Interesting concept in manipulating public opinion:
22:30 "This was a government agency that just didn't like the science, so it pointed to different science that was just plausible enough to be confusing."
That is, you don't need to refute the damning evidence, you just need a contradicting paper that sows enough confusion so that people who skim the headlines don't know who to believe.
This podcast is about the regulatory agencies purportedly preserving the forests but which profited from licensing logging, who were countering evidence of impending owl extinction with a vaguely-related hypothetical paper of field mice having larger broods to recover population numbers.
No comments:
Post a Comment