subject:"\[geo\] Re\: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization\: Testing a Two\-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci."

Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.

2014-08-04 Thread Andrew Lockley

The full paper is now available at

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1981907

Abstract:

We conducted a two-nation study (United States, n = 1500; England, n =
1500) to test a novel theory of science communication. The cultural
cognition thesis posits that individuals make extensive reliance on
cultural meanings in forming perceptions of risk. The logic of the cultural
cognition thesis suggests the potential value of a distinctive two-channel
science communication strategy that combines information content (“Channel
1”) with cultural meanings (“Channel 2”) selected to promote open-minded
assessment of information across diverse communities. In the study,
scientific information content on climate change was held constant while
the cultural meaning of that information was experimentally manipulated.
Consistent with the study hypotheses, we found that making citizens aware
of the potential contribution of geoengineering as a supplement to
restriction of CO2 emissions helps to offset cultural polarization over the
validity of climate-change science. We also tested the hypothesis, derived
from competing models of science communication, that exposure to
information on geoengineering would provoke discounting of climate-change
risks generally. Contrary to this hypothesis, we found that subjects
exposed to information about geoengineering were slightly more concerned
about climate change risks than those assigned to a control condition.

climate change, geoengineering, cultural cognition, risk perception

working papers series
On 4 Mar 2014 02:37, David Morrow dmorr...@gmail.com wrote:

FYI, the lead author of that paper, Dan Kahan, posted two additional blog
posts on culture, values, and geoengineering:

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/24/geoengineering-the-cultural-plasticity-of-climate-change-ris.html

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/26/geoengineering-the-science-communication-environment-the-cul.html

On Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:04:00 AM UTC-6, andrewjlockley wrote:

Poster's note : This is just brilliant. At last an explanation of why
believing nonsense is rational. Useful to reflect on how this paper replies
to the origin and persistence of other belief systems, as well as climate
change. Leaves me wondering what nonsense I believe.

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/23/three-
models-of-risk-perception-their-significance-for-self.html

Three models of risk perception their significance for self-government

Dan Kahan Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2014 at 7:52AM

From Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a
Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc.
Sci. (in press).

Theoretical background

Three models of risk perception

The scholarly literature on risk perception and communication is
dominated by two models. The first is the rational-weigher model, which
posits that members of the public, in aggregate and over time, can be
expected to process information about risk in a manner that promotes their
expected utility (Starr 1969). The second is the irrational-weigher model,
which asserts that ordinary members of the pubic lack the ability to
reliably advance their expected utility because their assessment of risk
information is constrained by cognitive biases and other manifestations of
bounded rationality (Kahneman 2003; Sunstein 2005; Marx et al. 2007; Weber
2006).Neither of these models cogently explains public conflict over
climate change—or a host of other putative societal risks, such as nuclear
power, the vaccination of teenage girls for HPV, and the removal of
restrictions on carrying concealed handguns in public. Such disputes
conspicuously feature partisan divisions over facts that admit of
scientific investigation. Nothing in the rational-weigher model predicts
that people with different values or opposing political commitments will
draw radically different inferences from common information. Likewise,
nothing in the irrational-weigher model suggests that people who subscribe
to one set of values are any more or less bounded in their rationality than
those who subscribe to any other, or that cognitive biases will produce
systematic divisions of opinion of among such groups.

[geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.

2014-03-11 Thread Michael Hayes

There is an saying that goes something like *To get along one needs to go
along.* and I believe this old saying encapsulates the issue of 'Cultural
Theory of Risk'. The general issue loosely known as 'The Moral Hazard' is
not an overly complicated scenario and core guidance in understanding that
scenario may be found at the definitional level of
Metaethicshttp://moralphilosophy.info/metaethics/.
I've tried to simplify this general issues involved in the following
statement (from a working draft on marine
biomasshttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/pubGE).

Mapping out the moral paradox:

The primary opposing views of metaethics revolves around the issue of ones’
perspective. To qoute
http://moralphilosophy.info/http://moralphilosophy.info/metaethics/
:

“Perhaps the biggest controversy in metaethics is that which divides moral
realists and antirealists.

Moral realists hold that moral facts are objective facts that are out there
in the world. Things are good or bad independent of us, and then we come
along and discover morality.

Antirealists hold that moral facts are not out there in the world until we
put them there, that the facts about morality are determined by facts about
us. On this view, morality is not something that we discover so much as
something that we invent.”.

In the context of Global Warming Mitigation (GWM), the highly complex
matrix of the socioeconomic, political and environmental realities,
encompass both ‘realistic’ and ‘antirealistic’ valid moral views. This
creates a co-realistic moral paradox.

Solving the moral paradox:

Solving paradoxes requires identifying the point of fallacy in the paradox
and then avoiding that point. The premise that fossil fuels are currently
irreplaceable at the global scale is the fallacy which needs avoiding as
FFs are the core cause of GW and FFs can be replaced with current
technology.

The overall issue of large scale mitigation of global warming offers up a
blinding array of relative rights or wrongs which can possibly be reduced
to one core question and a simply stated strategy.

Is the continued use of FFs, on a global scale, scientifically, morally or
ethically supportable? If not, ending the FF era should be the prime
objective. Any large scale mitigation strategy which can support the
primary objective of replacing FFs should be given priority.

Until trans-formative improvements in energy storage and or distribution
occurs, production of vast amounts of carbon negative, renewable, low cost,
portable biofuels are needed to supplant FF use.

Under a global carbon negative fuel scenario, *the failure to increase fuel
production and use would be considered unethical due to the CDR/CCS
potential of BECCS*. Thus, production of carbon negative biofuels seems to
ethically negate the moral hazard of mitigating FF induced global warming..

I believe the study of meta-ethics can provide important guidance to both
GW mitigation technology strategies and the cultural understanding of the
complex matrix of scientific issues related to GW and GE. From the
technical side, ethically negating the moral hazard of global warming
mitigation is technically possible using carbon neutral/negative bio-fuels
(BECCS) and or space based energy. From the cultural side, the 'global
community' (what ever that may be) seems to demand both abundance and
environmental balances. The use of carbon neutral/negative energy or space
based energy seems capable of meeting this apparent core cultural demand of
'Having the cake and eating it too'.

In the final analysis, the cultural cognition of the need for global
warming mitigation and the mitigation method(s) employed will need to be
well synchronized if there is to be a globally inclusive effort with a high
level of cultural acceptance. To-date, from both the technical and cultural
levels, only BECCS and space based energy provide the ability to ethically
mitigate the moral hazard of global warming mitigation. The other
mitigation methods have their value and need to be integrated with the
primary mitigation means, when and where appropriate, as secondary
strategies.

Best,

Michael

On Thursday, February 27, 2014 12:04:00 AM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote:

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/23/three-models-of-risk-perception-their-significance-for-self.html

Three models of risk perception their significance for self-government

Dan Kahan Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2014 at 7:52AM

From Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel
Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol.

Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.

2014-03-09 Thread John Nissen

Dear Dan,

Views of nature

I've read through the Thompson paper of 2003 (Chapter 8) and your paper of
2012, attached to the email sent by Jesse Reynolds a few days ago.  Neither
paper tackles geoengineering, but both help to define four camps rather
than the two I had assumed in my last email.  Of particular interest to me
was the figure 1 in the Thompson paper, where the four camps are defined in
a quadrant.  Each has a different view of nature, represented by a ball
perched on a line.  If the line is concave, then nature is inherently
stable.  If the line is convex, then nature is ephemeral.  If the line is
straight, then nature is fickle and untrustworthy.  If the line is
concave with humps on each side, then nature is tolerant up to a certain
discoverable threshold.

Strength of emotional response

Because of feelings of solidarity, people tend to be polarised into one of
the four camps (where we had two before).  Anything which conflicts with
the view of nature of the group is rejected, regardless of scientific
evidence.  This is your assertion, and I can believe it.  The strength of
rejection is remarkable in my experience, even from top scientists who one
would expect to be objective in their judgement.  Thus climate models are
often accepted in preference to observations, if these observations
conflict with deeply held views of the Earth System (as you might call
nature).  In particular, if the observations suggest the system is past a
threshold or tipping point, such a conclusion can be totally rejected by
spurious argument and reliance on models showing no such threshold.  The
views of their particular camp will then reinforce this rejection (and the
spurious arguments for it) in what one might consider group denial.

Subject of discourse

Battle lines are set in concrete.  The discourse of the papers is about
global warming and how each camp reacts to proposed policies for CO2
emissions reduction.  But CO2 emissions reduction, however drastic, will
not halt global warming and will have little effect in the Arctic, where
warming is accelerating.  This restriction of discourse makes it extremely
difficult to discuss any interventions other than CO2 emissions reduction,
with its related topics of clean energy, sustainable lifestyle, etc.

The problem of facing the real world

What does the scientist do when he finds that real-world observations of
the Earth System show that it is beyond the threshold where CO2 reduction
alone could prevent a catastrophe?  Suppose the discoverable threshold
has already been passed.  None of the camps (except perhaps the fatalists)
will accept this, because it conflicts with their world view of nature.
Geoengineering is the only solution, but is rejected by the three main
camps, because they don't believe, reject or ignore the scientific
evidence.  (The so-called fatalists in the fourth camp are inherently
defeatist, so they see no point in trying geoengineering, but at least they
are tolerant of the idea, since the evidence for a geoengineering
requirement fits with their world view.)

The way forward

Scientists in this position have no large camp to join.  They are isolated
except in their solidarity on shared scientific opinion.  Yet, if the
people in the various camps could have sufficient self-awareness to counter
their natural feelings against geoengineering, then there could be
meaningful collaboration between people in all camps to tackle the
real-world problem that these scientists present.  It is in the interests
of everyone on the planet that the climate problem is sorted.  And nobody
need suffer as a result of the kind of interventions being proposed:
removal of CO2 from the atmosphere and cloud cooling techniques to cool the
Arctic.  With careful management they should be entirely beneficial.

Could a psychologist help to solve a real-world problem of climate change
by releasing people from the restricted view of nature held by their own
camp?

Cheers,

John



On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote:

  John,
 Yes buck up = cheer up over here, sorry or the cowboy colloquialism.
 Psychology is indeed at the root of behavior, a little detail they didn't
 teach us in Earth Science grad school. That's why we need the professionals
 in human behavior on our side - Madison Ave, Mark Zuckerberg, etc  ;-)
 Greg
  --
 *From:* John Nissen [johnnissen2...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Thursday, March 06, 2014 3:21 PM
 *To:* Rau, Greg

 *Cc:* dmorr...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com;
 dan.ka...@yale.edu; John Nissen
 *Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization:
 Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. 
 Soc. Sci.

Hi Greg,

  Having researched the meaning of buck up, I realise that your meaning
 is to do with cheering me up, rather than speeding me up.

  It is cheering to have a meaningful discussion on the popular rejection
 of geoengineering.

RE: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.

2014-03-07 Thread Rau, Greg

John,
Yes buck up = cheer up over here, sorry or the cowboy colloquialism. 
Psychology is indeed at the root of behavior, a little detail they didn't teach 
us in Earth Science grad school. That's why we need the professionals in human 
behavior on our side - Madison Ave, Mark Zuckerberg, etc  ;-)
Greg

From: John Nissen [johnnissen2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 3:21 PM
To: Rau, Greg
Cc: dmorr...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; dan.ka...@yale.edu; 
John Nissen
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing 
a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol.  Soc. Sci.

Hi Greg,

Having researched the meaning of buck up, I realise that your meaning is to 
do with cheering me up, rather than speeding me up.

It is cheering to have a meaningful discussion on the popular rejection of 
geoengineering.  I can understand a religious objection to geoengineering, on 
the grounds that weather is God's business so we should not interfere with it.  
And I can understand that scientists are used to observing the environment 
while trying not to alter the subject of their observations.  But these are not 
sociological effects.  What fascinates me is how a psychologist can bring a new 
perspective on this.  You, Dan, have shown, in the CCT theory, how the majority 
of people, and that of course includes scientists, fall into one of two 
distinct classes and identify themselves with an associated 'camp', as I call 
it.

My deduction from what you, Dan, have said is that geoengineering is rejected 
by both camps.  The strength of emotion exhibited against geoengineering 
indicates that something is offending deeply held values - values shared by the 
associated camp.  There is certainly overt antagonism between the camps.  But a 
strong subconscious driver may be fear.  We see an aversion to the discussion 
of present danger share by both camps - anything that is at all scary.

The camp that rejects climate change has an aversion to discussing the 
scientific evidence which indicates the danger to human society from many 
degrees of global warming and from Arctic meltdown.  This camp rejects 
geoengineering because it is associated with this evidence which it does not 
wish to discuss.  People in this camp say that geoengineering will not be 
required for a long time, if ever, because the world is changing slowly.  When 
a scientist describes the actual situation to such a person, they reply it 
can't possibly be as bad as that.

On the other hand the camp which accepts climate change also has an aversion to 
the discussion of near-term danger, while they accept the long-term danger of 
climate change, e.g. by the end of the century.  Some reject geoengineering on 
the grounds that it is a conspiracy by the other camp (especially fossil fuel 
industry) to 'get out of gaol free', i.e. to continue their vile polluting 
practice of burning fossil fuels.  Others say that geoengineering is too 
dangerous - the implication it is more risky to apply geoengineering than to 
leave the climate system to change.  (This is like condemning the fire engines 
for the water damage they might produce, while the building is burning down.)  
Others have more sophisticated arguments - all having the characteristic of 
avoiding proper discussion of near-term danger, especially from the warming of 
the Arctic.

So who can escape from this emotional reaction?  There are the psychologists, 
like you, Dan, who can present the situation as a case study in psychological 
theory.  There are economists who accept the economic impact of fossil fuel 
reduction, yet realise that climate change will have a huge economic impact, 
even within a few decades, because of the limited carbon budget set by AR5.  
And there are those of us who acknowledge that there are these two camps who 
are pre-occupied by fighting a battle over emissions reductions, while two more 
immediate problems are overlooked:

1.  The global warming and ocean acidification from existing CO2 in the 
atmosphere require that CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, by the CRD 
geoengineering techniques.

2.  The Arctic will proceed towards total meltdown, unless it is quickly cooled 
by SRM geoengineering techniques sufficient to halt the sea ice retreat.

Neither of the two camps is seriously engaged in discussion about these urgent 
requirements for geoengineering.  Or they will deny the science and scientific 
observations that point to these requirements.

And yet geoengineering offers a golden opportunity for international 
collaboration, for solving these most immediate and urgent problems faced by 
mankind.  It would be tragic if this opportunity were missed because of 
psychological problems.

Cheers,  John

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Rau, Greg 
r...@llnl.govmailto:r...@llnl.gov wrote:
Buck up, John. Once the real hazards of rising sea level, failed crops, and 
acidified

Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.

2014-03-05 Thread Lou Grinzo

I think oversimplifies things a bit.

There's a component of society, certain very large corporations, who would
be delighted to see major CC impacts that require massive geoengineering
efforts. They're the companies that will do the work. And, as I argued
recently on my blog
[http://www.grinzo.com/energy/2014/01/29/the-climate-impact-line/], we have
a CC wedge: People above it will benefit in the short term from making CC
worse by sticking to BAU, and they are wealthy enough that they perceive
that they and their loved ones can buy their way out of danger. People
below the wedge are going to suffer a great deal, and many will die. Those
above the wedge consider those below an expendable resource.

And there's a non-trivial portion of people who aren't thrilled with
geoengineering not for the reasons you mention (although I know those
people exist), but because they don't think we can do it without screwing
it up and making a bad situation even worse. They look at political and
corporate ineptitude and corruption, and remember all the high-profile
screw ups that regularly appear in the news, and they wonder how anyone
could think we'd intentionally influence the world's environment and get it
right. While I don't agree with that position, it's a pragmatic view that
I understand.

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 2:21:47 PM UTC-5, John Nissen wrote:

Hi Greg,

The theory is that people tend to be polarised into two camps. One camp
is against the idea that climate change can have anything to do with our
greenhouse gas emissions; and therefore (subconsciously) this camp is
against geoengineering because it would admit of a massive problem to be
solved. The other camp is against geoengineering (subconsciously) because
of the moral hazard - the idea that it's a get out of jail free for the
people responsible for causing climate change in the first place. They
will talk of geoengineering as a climate fix, that it is playing with
God, etc.

Kahan refers repeatedly to a 2012 study where it was shown that the moral
hazard argument against geoengineering was scientifically invalid. But
subconsciously the second camp may still have this deep-seated fear of
geoengineering.

Therefore I deduce, using his argument, that neither camp will accept
geoengineering, whatever evidence of the need for geoengineering is
presented to them.

I think this is the crux of the matter: nobody, identified with either of
the common camps, will accept geoengineering. Only when this impasse is
properly acknowledged, will it be possible for people to accept the
scientific evidence that geoengineering is needed, not only to suck CO2 out
of the atmosphere, but also to cool the Arctic.

Cheers,

John

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Rau, Greg ra...@llnl.gov javascript:wrote:

This observation may bear repeating:
To be effective, science communication must successfully negotiate both
channels. That is, in addition to furnishing individuals with valid and
pertinent information about how the world works, it must avail itself of
the cues necessary to assure individuals that assenting to that information
will not estrange them from their communities.

Isn't this what good advertising does, and couldn't our community
benefit from some cogent advice from Madison Ave, if we could afford it?
Science and scientific reasoning alone apparently isn't enough, especially
when there are (well funded) individuals who would cast such reasoning as a
threat to their communities.
Greg
--
*From:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: [
geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:] on behalf of David Morrow [
dmor...@gmail.com javascript:]
*Sent:* Monday, March 03, 2014 6:27 PM
*To:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:
*Subject:* [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization:
Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol.
Soc. Sci.

FYI, the lead author of that paper, Dan Kahan, posted two additional
blog posts on culture, values, and geoengineering:

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/24/geoengineering-the-cultural-plasticity-of-climate-change-ris.html

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/26/geoengineering-the-science-communication-environment-the-cul.html

On Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:04:00 AM UTC-6, andrewjlockley wrote:

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/23/three-
models-of-risk-perception-their-significance-for-self.html

Three models of risk perception their significance for self-government

Dan Kahan Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2014 at 7:52AM

Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.

2014-03-04 Thread John Nissen

Hi Greg,

The theory is that people tend to be polarised into two camps. One camp is
against the idea that climate change can have anything to do with our
greenhouse gas emissions; and therefore (subconsciously) this camp is
against geoengineering because it would admit of a massive problem to be
solved. The other camp is against geoengineering (subconsciously) because
of the moral hazard - the idea that it's a get out of jail free for the
people responsible for causing climate change in the first place. They
will talk of geoengineering as a climate fix, that it is playing with
God, etc.

Therefore I deduce, using his argument, that neither camp will accept
geoengineering, whatever evidence of the need for geoengineering is
presented to them.

Cheers,

John

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote:

Isn't this what good advertising does, and couldn't our community
benefit from some cogent advice from Madison Ave, if we could afford it?
Science and scientific reasoning alone apparently isn't enough, especially
when there are (well funded) individuals who would cast such reasoning as a
threat to their communities.
Greg
--
*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
on behalf of David Morrow [dmorr...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, March 03, 2014 6:27 PM
*To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization:
Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol.
Soc. Sci.

FYI, the lead author of that paper, Dan Kahan, posted two additional
blog posts on culture, values, and geoengineering:

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/24/geoengineering-the-cultural-plasticity-of-climate-change-ris.html

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/26/geoengineering-the-science-communication-environment-the-cul.html

On Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:04:00 AM UTC-6, andrewjlockley wrote:

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/23/three-
models-of-risk-perception-their-significance-for-self.html

Three models of risk perception their significance for self-government

Dan Kahan Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2014 at 7:52AM

From Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a
Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc.
Sci. (in press).

Theoretical background

Three models of risk perception

The scholarly literature on risk perception and communication is
dominated by two models. The first is the rational-weigher model, which
posits that members of the public, in aggregate and over time, can be
expected to process information about risk in a manner that promotes their
expected utility (Starr 1969). The second is the irrational-weigher model,
which asserts that ordinary members of the pubic lack the ability to
reliably advance their expected utility because their assessment of risk
information is constrained by cognitive biases and other manifestations of
bounded rationality (Kahneman 2003; Sunstein 2005; Marx et al. 2007; Weber
2006).Neither of these models cogently explains public conflict over
climate change--or a host of other putative societal risks, such as nuclear
power, the vaccination of teenage girls for HPV, and the removal of
restrictions on carrying concealed handguns in public. Such disputes
conspicuously feature partisan divisions over facts that admit of
scientific investigation. Nothing in the rational-weigher model predicts
that people with different values or opposing political commitments will
draw radically different inferences from common information. Likewise,
nothing in the irrational-weigher model suggests that people who

Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.

2014-03-04 Thread Andrew Lockley

My understanding is that many conservatives are rather fond of
geoengineering as it allows the continuing BAU pathway (at least
superficially).

Further, as David Keith has pointed out, a degree of moral hazard is
entirely rational. However, what's surprising is that a degree of negative
or perverse moral hazard has been found in a couple of studies. IE that
some people become more worried about AGW when CE is explained. This can
potentially be rationalised by the shift in perception caused by realising
CE is considered a serious option. I guess they'd prefer blue skies to
SUVs, and facing that choice makes it more pressing.

My own serious games work supported negative moral hazard, but had to be
ditched due to methodology flaws.

A
On 4 Mar 2014 19:22, John Nissen johnnissen2...@gmail.com wrote: