One of the surveys this story relies on to claim a sweeping climate stress problem is a Harris poll conducted for the American Psychological Association. This is where the 47% number comes from. Is this number plausible? Do other results from this survey make sense? Let’s look.
That poll first asks if climate change is the most important problem facing society today. 56% say yes. But what if you don’t ask a leading question? We can compare; Gallup asks open-ended what’s the biggest problem facing the country. Only ~3% give environment-related answers.
So we can see that priming people by asking directly if climate change is today’s most important problem, you can get more than an extra 50% to say yes compared to how many would say that unprompted. Already a bad sign about this data.
The poll then proceeds to ask respondents what they personally are doing about climate change. And then it asks if climate change stresses them out. Do you think maybe that line of questioning influences the answers elicited?
If climate stress were really as rampant as these articles say, we wouldn’t need to invent new theories like “climate stress” to convince people to care about climate change.
There is a lot of terrible survey research out there. It makes it into press more often when it confirms useful priors.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What Klobuchar said is an attack on every American is Trump’s suggestion he might veto the relief bill. Just endless bad faith commentary about this process from left-wing commentators who prefer Trump over mainstream Democrats.
People are waiting on all sorts of provisions that are in this package. Unemployment benefits are about to expire. The idea this is a productive opportunity to reopen the package negotiations is nuts. We have seen Trump float things like this before, it is not a real negotiation.
What Pelosi is doing is a clever political tactic. And I’m sure she’d be glad to send up a bill to increase the size of the checks. But it doesn’t mean Pelosi wants or is asking for a veto, let alone that she’d want to sustain it, and that is all completely obvious.
Very strange article in the Washington Post, about a town that declined to use pretextual zoning to violate the rights of a church with offensive practices, that doesn't even speak with anyone who argues that following the First Amendment is a good thing. washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/…
We get this quote from a Northwestern sociologist who says the First Amendment is racist, nothing from anyone about how it protects the rights of disfavored minorities.
I understand that news outlets are hiring staff who disproportionately subscribe to a very specific, left-wing ideology that is heavily influenced by academia, but they should still understand that's not the whole audience they're writing for.
ACIP has taken another crack at recommending vaccine priority after healthcare workers. Instead of essential workers before seniors, it’s 75+ together with the most exposed workers, followed by 65+ with other essential workers & people with co-morbidities. cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/…
I don’t know if this is exactly right (and it’s just a recommendation) but it clearly makes more sense than the last version.
Here’s how they define the approximately 1/3 of essential workers who are “frontline.”
Oh good lord. This is how a fake progressive councilman justifies blocking an eight-story residential building (which would be required to contain affordable housing) in a census tract with a median income over $200,000 right next to downtown Brooklyn. “Context”
You're not allowed to pee anymore, but fortunately this is yet another joint state-city thing so Cuomo and De Blasio will be able to blame each other for you not being allowed to pee.
This rule, of course, is insanity. The reason we prohibit indoor dining is people sit with their masks off and spray aerosols in each other's faces. Walking through a restaurant to a garden or using the bathroom is no different from entering a retail store, which is allowed.
CNBC needs to take the ticker off, it's blocking the scales on Jay Powell's slides
I remain confused how the Fed intends to put off rate increases until inflation is set to exceed 2 percent for some period and yet the Fed's economic estimates don't show inflation getting over 2 percent at any time.
I guess the theory is that inflation will be over 2 percent at some point beyond the fed's window of annual projections (2024 or 2025?) but the "longer run" inflation expectation is still 2 percent