Nature Weighs in on Nisbet Report
An editorial in Nature says that Matthew Nisbet’s Climate shift report “dismantles three of the most common reasons given by those who have tried, and failed, to garner widespread support for policies to restrict greenhouse gases.”
I guess they didn’t get the memo from the climate capo or the reprint over at the watchdog site.
The Nature editorial helpfully lays out the three widely help assumptions that the Power shift report challenges:
First “” the failure of the US Senate to pass a cap-and-trade bill in 2010 cannot be blamed directly on the financial lobbying muscle of the conservative movement and its allies in industry. In 2009, the report says, although a network of prominent opponents of cap and trade, including ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, spent a total of US$272 million lobbying policy-makers, environmental groups in favour of cap and trade mobilized $229 million from companies such as General Electric and other supporters to lobby for environmental issues. Indeed, the effort to pass cap and trade, Nisbet notes, “may have been the best-financed political cause in American history”.
Second “” most of the mainstream media coverage of climate change gets it right. During 2009 and 2010, Nisbet writes, around nine out of ten news and opinion articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN’s online site reflected the consensus scientific position. The Wall Street Journal regularly presented the opposite view in its opinion pages, but eight out of ten news items still backed the science.
Third “” conservative media outlets such as Fox News and controversies such as the coverage of e-mails hacked from the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom have a minimal impact on public attitudes to climate change, because such influences tend to only reinforce the views of those who already hold doubts.
That Nature is taking the report seriously and not the partisan potshots lobbed at it, is encouraging. The reason why this is important is nicely put by Gary Bowden over at Ecological Sociology:
It is tidy and simplistic to feel that there are powerful forces out there that are corrupting the public’s view. The reality is much more complex. Unfortunately, [Joe] Romm has drug the discussion down to a focus on simplistic and, if not irrelevant at least secondary, concerns. If the climate change advocacy community dwells exclusively on these matters and fails to address the need for serious attention to the content of their message and the way it is framed, Romm will have won the battle while helping lose the war.
Sigh …
So, I am wondering, Nature is to be cheered because they relied on the press release (in essence) for straight out quoting on material that is highly questionable — at best? The financial number crunching within the report is skewed and off target. (Note: I read about 70% of the report before I read Romm’s material. My copy was heavily red-inked even before reading what Romm wrote.)
While I do not have time to track through the entire set of material that Nisbet worked through, the lumping together of substance articles and opinion pieces concerns me. The Washington Post, for example, has a clear divide between opinion pieces and news reporting. The number of news pieces which could be counted in climate reporting (depending on the ‘count’ parameters, which I didn’t understand on the first reading of the section and I have yet to reread to figure them out) could overwhelm the number of opinion pieces. While not necessarily thrilled at the Post’s ‘reporting’, likely that one could get to a standard of high 90%s of ‘accurate reporting’. And, the Washington Post’s editorials will likely rate in Nisbet’s analysis as near 100% accurate, as well.
Thus, the publishing of Sarah Palin, Bjorn Lomborg, George Will, and others skewing / distorting / denying the science (and Nisbet might have counted Lomborg among accurate) will be lost in the weeds of the accounting as to the total. What was written about the Wall Street Journal seems, in fact, to be quite accurate for The Washington Post, as well.
Etc …
Now, I agree with Gary Bowden’s quote — but with a caveat. The failure isn’t Romm’s but Nisbet’s. We shouldn’t have to wade through poorly done work to try to dig out the nuggets of value.
Well, London has been hit by unprecedented warming so I reckon the only thing to do is to print off those 66 pages of report, head off to the nearest park and actually read it.
I’m not sure what the big deal is with this report. Here is the conclusion of the money chapter:
“As I have described in this chapter, propelled by a wealthy donor base and key alliances with corporations and other organizations, the environmental movement appears to have closed the financial gap with its opponents among conservative groups and industry associations. Indeed, the effort to pass cap and trade legislation may have been the best-financed political cause in American history. The effort also demonstrates not only the vast revenue base and organizational capacity of the environmental movement, but also the movement’s enhanced ability to coordinate activities among its constituent members and to build partnerships.
However, as detailed in this chapter, the great proportion of this spending by environmental groups is restricted, limiting their ability to engage in direct lobbying efforts or mobilization campaigns on behalf of a specific bill. Still, environmental groups spent large sums on general education efforts, engaging policymakers, journalists and the public. They also spent unrestricted amounts on mobilizing their 12 million members in support of cap and trade legislation. Environmental groups additionally invested considerable resources in brokering alliances with major companies that indirectly augmented the efforts of environmental groups to lobby on behalf of legislation.
Finally, while conservative groups still enjoy a sizable advantage in election spending, the Proposition 23 campaign in California demonstrates the vast financial resources that environmental groups have at their disposal and the amount of wealth they can draw on from donors in the clean energy, high-tech, investment banking and entertainment industries. In the next chapter, I examine the influence of foundations as funding sources and agenda-setters in the debate over climate change.”
If Romm is upset by this, I cannot understand why. Since when has the environmental movement denied that it wants to spend money on education? Please spend more, for God’s sake sake, we love real education. Perhaps, Romm thinks Nesbit is pushing the strawman? Is he? The problem is not how much money is spent educating people on the realities and risks of climate change, it’s that there is any money spent by front group to dismantle that effort. It’s a lot easier to not change than it is to initiate it. In fact, Exxon and other corporations spend money on both fronts. It’s not that we want to use this a silly David v Goliath narrative (that’s for those obsessed with Climategate), we just want to these other groups to stop misleading people. I think Brulle’s misgivings are fine, but Nesbit acknowledged the data problems a few times in this report. I haven’t read the rest, but the reaction to the financials aspect to this seems wrongheaded. Perhaps after I read the rest, I’ll understand what the big deal is.
A Siegel:
I’m confused. You say that you “have read about 70% of the report” but claim you “do not have time to track through the entire set of material that Nisbet worked through…” Sounds like you’re just about there.
You also claim that the material in the report “is highly questionable “” at best? The financial number crunching within the report is skewed and off target.”
I see you have a energy-related blog. Instead of making an argument by assertion, why not make your case in a post at your site?
Isn’t all of this confounding climate science with AGW mitigation policies. Someone, and indeed a great many someones are, could be convinced of AGW but be opposed to proposed AGW policies as misguided and counter-productive. How will convincing people of the “climate science consensus” convince them of a specific set of climate science polices.
Maybe someone is convened of the climate science consensus but
a) feels that there are more immediate and higher priority issues to be concerned with
b) finds that the emphasis on mitigation is misplaced and that more needs to be done in adaptation
c) feels that AGW polices are in reality merely stalking horses for other issues such as anti-capitalism and that these collateral policies will cause more harm that AGW will
Many more of these can be added.
The current AGW establishment seems to believe that their consensus science dictates a specific set of policies. People could be convinced that there is at least some utility in this consensus, or at least utility enough to be of some use, but not be convoked that the preferred policies of the climate science establishment have merit. . anyone who admits to such beliefs now will be labeled as an anti-scientific fool or worse.
Why does the climate science establishment think that they can educate people by bluster and intellectual intimidation?
Per capita energy consumption by state varies from 200 MBtu to 1,000 MBtu.
Source EIA – http://www.eia.doe.gov/states/sep_sum/plain_html/rank_use_per_cap.html
My senators job is to make sure that no federal legislation gets passed that would have a disproportionate negative impact on my state. I would think that’s the job description for all Senators.
A CO2 tax would have a disproportionate impact on many states.
Waxman and Markey are from low per capita energy consumption states. They fashioned a piece of legislation that punished high per capita energy consumption states.
The Senate did to Waxman-Markey what the Senate was designed to do, kill legislation with disproportionate negative impacts.
Grypo,
It’s a big deal because the environmental movement often portrays this fight as David vs. Goliath, and that the only reason they are losing is because large conservative industry types / corporations / think tanks are outspending them massively. I have no desire to spend hours reading this report to still be confused as to who outspent who, but my best guess is that it’s probably somewhat close.
Now why environmentalists care: my theory is that if the money is indeed close, environmentalists care because it shows that there is a large swath of public opinion in the United States that does not want the short-term results of carbon taxes or cap-and-trade, and its not quite the heroic struggle of right v.s. wrong that they portray it as.
But environmental are proud of what they spend on these efforts. The focus is about what the other side does. Comparing the money pointless, and if that’s what Romm is upset about, it’s a side-show. Although looking at his complaints in detail, it seems to be more about the focus of the report, but he is using trivial matters of monetary mistakes to undermine what could be substantial problems, instead of attacking the focus, or mis-focus. In fact, Romm acknowledges just what I am saying in his thread comments.
Had YOU looked at the report before you posted this comment, you would know that, yes, greens did have the spending edge in Prop. 23. That’s probably one reason why they won! I will be doing another post on the financial data.
Comparing the money pointless
The money argument is being used to claim it wasn’t a signfiicant factor in recent failure of national climate legislation. Romm, Brulle (one of Nisbet’s own peer reviewers whom he didn’t listen to), and others disagree, and clearly state where the analysis is wrong.
Nisbet then says that those who disagree with the funding conclusion (among others) are wrong, and that false perception is due to their partisan and ideological bias. From Chapter 4:
“These processes of motivated reasoning also likely shape a view of the world that is inherently hostile even when objective indicators of financial resources, media coverage and public opinion suggest otherwise.”
Interestingly, Nisbet’s own report correctly notes that pro-mitigation funding surpassed anti-mitigation funding on California Proposition 23, which attempted to delay their climate mitigation law. It also failed by a huge margin.
Keith;
“I see you have a energy-related blog. Instead of making an argument by assertion, why not make your case in a post at your site?’
That would require work. Trusting Romm, and adding the claim, “I read the report” is so much easier.
A key conclusion that both sides should take note of is this.
“However, as detailed in this chapter, the great proportion of this spending by environmental groups is restricted, limiting their ability to engage in direct lobbying efforts or mobilization campaigns on behalf of a specific bill. Still, environmental groups spent large sums on general education efforts, engaging policymakers, journalists and the public.”
I take this that currently proponents cannot leverage their money because of their current Tax structure. If they would be open to changing their structure to be more like goliaths 501 (c) (6) they would be much more effective.
NYJ
The reason I think comparing the money is pointless is 1) as Nesbit knows, tracing it directly to lobbying specifics and knowing reasoning surrounding direct political contribution isn’t possible 2) different groups are allowed to do different activities, which Nesbit also states in ch1 3) for these reasons and others, the money is in no way symmetric. 4) Doing nothing is easy (although illogical) in the face of uncertainty , changing is hard (this is also seen in that Californians did not want to change Prop23) 5) real education done by the environmental groups and whatever the conservative think tanks do isn’t at all similar, as if so, this needs to be looked into closely to make apples to apples comparisons.
So unless Nesbit deals with these issues fairly without mentioning the favored narrative, his conclusions are an overreach.
So this would be fair criticism. With that said, I did peruse beyond Ch1 a bit and there is usable information, just nothing particularly novel.
What both sides seem to miss is that the bulk of the heavy lifting on the skeptics side is done by people who are unpaid – MacIntyre, Watts, Bishop Hill, Donna Lafromboise and so on.
Romm is a paid hack. RealClimate is run out of a PR shop. Al Gore….well, Al takes care of Al.
However, the skeptic side has a huge advantage; because they are unpaid they can afford to actually discuss the real issues and, yikes, disagree with each other. Plus, they have the other great advantage that when they happen to say something true or find stuff from the hysterical warmists which is untrue, they have a free, effective, megaphone in the blogs.
Unlike the warmists, the sorts of blogs which pick up skeptics’ points have reasonably large readerships and are read by MSM and politicians (or their assistants). The message goes out to an audience which cares and it goes up the food chain to talk radio and Fox.
Now, because the viewership of Fox is about a billion times that of MSNBC and Rush Limbaugh is quite popular, the skeptics have a much better chance of being heard.
So, to recap: guys and gals working for free who are good at the science or at picking holes in the science are much more communication efficient than the hysterics like Romm because they can access an actual audience (and not annoy it).
Of course, it helps that climate science is as shaky and uncertain as it is.
And it also helps that the climate scientists and their cheerleaders are so remarkably tone deaf.