth%e2%80%9d/
Why should it at all be framed, if the case is so obvious as they like us to believe.
It is a bit like missionaires. Their own believe depends on the number of followers.
A”frame” around donky poo still stinks.
A “frame” around a lie is just a decorated lie.
Truth needs no frame.
Truth frames understanding. (In the sence of “framing a house”… different kind of framing…
I always enjoyed Grimm’s Fairy Tales. The stories contained valuable aspects of human nature and life. Hansen’s fiery tales, on the other hand, contain nothing of value.
I feel the worth of my Ph.D. ( Physics) being eroded away……
Are you saying my Ph.D. in Feminist Glaciology is worthless?
What about a Ph.D. in Glacial feminists?
Isn’t a PH.D. In Environmental Politics aguably biased by definition? One would think it starts with the assumtion that the science is settled and any differences of opinion are due to pure ideology. How do we convince those stupid Rightwingers to stop being hateful. Sorta like Geo Mason U school of Climate Communications (How many times have they asked Dr Lindzen to communicate HIS thoughts?)
I think a phd in paper-clip studies is more worthwhile than a Ph.D. in environmental politics
Environmentalist Politics.
Fixed it.
Tell the truth, and back up claims with hard empirical evidence.
It is sophistry, however, as most of the CAGW propaganda fails on matters of fact and logic. Personally, I tend to be rather libertarian, and tend to rate politicians on what they can actually do that is dangerous. Currently, it means voting Republican in an attempt to undo Democratic policies on economics, guns, and AGW.
Totally agree. There have been so many lies or half truths, the AGW / Climate Change crowd carry no credibility. Therefore, nearly everything is rejected. Scientists and people in general are searching for the “truth”.
Tom Hallas wrote: “It is sophistry, however, as most of the CAGW propaganda fails on matters of fact and logic.”
Yes, that is the heart of the matter. Until the Alarmists solve the problem of having no proof for their assertions, they are going to continue to have trouble convincing skeptics to get on board.
Assertions and assumptions are not proof. Skeptics want proof.
A good answer to “Why have all AGW predictions failed?” would make a start…
Simple:
1. Quit lying to us
2. Show actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming (NOT “climate change”
3. Quit “adjusting” the data.
thanks
JK
On target Jim.
Bingo!
I am a skeptic because Mikey Mann’s hockey stick conflicted with my knowledge of history. Propaganda works but once people realize they are being lied to, it does backfire badly.
Based on Mann performing his “work” in College / University environment, Mann refusing to correct flaws and mistakes that have been pointed out about his GW “work”, having lied about being a recipient of Nobel Peace Prize, sure seems like Mann should be given boot for Academic fraud.
Dead on!
Indeed. I looked at the hockey stick the first time and said “what about the Roman Warm Period (which period’s alpine mines are still under thick glacial ice)?, What about the Dark Ages Cold Period, or the Medieval Warm Period (which period’s Greenland cemeteries are sealed beneath the permafrost) or the Little Ice Age? These were all FACTS of history, yet all wiped away with one graph. Then I thought of the Geology courses I had taken and about the inferences about temperature and atmospheric composition that data leads to, and just had to scratch my head. Here was presented a theory that turned all of Earth Sciences on their heads, without any real world observations to back them except for a few (and as it turned out really only ONE!) trees used as thermometers.
Later I saw the adjustments to the data, the infilling of “better calculated” “data” to replace the real readings at a station and all the hand waving on missing heat and knew I was dealing with political propaganda rather than science. Nothing like pulling up a station record and calculating its local trend, then pulling the national adjusted and homogenized data for the same station and seeing opposite trends to give you real confidence in the adjustment and homogenization process.
Messaging this dog’s dinner as filet mignon won’t help, especially since the dog has already eaten the dinner and the data/theory is what came out the other end!
4. De-couple your global governance and wealth re-distribution schemes from your supposed environmental concerns.
.4 stop issuing Phds for joining Greenpeace
But even Kenji could have a PHD now…Just buy it online
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=Online+PHD&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=#hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=%22Online+Honorary+PHD%22
Demonstrate that the negatives of increasing CO2 outweigh the positives.
They would first have to prove that there are negative consequences to additional CO2 growth.
“One message framed climate change as an economic issue; one as a national security issue; one as a moral justice issue; and one as a natural disaster issue. ”
The message is Global Warming is not about Science or Physics. Global Warming is about Pravda Politicking.
Global Warming Alarmists would need to “Frame” anything if Facts, Truth, Science, and Physics were on their side.
Missing a “not” and I agree!
So he started out targeting Republicans as skeptics and didn’t do his study on Democrats? From the article:
“I would expect if I asked Democrats to read framed messages about how climate change is a hoax, I would also see strong backfire effects.”
So he develops a model (Republican responses) and applies it to Democrats. Why not do the same experiment on Democrats too and confirm his hypothesis? All these people are about are models and theories, what about the real world??
That’s exactly how climatologists set their “experiments”. There is no need to ask Mother Nature; I know perfectly what she would say.
“All these people are about are models and theories, what about the real world??”
What? Let Science and Physics get in way of GW / CC fraud!
Heresy, Heresy I say…
The left can ‘change’ history by simply rewriting history books (a la 1984) to suit their ideology. But no matter how hard they try to change the future climate of the earth by tweaking their models, Mother Nature takes her own course without regard to anyone.
I would suspect that if they carried out the same study on Democrats it would be found there were a far larger number of intractable skeptics among them than supposed and that would not agree with the preconceived partisan notions of the researchers and their study may not be published. There is a reason why “climate change” lies at or near the bottom of the list in about every poll of the issues most important to people.
Notice, too, that his theoretical framed message to Democrats is a total straw man. It is guarranteed to fail, because it is designed that way.
Good question. I think the answer is obvious. To obtain both (a) funding for your thesis, and (b) approval of your thesis by a university faculty, it’s obviously to your benefit to couch the study in terms of the intractability of Republicans than the intractability of Democrats. Note that the latter would have been much easier because if the respondents to Dr.-to-be Zhou’s study came from a University environment, or even more restricted a University faculty, it would have trivial to find 470 Democrats or Democrat-leaning independents and almost impossible to find 470 Republicans for Republican-leaning independents.
There is a certain dreary predictability in the fact that this entire “scientific study” was frankly premised on the idea the Republicans are the ones who must change their minds about climate change.
So much for objectivity.
“I’m not saying it’s totally impossible to frame climate change across party lines but it might take more time and resources than advocates …”
Summary – Going to take way longer to Gruber the Wolves than it did Gore/Mann/Obama’s Sheepeople.
Explaining petulant Democrats new tactic of GW Intimidation via abuse of our courts.
It is heartening that people (Republicans anyway) react with more skepticism when lied to.
I think that Democrats, Libertarians, and non-aligned apolitical types also tend to react more skeptically when they figure out they are being lied to.
The problem they ran into was this: They told a plausible lie at first, and even Republicans bought it. Then they presented their “only solution that will fix the problem” and people of a small government, get government the bleep out of the way mind set all smelled a rat. The ones who were able started digging into the story and discovered the lie was based on fairy tales and while it was possible, the proof didn’t stand up to scrutiny. The unknowns outnumbered the knowns by a large margin.
Since there was still a remote possibility this (very early hypothesis that was really more of a scientific guess) idea was real, people agreed to fund the research. Conservatives don’t want to destroy the planet any more than liberals do – we live here. The problem was while we funded a lot of gadgets and sensors and supercomputers, the idea just wasn’t getting any clearer. The unknowns were still just as unknown and the people we were paying good money to shed light on the situation seemed to be withdrawing farther from the light. They were all playing the “Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz” behind the curtain and didn’t want us unwashed seeing how the sausage was made. That just served to raise the doubts higher. Now they have enlisted Fascist prosecutors to harass, imprison and re-educate the skeptics in true “1984” style. That is not a good way to “win a propaganda war”.
Thanks for the good post, Owen.
Well you know the old saying:
How do you anger a conservative? Tell him a lie.
How do you anger a liberal? Tell him the truth.
They should have framed their message as “an MO of a ‘grifter political class'”
First they told me CAGW was based on science, despite few of them truly being scientists. But the more I looked into their arguments the more I realized they didn’t understand science.
Then they told me CAGW was based on Ecology, despite few of them truly being ecologists. But the more I looked into their arguments the more I realized they didn’t understand Ecology.
Next they told me their CAGW solutions were market based , despite most of them being Socialists. But the more I looked into their arguments the more I realized they didn’t understand economics.
And then they told me fighting CAGW was the moral choice, despite few of them being ethicist. But the more I looked into their arguments the more I realized they were often amoral and deceitful.
And again they told me fighting CAGW was a religious obligation, despite most of them being Atheists. But the more I looked into their arguments the more I realized they didn’t understand Faith.
And recently they told me fighting CAGW was the Patriotic choice, despite most of them being UN bureaucrats or Globalists . But the more I looked into their arguments the more I realized they didn’t understand Patriotism.
And of course, at every stage when I pointed out their failings they accused me of ‘denying’ their great truth or being in the pay of some great conspiracy against them. >¿<
+1000
You nailed them!
Bingo!
It also bothers the alarmists when you tell them a truth AKA both Australia and North America are measured and proved CO2 sinks. We suck it in and do not emit.
+97
Clarke’s Corollary to Heinlein’s Razor: “Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.”
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” – Mark Twain
It seems pretty obvious that the author has no genuine basis for stating that the rejection of the “informaion” was to “justify and defend their identity”.
In order to do that, he would at the very least have had to show several things he appears not to have shown. Among them: that the information presented was truthful and logical, not rejected on the basis that it wasn’t; that the respondents were not already familiar with and perhaps tired of hearing the rhetoric presented; that people of other political persuasions behaved differently; etc.
The fact that the source had no effect on the result would seem to suggest that the reasons for rejection were in fact not political. One is compelled to wonder why he tested only those whose “leanings” were of toward one particular political persuasion. It’s difficult to draw any solid conclusions from that kind of data.
Excellent points raised.
Who approved his IRB? This experimental design doesn’t pass muster.
Also, he ignored the possibility that he was simply annoying them. This is indicated with the correlation that the more expert they were, the more negative a reaction he got. I would get frustrated to if I was presented evidence on a political issue that I already knew (possibly that I could correct) and was judged on my reaction to it like it was new information. Finally, the author’s political stance on this is clear from the paper. Was it also clear to the participants? If so, then it quite likely that he experienced hostility due to them being suspicious that they were being set up.
“the right framing’ to convey relevant facts,”
it is a good thing that he wants to find the right framing to convey the relevant facts
but first he must have some relevant facts
for example, is the attribution of increases in atmospheric CO2 to fossil fuel emissions a relevant fact?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2770539
chaamjamal wrote: “but first he must have some relevant facts”
Yes!
Duke U. conveniently concentrated on political identities of Dem. and Rep. Since 40% in U.S. are Independents, no political identity polarization would exist if the study was conducted on Independents. The reason this was not elected is because they knew the answer in advance and it would not support their cause.
http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/01/gop-deeply-divided-over-climate-change/10-31-13-3/
According to 8 years worth of Pew Research polling (2006 to 2013, link above), only 56% of Democrats agree that humans are the primary cause of climate change. And 22% of Republicans agree. So that means that for every 10 Democrats, there are 4 who do not agree with the “consensus”. Are the differences that vast?
You need to redo your analysis using the “Cook et al” method.
Four Democrats were “perceived” to agree, meaning better than 97% Consensus.
/snark
Be careful of pew polls and research and polls regarding the environment and wildlife.
Pew has a history of severe bias when conducting and analyzing environment issues.
He might as well be the Environmental Professor of Scrabble!
What worth is THAT?
Nothing!
Who wants it?
No ONE!
Ha ha
“The perfect message to sway climate sceptics”? Simple, do the science right, and release the codes and data ready to be replicated.
Didn’t they know that already?
YES!
You said that better than I did (below).
“I’m not saying it’s totally impossible to frame climate change across party lines but it might take more time and resources than advocates imagine, and a much greater degree of care,” Zhou said.
*
I guess it’s too hard to simply tell the truth, share the data and engage in genuine discussion.
Lies, deception, manipulation, name-calling, screeching and promising the end of everything UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING NOW – especially give up freedom and democracy, technology, civilization and embrace a New World Order that no one can vote out – just might have something to do with it. Yes?
“I guess it’s too hard to simply tell the truth, share the data and engage in genuine discussion.”
But where is the Profit$, the Funding $$$, the Politic$ in that?
Not to mention the Power, the Control and all the Goodie$ one gets for being part of the Elite.
True, true. 🙂
One wonders if Mr. Zhou thought to do the reverse study. Suppose, for example, “Zhou asked more than 470 Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents to read one of four randomly assigned messages that framed AGW-skepticism as a valid issue that environmentalists need to deal with and is worth understanding.
“One message framed AGW-skepticism as rescuing the economy from negative-value subsidized industries; one as augmenting national security by not distracting the military with false imperatives; one as a scientific integrity issue; and one as not diverting attention away from real (instead of fake) natural disasters. The first two messages tap into Republican identity; the last two target Democratic identity. To further test the power of partisanship, the four messages could then be randomly attributed to one of two sources: a fictional Republican congressman or a fictional Democratic one.”
Would Democrats change their minds? Or environmentalists?
Why isn’t such a study equally valid? Isn’t every polarization two-sided? Why shouldn’t the other side be equally studied? Mr. Zhou’s study begins with a framing bias. The entire study is tendentious.
All these surveys by supposedly non-biased sociologists always start as though AGW were obviously true. The mystery is then why so many people disbelieve the obvious.
Mr. Zhou’s subtext is standard: How sad it is that so many are so foolish. How wonderful that we cognoscenti know the truth and compassionately seek ways to communicate it to the misguided.
If Mr. Zhou really wanted to investigate why skeptics think as they do, he’d interview skeptics themselves and ask them. But he didn’t, did he.
He presumed in ignorance that AGW skeptics are misguided and then goes on to investigate whether they can be straightened out.
Such studies as Mr. Zhou’s are a monomaniacal crock, in which only one opinion is irrationally deemed correct; irrationally because the correct opinion is vapidly ideological.
It’s not politics that drives skeptical rejection of AGW, Mr. Zhou. It’s a better (or more honest) understanding of the science.
And that better understanding has both been demonstrated and has been ignored by mindless sociologists.
“All these surveys by supposedly non-biased sociologists always start as though AGW were obviously true.”
Naturally. These studies are done by those who believe in AGW is Fact.
Yes, with a problem to solve – those wily skeptical rascals!
That is their blind spot: They all assume CAGW is real. They are operating on false assumptions. Not the best place to start when doing a study of anything.
They have no proof of CAGW, at least none that will pass muster with skeptics, so when questioned, they point to the consensus and authority of Alarmists as the equivalent of proof.
“He presumed in ignorance that AGW skeptics are misguided and then goes on to investigate whether they can be straightened out.”
Doubt it was out of ignorance. Try intentional Machiavellian, Fahrenheit 451, Pravda, RMPV.
Don’t be so certain that it’s evil manipulation.
To use an example. I have a lot of friends on both sides of the abortion issue. The religious side is shocked at how anyone could disagree that life begins at conception, citing obvious facts like the fact that life is continuous. The liberal side is shocked that anyone could support limits on abortion, citing obvious facts like the freedom of people to control their own bodies. Both are completely certain of their beliefs, have rational arguments to back them up, and genuinely believe that the other is staffed with zealots and nutjobs who just cannot understand reason. Of course, while there are many that can see both sides and make an honest decision, many more refuse to even listen to the “madness” of the “evil” other side.
We see these zealots on this very board, posting about how we the EPA never did any good or how CO2 cannot cause any warming, both of which are demonstrably untrue.
benofhouston,
I don’t recall anyone arguing that the EPA never did any good. I do recall some folks saying the federal EPA should be abolished, but that’s a different argument.
I also think that CO2 causes global warming (but that almost all the warming took place within the first few dozen ppm).
But that abortion argument relies on extremes, such as “conception”. I don’t iknow when life begins, but do I know that when a baby/fetus is capable of living outside the mother, killing it is murder.
Abortion has been a crime for thousands of years. Was everyone wrong for thousands of years before the 1970’s? Or are modern feminists so enlightened that their views should supersede everyone else’s?
And who speaks for the murdered kids? They have their own blood type, their own brain waves, etc. If birth can be induced, why should society condone killing them for what amounts to convenience?
In just about every legal code I’ve ever heard of, if a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer is also held responsible for taking the life of the unborn child.
Yet I’ve never heard abortion advocates argue that this should be changed, despite the glaring contradiction it creates regarding the legal status of the unborn. But then, left-liberal activists have never been big on consistency.
Another article pointing out the bleeding obvious.
The whole problem is that alarmists won’t “get” it.
Just reading this makes me laugh:
“Even efforts to frame climate change around seemingly win-win issues such as economic growth, national security or poverty alleviation are likely to backfire, Zhou’s study finds, if the communication conflicts with the partisan identity of the targeted audience.”
Economic growth? How does making energy more expensive help the economy? It can’t and no amount of framing will change that.
Poverty Alleviation? How does making energy expensive help the poor? It can’t and no amount of framing will change that either.
Drop the bullshit, accept reality. Is that too hard to ask?
Ahh but to most CAGW believers, the economy is a land powered by fairy dust and unicorn farts. The idea that if you make the most common denominator commodity (energy) extremely expensive, you kill productivity is a completely foreign concept to them. All they see is one-world centralized control in the grand Soviet is the only goal worth having and anything that gets us there is fine, even if 5 billion people have to die of exposure or disease to get us there!
Like most liberals, they assume that govt spending helps the economy.
They completely ignore the fact that before govt can spend a dime, it has to first take that dime from someone.
Socialism is the theory that if take money from your right pocket and put it into your left, you can make yourself richer.
It’s difficult to even imagine that anyone would do a PhD in environmental politics! Who’s paying for this kind of thing? Maybe this fellow comes from a rich family and can afford to waste time.
The Environmental Politics program is housed in the Department of Establishing Re-education Camps.
http://i.imgur.com/rL3ug63.jpg
Proof positive that we have an education bubble! We have resources to support fetish degrees like this while so many real problems go wanting. All that schooling and the author still has zero critical thinking skills. Pathetic on so many fronts.
I do hope that Mr Zhou has the GUTS to read this blog.
Someone should email him.. make him WAKE UP to reality, and the utter stupidity of his paper.
I don’t see his name in any of the replies. Maybe he doesn’t care.
Perhaps he is off to the Gulag to be re-educated?
The End of the World and they started hiding the data. Dead giveaway there. Supposedly top scientists behaving like two-year olds and refusing to share. I swear some of them actually pout.
And yes, I apologize for denigrating two-year olds.
“”“Not only was there greater opposition after reading the framed messages, there was also less attitudinal ambivalence. This means that people dug in and became more sure of their negative opinions.”
Maybe it stimulated people to use their reasoning and confirm their conclusion that AGW is a scam, and in particular can never be linked with economic growth.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
“To further test the power of partisanship, the four messages were then randomly attributed to one of two sources: a fictional Republican congressman or a fictional Democratic one.”
OK, right there is all anyone would need to presume the message being pushed is a lie.