(Cross-posted to Planet3.0, sort of.)
Bart Verheggen writes,
In line with [communication science professor Cees] van Woerkum I think it's important to focus on the underlying motives for [global warming skeptics] distrusting science. We should really try and figure out and discuss why we disagree so strongly about climate change [...] We don't have a similar public debate about the mating behavior of fruitflies after all.
Um, perhaps because there is a well-funded network of that pumps out climate inactivist garbage en masse?
Why won't that be enough of an explanation?
Why are we still looking for an alternative "explanation" that pretends that the misinformation mill doesn't exist?
Seriously, I don't get it. There's rich people. There's money from rich people. There's shills who willingly take money from rich people. There's goons who blindly believe shills who willingly take money from rich people. None of this is particularly hard to understand. What's more, all this is extremely well-documented. So again, why do we insist on ignoring the very clear modus operandi of the inactivist 'institutes', and keep insisting on finding some deeper "underlying" cause?
The Heartland Institute doesn't waste its time trying to figure out people's "underlying motives". It doesn't need to. We should be asking, why doesn't it need to?