Connecting with the Public

Matthew Nisbet offers his perspective on the disconnect between the scientific community and huge elements of the public. He says:

The problem is, is that when you actually look at the opinion polls, you have what I describe as a two Americas of public perceptions on the issue. Seventy-five percent of college-educated Democrats accept that human activities are contributing to climate change. On the other hand, only roughly a quarter of college-educated Republicans accept that science.

And so, what's going on here? It's because several 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.

Yes, the Pandora's Box frame is part of the problem, as the public has long grown accustomed to false alarms. But this does not explain the disconcordance among educated, mainstream Democrats and Republicans. As such, there is clearly another frame at play "“ the Al Gore frame.

I'm not sure why anyone thought that having such a partisan politician as the face who warns against global warming was ever supposed to unite the "two Americas." Nisbet overlooks the fact that by having Al Gore, Hollywood, and the UN take the lead role in warning against global warming, it has been very easy for Republican skeptics to frame the issue not as simple alarmism, but as alarmism with an agenda.

Nisbet then notes:

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.

Not bad. But it's probably worse than this. When the public relies on their partisanship, they just don't dismiss science because it is still uncertain. Growing chunks of the public view science as partisanship. In other words, science is beginning to lose its authority in the public domain as more and more people come to view the scientific community cynically. And this is the serious problem with Nisbet's solution. By encouraging scientists to manipulate a media-savvy people with an approach that better fits in a political or marketing campaign, the public authority of science will continue to dwindle. It may take 30 or 40 years, but it's in the cards.

Nisbet is then asked:

So that's a political reality. But what is it that you're asking the scientists to do? How are they supposed to change the way they present it in order to confront this political reality?

Now note how weak his answers are:

You start recasting the issue in ways that are still true to the science but, in fact, actually you're not talking about the science. You're engaging with business leaders and CEOs. They're talking about the promise for innovative technology, again, the market potential for that. They might activate that moderate Republican base that reads The Wall Street Journal and says, hey, suddenly I care about global warming "˜cause there might be investment potential here.

You recast the issue as really a moral duty, not just in a religious sense but saying, look, this is like credit card debt. We're passing the buck on to future generations if you don't do something now. The science is there. This is an urgent problem. We need to take action.

None of this addresses the implications of the existing Pandora's Box frame and the Al Gore frame. Those frames have already placed a Super Frame on this issue that will be used to interpret and detect any attempt to "recast." But we'll get to this in a moment.

For now, simply consider just how pathetically weak these suggestions are. Investment potential doesn't need to be framed if there is real investment potential, as free market economies tend to find those potentials just fine. And business leaders and CEOs are unlikely to be persuaded by some scientist trying to frame things along these lines when that scientist's experience with making money comes from grant applications that draw from public funds.

As for moral duty, the problem is two-fold. The public most certainly does not look to the scientific community as moral authorities, so that frame is doomed. Worse yet, the public itself clearly has little moral problem passing bucks on to future generations. Most Americans live with a credit card debt that is higher than their savings. The government maintains trillions in an ever-growing debt. And the current generation certainly expects the next generation to pay for its retirement.

Since Nisbet drops the ball, let's return to the question: "But what is it that you're asking the scientists to do? How are they supposed to change the way they present it in order to confront this political reality?"

What the scientific community needs to do is a) reclaim this issue and take it away from the politicians and special interests groups and b) give the American people some "straight talk."

The scientific community must knock down the Al Gore frame. To do this, imagine some type of widely shown press conference with various leaders of the scientific community. Imagine them speaking to the public as follows:

"We scientists represent many disciplines and organizations. But what is most important to know is that we are a representative sample of you, the public. Surveys have shown that 43% of us scientists vote Republican, 47% vote Democrat, and 10% vote independents. Surveys have also shown that 30% of us self-describe as conservative, 37% as moderates, and 33% as liberal. So as you can see, we are a representative expression of the American public who just happen to love science and study the world. Yet despite our political, and religious, diversity, we are all here to speak to you tonight with one voice. You have heard the politcians talk, you have seen the TV shows, but we, conservatives, moderates, and liberals, are here to tell you what science says about global warming."

At that point, those with the skills to communicate and educate lay out the basic facts and best science. After the presentation, take questions from science reporters. After the event, send out conservative, Republican scientists as outreach to the college-educated Republicans.

It would seem to me that this approach, that treats people with respect, would be far more effective than Nisbet's manipulative gimmicks.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 21st, 2007 at 10:19 pm and is filed under Media, Nature of Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/connecting-with-the-public/trackback/

30 Responses to “Connecting with the Public”

Bradford Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 12:43 am
Allowing Al Gore to assume a high profile role is a mistake. He lacks the credibility that a non-political scientist would provide. Scientists need to refrain from political advocacy. Let them state the facts and fill in the details. Let others take it from there.

Comment by Bradford — April 22, 2007 @ 12:43 am

Krauze Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 2:58 am
The "investment potential" is itself one of Nisbet's frames. If a business man thought that there was money to be earned by investing in carbon neutral energy, he would just go ahead and do it, whatever the UN decided to do. What Nisbet is really talking about is the business man who wants government subsidies for building windmills, and who therefore has an interest in lobbying politicians.

Of course, saying this would clash with his "morality" frame.

Comment by Krauze — April 22, 2007 @ 2:58 am

Aagcobb Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:02 am
Hi MikeGene,

By encouraging scientists to manipulate a media-savvy people with an approach that better fits in a political or marketing campaign, the public authority of science will continue to dwindle.

Since this is a site about IDism, it would seem to be appropriate to look at this issue in that area. Would you not agree, Mike, that the DI does nothing except engage in political and marketing campaigns? As an IDist, I would think that your first concern would be that the clumsy attempts at manipulation engaged in by the DI ensures that a media-savvy people will never view IDism as anything other than a political and marketing campaign.

Comment by Aagcobb — April 22, 2007 @ 9:02 am

MikeGene Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:56 am
Hi Aagcobb,

As you are fond of pointing out, I consider ID an intellectual hobby. And I envision no catastrophe on the horizon if people fail to join in on my hobby. If people view ID as nothing more than a political and marketing campaign, this simply means we are in a position that knows better, as we consider and advance the arguments against people who rely on stereotypes/cliches. If people view global warming as nothing more than a political and marketing campaign, thousands could die.

So what do you think of my suggestion about the press conference and the need to overcome the Al Gore frame?

Comment by MikeGene — April 22, 2007 @ 9:56 am

Joy Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:38 am
Aagcobb:

…I would think that your first concern would be that the clumsy attempts at manipulation engaged in by the DI ensures that a media-savvy people will never view IDism as anything other than a political and marketing campaign.

ID as promoted by the DI *is* a political marketing campaign. So is the framing of the reaction to it from some loud politically and ideologically motivated critics in the scientific community. PZ opines today that the reaction isn't rude enough and should be even more radical.

Either way this clash of PR posers gets the subject out into the public sphere. Most of the public spends their concern (and money) on issues they consider a lot more important than mere dueling metaphysics and partisan shouting matches. Belief that God created the world and all the life in the world isn't going to go away because evolution is taught in high school for a semester. Belief in evolution-as-support for atheism won't go away if ID were mentioned as an alternative in high school during that same semester.

It's simply not that 'important' beyond church-state considerations, and there's usually someone who will sue if a school breaks the rules. The tone of the PR campaigns just polarizes and hardens the positional choices. Nobody's being converted, so it's no big deal.

Comment by Joy — April 22, 2007 @ 10:38 am

MikeGene Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:49 am
Hi Bradford,

Allowing Al Gore to assume a high profile role is a mistake. He lacks the credibility that a non-political scientist would provide.

Yes, but a non-political scientist would not be enough. First, there is no one person in the scientific community who has the reach that Al Gore has. Second, since the whole issue has been thoroughly politicized by both sides, a "non-political" identity would probably be a hard sell. What is needed is what I suggested, where a diverse community speaks with one voice. If the scientific community won't/can't pull that off, then it's game over. Global warming will be yet another important issue that is mostly used to jockey for political power.

Comment by MikeGene — April 22, 2007 @ 11:49 am

Bradford Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Hi Krauze. I was unable to access the reply to your latest post.

Comment by Bradford — April 22, 2007 @ 4:18 pm

Aagcobb Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Hi MikeGene,

So what do you think of my suggestion about the press conference and the need to overcome the Al Gore frame?

Hasn't the scientific community already issued statements warning about global warming? Do you really think another press conference is going to make any real difference? It doesn't matter what scientists say, Rush Limbaugh is going to keep telling the dittoheads they're just a bunch of tree-huggers.

Comment by Aagcobb — April 22, 2007 @ 4:28 pm

MikeGene Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Hi Aagcobb,

Hasn't the scientific community already issued statements warning about global warming? Do you really think another press conference is going to make any real difference?

Don't you even bother to make any attempt to understand the argument I laid on the table? Thanks to the Al Gore frame, the scientific community needs to communicate and establish that it is a representative sample of the public:

The scientific community must knock down the Al Gore frame. To do this, imagine some type of widely shown press conference with various leaders of the scientific community. Imagine them speaking to the public as follows:
"We scientists represent many disciplines and organizations. But what is most important to know is that we are a representative sample of you, the public. Surveys have shown that 43% of us scientists vote Republican, 47% vote Democrat, and 10% vote independents. Surveys have also shown that 30% of us self-describe as conservative, 37% as moderates, and 33% as liberal. So as you can see, we are a representative expression of the American public who just happen to love science and study the world. Yet despite our political, and religious, diversity, we are all here to speak to you tonight with one voice. You have heard the politcians talk, you have seen the TV shows, but we, conservatives, moderates, and liberals, are here to tell you what science says about global warming."

At that point, those with the skills to communicate and educate lay out the basic facts and best science. After the presentation, take questions from science reporters. After the event, send out conservative, Republican scientists as outreach to the college-educated Republicans.
It would seem to me that this approach, that treats people with respect, would be far more effective than Nisbet's manipulative gimmicks.

You add, "It doesn't matter what scientists say, Rush Limbaugh is going to keep telling the dittoheads they're just a bunch of tree-huggers."

Limbaugh can get away with this because he frames the scientific community as "just a bunch of liberals." If you could provide data (as in my hypothetical speech above), this would seriously weaken his argument.

Are you really under the impression that Nisbet's poorly thought-out ideas would do better? Didn't you notice how easy it was for me to knock them down? He is supposed to be an expert on framing and he is blind to the most problematic frame that is out there.

Comment by MikeGene — April 22, 2007 @ 4:45 pm

MikeGene Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Hi Aagcobb,

Two minutes of googling turned up this:

Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) - another group listed in the UCS report - holds the organization in low esteem.

"The name suggests everyone involved is some kind of objective scientist, but they tend to be leftist political activists," he said. "Facts mean very little to them."

Cohen told Cybercast News Service the UCS had a "remarkably benign view of the Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s and undertook extraordinary efforts to discourage the U.S. from countering whatever moves the Soviet Union was making to enhance its own nuclear arsenal."

When President Reagan was in the White House, the UCS was an ardent supporter of the "nuclear freeze movement" that was designed as a counterbalance to the U.S. administration's pursuit of a stronger national defense, Cohen said.

This was acknowledged by some of the more prominent activists speaking on behalf of the organization in that era.

"The [nuclear freeze] movement owes its momentum to Reagan," John Marks, a UCS member said in 1981. "What binds these people together is the notion that the world is getting closer to nuclear war. People don't feel safer with more missiles."

In 1983, Reagan announced his proposal for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a missile defense system that would be positioned in outer space. The following year, the UCS convened a panel that determined the system was "technologically unattainable."

Moreover, Henry Kendall, the late MIT physics professor and a UCS founder member, proclaimed Reagan's plan would "de-stabilize" and upset the strategic balance.

Carl Sagan, the late astronomer and popular science writer from Cornell University, worked in cooperation with other UCS members to organize a 15-city tour for Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale in 1984.

The union's opposition to missile defense came full circle during the current Bush administration when the president announced in 2002 he was withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

The withdrawal gave the U.S. more latitude to pursue a ballistic missile shield to protect America from missile attack by rogue states or terrorist groups.

The UCS is working to derail the project and to that end has received considerable financial support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, according to the Capital Research Center.

Can you think like a scientist and see the problem yet? Nisbet acknowledges the existence of "two Americas." What he fails to realize is that one America rejects this scientific organization as "leftist political activists." The only way to counter that frame is to come up with the data that show that the Union of Concerned Scientists is a representative sample of the American public.

Comment by MikeGene — April 22, 2007 @ 4:54 pm

Krauze Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Fixed. Thanks, Bradford.

Comment by Krauze — April 22, 2007 @ 5:01 pm

Bilbo Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 5:31 pm
I think you're right, Mike. Unfortunately, an organization of scientists — with differing political views — committed to ending globabl warming, would receive their money from…political liberals, most likely. So their group would be framed as a front for liberal politics, regardless of their individual politics.

But it couldn't hurt.

BTW, if you saw Gore's film, he credits one of his professors with convincing him of the seriousness of globabl warming, back when he was in college in the 60s. Perhaps if he had taken a smaller role in his film, and put the scientists on stage, it would have worked better. Though it would have still been framed as an "Al Gore" film.

Comment by Bilbo — April 22, 2007 @ 5:31 pm

Krauze Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Hi Bilbo,

Don't be so sure. There are also non-liberals who want to deal with global warming, even though they might do it differently than liberals:

"To Spur Energy Innovation, Tax Carbon"

Comment by Krauze — April 22, 2007 @ 5:48 pm

Joy Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Bilbo:

BTW, if you saw Gore's film, he credits one of his professors with convincing him of the seriousness of globabl warming, back when he was in college in the 60s. Perhaps if he had taken a smaller role in his film, and put the scientists on stage, it would have worked better. Though it would have still been framed as an "Al Gore" film.

Al's doing just fine. Though I do have to wonder about Global warming in the '60s, because beginning in the early '70s from roots to his very classes, it was Global cooling. All the rage, like nuclear winter. Still a big deal when my home town blew (Pinatubo). It was all about a new ice age if we didn't do something about pollution right now.

They changed their minds, following the mercury rather than their own clueless projections. Now we're going to all die of skin cancer or drowning because it's warming instead of cooling. And they're just as right as any of my local "Master" gardeners, who follow the weather religiously. Trends - backed by the Farmer's Almanac - and adjusted according to what the weather is this year (always). People have been doing this since forever.

Pollution of our air, water and earth are big deals. We should limit our footprints, stop making ourselves sick for the convenience of a minority. Stop being stupid about our energy consumption habits. We can fix this by seeing our filth and doing something about it. The leftists have it right to blame human inputs as contribution to our climactic woes. They have it wrong to blame us entirely, when their own data claims we can "cure" an imbalance just by burning some more forests or launching a nuclear war. I'm sure not willing to buy that level of "wisdom" for them. Why would anyone?

Al Gore is a politician. Maybe the honestly elected POTUS, denied his role by Supreme Court partisanship. Regardless, he won the popular vote. He doesn't want to run again (and I don't blame him), but he can be a voice at the forefront of issues he long cared about. I surely don't deny him that. Any atheist, or any religio, who refuses to understand that dealing with Gore is dealing in politics, should probably stay home.

Comment by Joy — April 22, 2007 @ 7:24 pm

Aagcobb Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Hi MikeGene,

Limbaugh can get away with this because he frames the scientific community as "just a bunch of liberals." If you could provide data (as in my hypothetical speech above), this would seriously weaken his argument.

Mike, I would think that you would know from the stubborn belief in young earth creationism that data isn't particularly relevant to a certain segment of the population. I mean, if Jesus is coming soon, global warming doesn't matter, does it?

It wouldn't matter very much if everyone in the US got on board anyway. Between them, India and China have over two billion more people than the US, and their economies are booming. Greenhouse gas emissions are going to continue to increase, no matter what we do.

Comment by Aagcobb — April 22, 2007 @ 7:52 pm

Bradford Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
MG: What is needed is what I suggested, where a diverse community speaks with one voice. If the scientific community won't/can't pull that off, then it's game over. Global warming will be yet another important issue that is mostly used to jockey for political power.

You're right. While Gore has a right to advocate what he wishes it hurts the cause to have him lead the charge. The problem is, although he has a following, he also incites opposition among those who do not like him. His supporters do the cause little good because they are generally in Gore's camp on the issue anyway. The base needs to be broadened. If anyone has difficulty seeing this then just imagine George Bush leading a cause years after leaving office. No matter what the nature of the cause would be, Bush is a divisive figure and would drive away many who have a visceral dislike of him. I think Carville might say something like it's the cause stupid.

Comment by Bradford — April 22, 2007 @ 7:55 pm

Bradford Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Mike, I would think that you would know from the stubborn belief in young earth creationism that data isn't particularly relevant to a certain segment of the population. I mean, if Jesus is coming soon, global warming doesn't matter, does it?

Aagcobb, global warming is not an intrinsically conservative or liberal issue. There are many like me who disagree with you on many issues but who are concerned about environmental problems. I've noticed that if the left latches onto an issue the right has a knee jerk aversion to it and the same works in reverse. Mike's suggestion is an attempt at a solution.

It wouldn't matter very much if everyone in the US got on board anyway. Between them, India and China have over two billion more people than the US, and their economies are booming. Greenhouse gas emissions are going to continue to increase, no matter what we do.

Wow! I actually agree with Aagcobb. Not only that, I think Aagcobb made an excellent point. All large industrial nations need to become part of the solution or we are just window dressing the problem.

Comment by Bradford — April 22, 2007 @ 8:02 pm

Aagcobb Says:
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:18 am
Hi Bradford,

Aagcobb, global warming is not an intrinsically conservative or liberal issue.

The age of the earth isn't either, Bradford.

Wow! I actually agree with Aagcobb. Not only that, I think Aagcobb made an excellent point.

Thanks!

Comment by Aagcobb — April 23, 2007 @ 8:18 am

Bradford Says:
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:24 am
Aagcobb, global warming is not an intrinsically conservative or liberal issue.

The age of the earth isn't either, Bradford.

Aagcobb, Christians who are environmentally hostile are not adhering to scriptural mandates. Concern for the environment is also not in conflict with basic conservative principles. I think there is some irrationality to left vs. right disputes. It is as if one other side feels compelled to oppose the other.

Comment by Bradford — April 23, 2007 @ 9:24 am

Aagcobb Says:
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:26 am
Hi Bradford,

Christians who are environmentally hostile are not adhering to scriptural mandates.

A lot of christians disagree with you.

Comment by Aagcobb — April 23, 2007 @ 10:26 am

Joy Says:
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Bradford:

While Gore has a right to advocate what he wishes it hurts the cause to have him lead the charge. The problem is, although he has a following, he also incites opposition among those who do not like him.

At least he's doing something, which is more than can be said about the right wing Laissez-faire contingent. If the issue gets framed as political (and it is political), then politicians should definitely get in there and talk about it, make films about it and produce policy plans to deal with it. That way, when the right wing loses its final hold on governmental power, something can finally be done.

Political policies are… political. That's certainly no surprise! If political conservatives want to get into the act, that's great. Then they can do the same things, and whoever's got the best policies for addressing the issues can compete for votes.

Of course, then we'd probably expect politicians to actually DO something, which is always risky if you're a betting man. Usually it's a lot of talk-talk, not much action. That situation wouldn't change a bit if scientists were doing the policy advising, so it's still just a lot of talk-talk.

I got a good first-hand look at what Christians - even notably 'conservative' ones - could do when Katrina hit New Orleans. There were dozens of trucks loaded with food, water and supplies (including generators) plus cooking trailers and bunk-buses on their way as soon as the wind died down, from only one regional conference in Oklahoma - churches in other regions were just as prepared.

FEMA wouldn't let them (or Red Cross, or Salvation Army) into the city. Maybe if Christians on the right and left talk-talked and developed solutions on the issue of pollution and global warming, they could start doing things for themselves and their communities and not wait for Big Oil or gub'ment, they'd find themselves getting a lot of help from surprising sources.

You know, build windmills on their property instead of cell towers disguised as giant crosses, put solar panels on the roof, preach to their congregations about working toward energy independence, invest some of their wealth in biodiesel and other alternatives, run their buses on clean fuels, etc. All the Asheville city diesel fleets (buses, garbage trucks, etc.) have been running on biodiesel for over 5 years now. Citizens respond by taking the bus way more often than they used to. Since there aren't enough parking places for the tourists, the locals don't have to hassle with it.

There's nothing that forces Republicans to be anti-environmentalists. Nothing that forces Democrats to be pro-environmentalists. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are doing as much to address environmental issues as regular people do, every day. A lot of those people are Christians, so it's not a religious issue either. God never said "Thou Shalt Trash the Planet." Anyone who thinks so is not a very good Christian.

If we've got (or can borrow from China) $20-$30 billion a month to put our troops in between fighting factions in Iraq's civil war, we can afford universal health care and clean energy. We might even find that it's a lot cheaper in dollars and blood to let the ME's oil stay right where it is, since we don't need more of it than is in all those capped wells in Texas and Oklahoma.

Comment by Joy — April 23, 2007 @ 1:06 pm

Stuart Harris Says:
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:41 pm
In the comparison of college educated Democrats and Republicans and their views on global warming, it's also worth thinking about what types of education each group has typically had.

As a very general rule, Democrats are much more likely to have majored in subjects such as political science, psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology, "general studies", and other soft liberal arts that primarliy are based on rhetoric.

Republicans are more likely to have studied engineering, business, math and other things more dependent on logic and evidence.

Comment by Stuart Harris — April 23, 2007 @ 2:41 pm

Bradford Says:
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Joy: I got a good first-hand look at what Christians - even notably 'conservative' ones - could do when Katrina hit New Orleans. There were dozens of trucks loaded with food, water and supplies (including generators) plus cooking trailers and bunk-buses on their way as soon as the wind died down, from only one regional conference in Oklahoma - churches in other regions were just as prepared.

FEMA wouldn't let them (or Red Cross, or Salvation Army) into the city. Maybe if Christians on the right and left talk-talked and developed solutions on the issue of pollution and global warming, they could start doing things for themselves and their communities and not wait for Big Oil or gub'ment, they'd find themselves getting a lot of help from surprising sources.

The Keta group, which had oversight responsibilities for FEMA, denied access to the Calvary Baton Rouge Church of Baton Rouge, which was providing free food to residents of a housing project managed by FEMA. While the action affected this particular Christian relief group the fallout was much wider.

Those involved in the decision to bar Christian relief organizations were not high level government officials or conservative commentators. They were however guided by a perverted perception of the church and state doctrine.

A letter, authored by attorney Jeremy Tedesco of the Alliance Defense Fund, citing First Amendment rights of church members, caused the Keta group to reverse policy. Ironically some of the same people who push exteme church/state separation policies (extreme leftists) blame conservatives for the relief debacle. There is much politicking occuring outside the DI.

Comment by Bradford — April 23, 2007 @ 3:03 pm

Bradford Says:
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:08 pm
A lot of christians disagree with you.

Aagcobb, you cite a source that argues the factual evidence rather than the contention that environmental issues do not matter.

Comment by Bradford — April 23, 2007 @ 3:08 pm

Joy Says:
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Bradford:

Ironically it is some of the same people who push exteme chuch state separation policies (extreme leftists) who blame conservatives for the relief debacle. There is much politicking occuring outside the DI.

I blame George W. Bush and his crony friends for the NO debacle. They wanted to wrest direct control of the states' National Guard forces when Blanco and the MS governor begged for Guard help before the storm (their state contingents were in Iraq at the time). Thus even though Texas, Oklahoma and other states volunteered to send their Guard troops in, it took GWB a week to start letting 'em in. All the while blaming the abandoned, sick and starving people at the arena for not driving their SUVs out before the storm.

If they'd let the Christian and secular relief organizations in, they couldn't have nationalized the Guard.

Totally a power issue imposed from Bush's biggest expansion of government in history (a.k.a. "Homeland Security"), under which FEMA had been placed. On purpose.

Comment by Joy — April 23, 2007 @ 3:37 pm

Aagcobb Says:
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Hi Bradford,

Aagcobb, you cite a source that argues the factual evidence rather than the contention that environmental issues do not matter.

In the letter they also quoted scripture to support their argument that human economic activity couldn't possibly lead to a global catastrophe.

Comment by Aagcobb — April 23, 2007 @ 3:46 pm

Rock Says:
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:15 pm
What some people here may be unaware of is the fact that psychologists have been publishing research (for decades now) supporting the conclusion that politically conservative individuals suffer from a number of"”How to put it politely?"”"personality deficiencies." (E.g., see a review by Jost entitled "The End of Ideology," published just last year.)

Uh, conservatives are nuts! Or at the very least people no one would really want to be associated (keep company) with. Conservatives being generally less competent on any number of such assessments, incapable of forming close relationships, nonetheless dependent, lethargic, passive, uncontrolled, and fragile. I'm not making that up. That's science.)

Now that doesn't mean that liberals are entirely w/o some undesirable personality traits as well, e.g., they tend to be "sensation seekers." But just reading a few of these papers and one can see that the list of empirically determinable positive personality traits is skewed "liberal." (E.g., Van Hiel, et al. "The relationship between maladaptive personality and right wing ideology," Personality and Individual Differences. Vol. 36. No. 2. Jan. 2004. pp. 405-417.)

In case you IDers haven't noticed, there is something quite common to virtually all your blog-critics. They aren't nuts! And you are. And not just "nuts" in the tolerable way my "idiosyncratic" uncle Robin is–"nuts" as in Dhamer, Dylan & Kleobold, etc. IOW, I don wanna know ya nuts.

This is even related to the "framing" issue. You have noticed that your critics intend to frame "the issue" in terms of rationalism vs. irrationalism, empiricism vs. mysticism, evolutionism vs, creationism, science vs. religion. IOW "liberal" vs. "conservative." Or, to put it my way, the sane vs. the insane. I.e., people with nice personalities vs. you ID-assholes.

The "Company-We-Keep" argument. (Maybe Mike Gene remembers.) It's personal. It's not "political." It's not "scientific." It's not "philosophical." It's not "theological." There's just something about you, your personality, that grates.

Must be something wrong with me, because I love you guys!

Comment by Rock — April 23, 2007 @ 4:15 pm

Bradford Says:
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Joy: I blame George W. Bush and his crony friends for the NO debacle. They wanted to wrest direct control of the states' National Guard forces when Blanco and the MS governor begged for Guard help before the storm (their state contingents were in Iraq at the time).

I'm not take issue with the debacle and federal culpability but after reading this I recalled some criticism of the mayor of N.O. and the governor of Louisiana so I went to Google to refresh my memory. The following relates to the whole picture:

"The primary responsibility for dealing with emergencies does not belong to the federal government. It belongs to local and state officials who are charged by law with the management of the crucial first response to disasters. First response should be carried out by local and state emergency personnel under the supervision of the state governor and his emergency operations center.

The actions and inactions of Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin are a national disgrace due to their failure to implement the previously established evacuation plans of the state and city. Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin cannot claim that they were surprised by the extent of the damage and the need to evacuate so many people. Detailed written plans were already in place to evacuate more than a million people. The plans projected that 300,000 people would need transportation in the event of a hurricane like Katrina. If the plans had been implemented, thousands of lives would likely have been saved."

Joy: If they'd let the Christian and secular relief organizations in, they couldn't have nationalized the Guard.

I'm not sure I follow this. How would allowing access to relief organizations make it impossible to nationalize the guard?

Joy: Totally a power issue imposed from Bush's biggest expansion of government in history (a.k.a. "Homeland Security"), under which FEMA had been placed. On purpose.

I too have objections to the huge expansion of government and object to it regardless of the culprit's ideological views or record in office.

Comment by Bradford — April 23, 2007 @ 11:38 pm

edarrell Says:
April 24th, 2007 at 5:28 am
There's no such thing as "non-political." There is good politics, there is bad politics, nothing in the middle.

Arguing from facts is good politics. Using research and the data research generates is good politics. Shutting up when one has the data is disastrous often enough that the political value of urging such quiet should be obvious.

Comment by edarrell — April 24, 2007 @ 5:28 am

Bradford Says:
April 24th, 2007 at 6:02 am
edarrell:

There's no such thing as "non-political." There is good politics, there is bad politics, nothing in the middle.

So I gather the DI is not unique after all right? It is it simply a matter of whose ox is being gored and whether one likes it or not? Is a hypothesis supported by experimental evidence political, good politics or what?

Comment by Bradford — April 24, 2007 @ 6:02 am

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Connecting with the Public

30 Responses to “Connecting with the Public”

Leave a Reply

Featured Books