What are the subjective and objective annotations in the following scenarios?

What are the subjective and objective annotations in the following scenarios?

1. Yet as Read (et al. 1994) pointed out more than a decade ago, only two simple facts are essential to understanding climate change: global warming is the result of an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, and the single most important source of carbon dioxide is the combustion of fossil fuels, most notably coal and oil. So how can it be that people around the world fail to understand these basic facts? And while such 'information deficit' explanations are indispensable, they do not account for the behavior of the significant number of people who know about global warming and express concern, yet still fail to take any action.
2. A second body of scholarship points to relationships between political economy and public perception. Here scholars have identified the fossil fuel industry influence on government policy (the US holds prominent examples), the tactics of climate skeptic campaigns (Jacques 2009; Dunlap and McCright in this volume; Jacques et al. 2008; McCright and Dunlap 2000, 2003), how corporate control of media limits and molds available information about global warming (Dispensa and Brulle 2003), and even the 'normal' distortion of climate science through the 'balance as bias phenomenon' in journalism (Boykoff 2008).
3. Presumably such political economic barriers have far-reaching and interactive effects with the other factors discussed above. Yet note that explanations for public non-response that highlight corporate media and climate skeptic campaigns, also implicitly direct our attention to a lack of information as the biggest barrier to engagement, though for different reasons. Certainly there are cases when the public may either lack information or be outright misinformed, but are these issues the limiting factor behind greater public interest, concern, or political participation? Clearly knowledge is necessary to generate public response (e.g. O'Connor et al. 2002), but is knowledge sufficient (Bord et al. 2000)?