See, Matthew, the title of this post, while it might seem unfair to you, perhaps even out of left field, is really the only appropriate frame for describing your ludicrous Al Gore post of today.
I mean, come on. The guy just won a Nobel Peace Prize, and your response — from the perspective of someone who claims to be an expert in communication — is that Gore just might be hindering the discussion that the global community just lauded him for advancing.
And how? By — to frame the discussion in terms you claim to understand — moving the frame from the realm of peer-review caution and complex maths to the realm of what people actually understand and care about:
[S]everal Democratic leaders, like Al Gore, and even some scientists are really adopting what I call the catastrophe frame or the Pandora’s Box frame, really focusing in on specific climate impacts that might be scary or frightening, such as the possibility of more intense hurricanes.
When you move in that direction, where the science is still uncertain, you open yourself up to the counter argument that this is just simply alarmism. It’s very easy for the public, then, to simply rely on their partisanship to make up their minds, and that’s why you have this two Americas of public perception.
You know what, Matthew? Those specific climate impacts are happening already. If they are not affecting you personally, this is because you are affluent enough to have been able to insulate yourself from them. You aren’t worrying about paying off your farm equipment debt to the bank in a stretch of record-breaking hot, dry growing seasons. You aren’t watching desert encroach on your pastureland. You aren’t hauling up empty nets.
In fact, Matthew, as the old saw about outrage would have it, you just aren’t paying attention.
There is a mass extinction in progress. Persistent and bioaccumulative toxic chemicals reach record concentrations. Forty percent of the people of the world depend utterly on the energy-intensive Haber-Bosch process to provide their food crops with nitrogen: when the oil goes away half the people on the planet either completely restructure the nitrogen cycle or starve to death. There is open water at the North Pole. The National Academy of Sciences supports the idea that massive climate changes can occur with frightening speed. (Are they too alarmist for you? Are they hindering the discussion?) In sum, very bad things are happening, Matthew, and worse things loom, and people suffering and dying from them already, and to write an honest appraisal of risks off as a “Pandora’s Box frame” is to act as Ignorance’s Co-Dependent.
Without talking about what could happen, Matthew, you consign the discussion to utter irrelevance in the minds even of the science-literate. Are you kidding me? Without talking about what could result, the only factor you can weigh in making a decision to drink cyanide is its appealing almondy flavor.
In dismissing all talk of potential consequences, you’ve basically said that the entire environmental movement — from wilderness to urban toxics to suburban openspace to native land use to fisheries to Inconvenient Truths about climate change — is doing it wrong, that we need to talk in public meetings about groundwater percolation ratios and rates of decomposition of senescent lignified tissues in native alluvial soils and sprinkle our talks liberally with sigmas and deltas instead of simply saying “if you clearcut this hill, you might lose the houses beneath it in a landslide.”
Which would be stupid enough already. But then you go on to fail to mention the fact that the only reason there is a public debate on global warming in this country — the only reason — is that the handful of people who derive obscene wealth from pumping carbon into the atmosphere have funded massive, blatant disinformation campaigns to obscure the issue. They want to get richer and they don’t care who suffers and dies along the way, including all generations yet unborn.
And you seriously think that saying so is a less effective frame than coming up with tortured fake mediation with the liars and the people they’ve duped? You really think that it’s more effective to soft-pedal it dressed up in Evangelical theology, as if Evangelists wouldn’t understand the story of Lohachara Island or Tuvalu unless you condescend to them Davey and Goliath style?
I am not an Al Gore partisan, by any means. I have spent a majority of my career — a career spent working to communicate urgent scientific issues to a lay public, incidentally: you might consider finding out what people in my field actually think about such communication sometime — I have spent a majority of my career criticizing the man. But your post is just unbelievably petty. (Check out the Theriomorph for more on such pettiness.)
And your insinuation that Gore’s telling the truth about the “true planetary emergency” of climate change is flawed because he hasn’t, by himself, solved the problem of the gullible falling for a cynical decades-long ad campaign by Big Oil?
I cannot frame adequately how stupid and wrong and destructive that is. Shame on you.
You said it, man.
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D, is a professor in the School of Communication at American University where his research focuses on the intersections between science, media, and politics.
He’s stuck in an intersection.
I just have to say:
Warren, I love you for ‘inframy.’
And Chris, thank you for italicizing the accursed word.
I will be so unspeakably relieved when this current fashion of poseurs using social science jargon comes to a close.
Great post, thank you -
Ooh. I think Nisbet grabbed the third rail on this one.
And about smegging time, too.
I seem to recall, way back when, that Nisbet and Mooney were cautioning the rest of us to avoid using “data dumps”. Let me check the record. . . a-ha:
Gore and the IPCC resonated. You should be happy about it.
I’m not all that fond of almonds. In fact I’ve never been tempted by cyanide’s almondy flavor. If it doesn’t taste good then it’s not bad for you.
Man, talk about going out of your way to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Matt, please start working for the other side, you’re too distracting.
rmp said, “Matt, please start working for the other side,...”
For some time now, I’ve been wondering if perhaps he hasn’t been all along.
Just wondering; not saying.
Good post, Chris!
Its taken me a while, because to be honest I’m just not interested in all this jargon, but I’ve come to the conclusion that either framing is a load of pretentious crap or that its proponents just aren’t that good at communication.
The line about reaching out to evangelicals really bothered me; as a progressive evangelical involved with Creation Care and other environmentally concerned groups, we don’t need to be condescended to by Matthew or anyone else. (I know plenty of concerned evangelicals who are pro-life—and deeply concerned about global warming. To a man and a woman, they would never write off Gore’s environmental views merely because he holds social opinions that are inconsistent with their own.)
I think the problem with framing is that it’s not framed properly. People would take it more seriously if it had a Greek-looking spelling - how about “fragm”?
Fuck. The Greeks don’t have “f”. “Phragm” then.
Oooh. This is fun:
(Emphases mine.)
“fabricate a story with evil intent,”
Now that’s phragmatic.
spyder, the only other option is phragmentation, and no-one wants that except nihilists like Berube.
I don’t know that I’d call Michael a nihilist.
A floccinaucinihilipilificationist, sometimes, sure.
Your spelling sucks, Chris.
You accuse Matt Nisbet of telling the entire environmental movement to shut up. Having spent a couple of useful and enjoyable hours talking to Matt about his thoughts on how we enviros can improve communication, I can debunk this inane claim. Matt offered excellent advice and it was not to “shut up.” Your interpretation of his words is lame.
How silly of me to disregard a conversation between two other people to which I was not privy when I wrote this piece responding to his insulting and badly argued blog post.
Great post. I find it so astonishing that Nisbet appears to be saying that global warming has no legitimate “supported by the science” consequences that are, by pretty much any definition, alarming (alarmist?) As you say so eloquently, there are incredibly alarming consequences occurring *right now*, let alone in the highly probable, science-supported future. The idea that you can win converts by pretending climate change is *not* a potential catastrophe is…insane. It’s conceding defeat to the corporate lobbyists on the other side before even engaging in the debate. But I had to comment on one thing you mentioned:
Actually, you’re probably giving Nisbet too much credit. You seem to have assumed he had, you know, actual suggestions. But while he says he disagrees with Gore’s “alarmist” framing, his suggestion…
...consists of absolutely nothing. What interpretations, precisely, would Nisbet find pleasing? Apparently they have something to do with Evangelicals. And that there is nothing at all alarming about global warming.
Nothing to see here, ladies and gents, please move along.
Nisbet’s post about Gore makes perfect sense, unless you’re a blind partisan who believes that people are either with you or against you.
Gore has been a great success, but he is viewed skeptically by the right wing and he’ll likely never do a good job reaching them. If Gore is truly motivated by the cause, he’ll look to facilitate getting the message spoken by others that are less objectionable to the right wing.
This isn’t dissing Gore. It’s reading reality. Nothing against Gore, he’s been a great success at getting his issues on the public agenda. Now some new strategies may be helpful in building the next step up in success.
Why is that so hard to follow? That’s what Nisbet said.
Nisbet:
“... he needs to promote alternative frames and interpretations of the issue..”
Exaclty what alternative frames?
Powell:
“If Gore is truly motivated by the cause, he’ll look to facilitate getting the message spoken by others that are less objectionable to the right wing.”
Hey Gore…time for you to shut the fuck up!
Gore has been a great success, but he is viewed skeptically by the right wing…
It’s not Gore, it’s reality that they have a hard time with.
Well said, Alaya.
An art critic has no salience or glamor if he merely approves the beautiful landscape enjoyed by the man on the street. A communications professor benefits little if he admits that verifiable truths, even of this magnitude and consequence, are simply more important than the manner in which they are conveyed. The word “frame” in this context is borrowed originally from counseling psychology, I believe. But, in the hands of contemporary academia and bureaucrats, “frame’ seems to have become the equivalent of “spin”. As in spinning webs of obfuscation.
A recent report from a leading Climatologist in Australia ( references upon request) stated that the accumulation of greenhouse gases of all kinds are currently at a level predicted originally for 2017. Previously unanticipated synergistic effects, such as the loss of solar reflectance from melted Arctic ice and CO2 release from melting “permafrost” and peat moss, are accelerating Global Warming at a Sickening Pace. It’s time to stop mincing words, and Fiddling, while drought- parched Rome burns.
Welcome, mk. I’m glad you’re here.
Mark, you’re a good guy and I like your blog a great deal, but you’re arguing badly here. Aside from the unintentional irony — “either you agree with my interpretation or you’re a ‘black and white’ blind partisan”? come ON — you started out insulting people rather than criticizing arguments, claimed to have “debunked” the post with, literally, ZERO information about Nisbet’s views, and then followed that up with — after the “blind partisan” jab — an argument that has been thoroughly dismantled, both preemptively in the original post and in the thread over at Nisbet’s. Gore has done exactly what you (and Nisbet) are telling him he needs to do. And there is a core of wingnuts that will never, ever be persuaded, even as the sea level rise eats their real estate.
My interpretation of Nisbet’s post is, I think, baldly stated in his post’s title: Does Gore Contribute to the Communication Crisis? If you look at the URL of his article, which (based on my knowledge of Movable Type) reflects the title under whch the article was originally published, my interpretation becomes even more justified:
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/10/nobelist_gore_contributes_to_t.php
And in discussing the reasns for the divide between Demcrats and Republicans, here is what Nisbet says:
The divide exists BECAUSE Gore (and others) are doing this thing. “That’s why you have this two Americas of public perception.”
You cannot reasonably claim that this is not blaming Gore for the problem.
This may not be what he MEANT to say. But it is what he SAID. And if he meant to say what you describe, and he went so badly wrong in a 380-word blog post, then why should I listen to what he has to say about communication strategies?
Thanks for the nice words, Chris. I’m going to try one more time here, but I’m worried that it won’t be productive and actually think I should probably just bow out of this here exchange.
So…speaking only for myself. I think I agree with Matt Nisbet, but I won’t bother trying to suport that, cuz nobody really cares.
I repeat, Gore has been a great success…AND HE SHOULD KEEP TALKING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. To advance the issue with right-wingers, he should ALSO help find spokespeople and new frames that can help solve the partisan divide on the issue. A partisan like Gore or Cheney isn’t the best outreach person for the other side.
Regarding the right frame to use, a “catastrophe” frame is too easy to criticize if predicted catastrophes are uncertain or under debate. Perpetuating the spokesperson or framing problems will serve to harden the partisan divide, not to eliminate it.
We need right wingers to come around if we want progress, and they can be reached but probably not by Al Gore. The blogwisdom on the left seems to prefer bludgeoning the right wing and hoping that a 2 x 4 to the head will “convert” them. Oh, that seems likely.
Environmentalism is in much the same boat, we need to do a better job reaching right wingers to succeed in solving problems, and that requires frames and spokespeople who don’t turn off right wing listeners.
That is the simple sense in Matt’s post, and so far as I can tell the strong opposition (saying shut up Matt) comes from people who want to “stick it to” the right wing.
As to who’s insulting and who’s not, who cares about that? Besides, you dished it out fairly heavily on Matt, were my words really worse than yours?
Thanks Chris. Forgive me for not having introducing myself properly. Long time lurker. Love your site!
MK
You know, it’s not as if the wingnuts on the right are willing to listen to reason, no matter who delivers the message.
I have my criticisms of Gore, but I think Nisbet is way off base, here.
Which he is doing, and has been doing since before AIT was released. That’s the whole point of the Climate Project: to train new spokespeople from all fields and areas of the political spectrum, so that you can hear about global warming from people who aren’t Al Gore, and whose political position has been chosen to suit your particular audience.
Hell, the Climate Project’s current director is a staunch Republican. Nisbet should be crediting Al Gore for having already done precisely what Nisbet now recommends.