The best way to build an agenda is not by collecting data.
But rather by using data to inform policy decisions.
And a new paper from Stanford University’s Institute for the Future lays out a new way to do this using data on political views.
The researchers call their approach a “post-post-truth” politics.
The idea is to understand the beliefs and biases that underlie public opinion in a way that is as useful to politicians as the data it captures.
The paper outlines how data-driven politics could help governments improve the quality of their public discourse.
And the key is to build in a degree of predictability that will make data more reliable than political parties.
To start, researchers looked at a large dataset that includes over 200,000 responses to a survey from the Center for American Progress (CAP), a progressive think tank.
The data is collected using a questionnaire that asks people whether they agree with each statement, including the phrase “climate change is real” or “climate science is settled.”
The CAP survey asks respondents to rate their overall impression of the climate system on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being the most negative and 10 being the least.
For instance, if a respondent said, “Climate change is a hoax,” that would give them a score of 5.
If they rated climate science as “settled,” that gives them a 7.
The score assigned to the statement is then averaged to get a score.
In addition, the survey asks whether respondents agree with statements like “It is impossible to know what the climate change is going to do,” “The science is clear,” “Climate science is not settled,” and “Scientists are uncertain about climate change.”
This score is then combined with the total number of responses, and then a weighted average of all the responses is used to score each statement.
The research team also found that a person’s opinion about climate science can change based on their own political views and political preferences.
When asked, “Do you agree with this statement about climate changes?,” people with a political ideology score of 0 gave a score that was higher than the average score of 2.5, while people with no ideology scored a score between 0 and 5.
When the same person was asked, as the CAP survey question, “Would you say it is more likely that climate change caused by human activity is a natural phenomenon or is caused by a man-made source?” their answer changed.
For those who agree with that statement, their score jumped from 1.7 to 3.4, while for those who disagree with that position their score dropped from 1 to 1.6.
This suggests that if a person is undecided, they may be more likely to give a negative rating to a statement that they agree is not based in science.
But when asked if they agree or disagree with statements that say climate change will happen and that human activity caused it, the researchers found a similar trend.
This is consistent with the findings of several other studies.
For example, a 2016 study from the University of Toronto found that people who were more pessimistic about climate scientists tended to be more conservative in their politics.
This could also explain why some people who are skeptical about climate research tend to be liberals.
The study’s authors, David Landau and Yoni Freedhoff, found that climate-science deniers tended to have lower levels of education, more partisan views, and a higher score on a personality scale.
They also found a correlation between climate-denier ideology and conservative political ideology.
They concluded that climate skepticism was driven by “a combination of self-identification, the ideology that is associated with climate denial, and conservative beliefs.”
So it’s not surprising that climate science deniers are likely to be less concerned with the science and more likely the other side.
When it comes to policy, however, climate skepticism can make a big difference.
For the researchers, the study provides a clear example of how policy will affect people’s views of policy.
For every 100 people who agree that climate is a real phenomenon, there are one-third who disagree, and one-fifth who do not.
This finding could help policymakers make better decisions about policy.
And it’s clear that climate denial is a political phenomenon.
For policy-makers, the data from CAP’s survey suggests that it is important to understand how climate-skeptics view climate change.
Policymakers should consider the politics of the issue, the political environment that it creates, and the way climate-disbelievers engage with policymakers.
This means policymakers need to build more robust data on the political views of climate deniers.
And as the researchers conclude, “A more robust understanding of the politics and motivations of climate-change deniers will help policymakers build policies that are more responsive to the public’s preferences.”