You’re begging the question that the consensus IS false.
AND that it’s in the 97%.

Two beggings.

But how about the echo chamber of WUWT? They have a consensus that AGW is a scam, but no consensus on what proves it.

I also query how this false consensus is known. Is it generally agreed by psychologists that it exists? Then how is it not a false consensus? Does that metric apply in the IPCC and every national scientific body around the world?

And Gerritt pointed out that abuse seems to be workable. See also Brexit.

Prior to the Depression Cadillac did not allow blacks into their showrooms at all, and did not allow sales to be made to them.
From the Forbes article (link at end) :
“As Cadillac was losing massive amounts of money in the Depression there was serious talk of eliminating the division. The story is that at one meeting a German man, an executive in charge of Cadillac service nationwide, named Nicholas Dreystadt, asked to speak. He said that he had noticed many service departments consisted of members of the nation’s tiny African-American elite: the boxers, singers, doctors and lawyers who earned large incomes service departments consisted of members of the nation’s tiny African-American elite: the boxers, singers, doctors and lawyers who earned large incomes despite the flourishing Jim Crow atmosphere of the 1930s. Most status symbols were not available to these people. They couldn’t live in fancy neighborhoods or patronize fancy nightclubs. But getting around Cadillac’s policy of refusing to sell was easy: They just paid white men to front for them. Dreystadt urged the executive committee to go after this market. Why should a bunch of white front men get several hundred dollars each when that profit could flow to General Motors? The board bought his reasoning, and in 1934 Cadillac sales increased by 70%, and the division actually broke even. In June of 1934 Nick Dreystadt was made head of the Cadillac Division.”

I don’t know whether G’s comment refers to Cadillac after this shift in their business practice or not. If it does, his comments about being first might be correct. If it tries to imply Cadillac was selling to African Americans earlier than that, it simply isn’t true.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/30/1930s-auto-industry-business-cadillac.html

I suspect these narratives are more real than reality for a lot of people, who like hermit crabs pick them up and inhabit them for a protective shell of armor.

Those who study 1930’s Germany may find that narrative familiar. The Conservatives in the US certainly have studied it, and copied it, and it’s been working for them, too. Trump is now using it to some of its most deplorable ends.

As with the economic disaster of the “Roaring Twenties”, those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Interestingly, these repetitions seem to have ~75 year periods.

So far I can only think of emotional narratives that won’e appeal … 🙂

1) Cadillac, the automobile marque, was well-known for it’s non-racist sales policy in the early to mid 20th century. Where other high-end brands refused to offer new car loans to black folks, Cadillac offered them to anyone with sound financials, regardless of race. This earned brand loyalty with middle class and well-to-do black families, so it was also a sound business decision, but in any case Cadillac was a half century or more ahead of its time.

2) Trump TV will find its niche: angry folks with no other outlet, mostly in the white working class. That angry mood that Trump is selling, will find many eager buyers. The lesson is that we can’t ignore aggrieved members of the white working class, and we have to reach out to them as with any other constituency. I’m willing to bet that if we do that, we can also help them overcome racism and other bad attitudes that are typically associated with this constituency.

OK, three things;-)

3) Politics and campaigns work on the basis of emotional narratives, as does regular advertising and cinema. An emotional narrative tells a story about a character’s feelings: first, they felt X, then they felt Y, then they did something (supported a candidate, bought a product, overcame an obstacle, etc.) and were rewarded by feeling Z. People join up, or buy things, when they are offered an emotional narrative that meets them where they are and gives them something to look forward to if they act on the message. We need to take that into account in the way we reach voters.