Given the language used in the “standard description,” I’m surprised that the difference in levels of support aren’t greater.
For the general public, “chemical process” and “large industrial machinery” tend to provoke negative reactions. The researchers may have considered these to be neutral terms, but politically/culturally they’re not. In addition, while “for example sulphur” is said in both versions of the statement, the standard description calls it out a second time (“although hydrogen sulphide would also…”). Given the cultural connections for sulphur (bad smell, bad eggs, sulfuric acid, fire & brimstone), emphasizing it would also push towards a negative reaction. Nonetheless, the actual measured difference in support is surprisingly low. I wonder if there would have been any real difference had the researchers used more neutral phrasing. > On Jun 9, 2015, at 1:21 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > > <article.pdf> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
