Political Mobilization/Activism

The Death of Cap and Trade: Getting Beyond False Narratives

nisbetmc — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:21:44 +0000

The Death of Cap and Trade: Getting Beyond False Narratives

In the wake of last week's defeat of cap and trade, the predictable narrative offered by bloggers and commentators has been to blame the failure on industry, skeptics, and Republicans. It's also the explanation likely echoing in the minds of many scientists and environmental advocates.

But it's important to take a step back from the easy emotional reaction and take a look at the complexity of factors that shape societal gridlock on this issue. As I remarked to Andrew Revkin at Dot Earth earlier this month:

If we were able to statistically model societal inaction on climate change, what proportion of the variance would be accounted for by the disinformation efforts of skeptics and false balance by journalists? Perhaps 10%. Maybe 15%? [Commentators] unfortunately tend to exaggerate the influence of climate skeptics while overlooking the many other factors that contribute to societal gridlock...

At the Breakthrough blog, as Devon Swezey, Yael Borofsky, and Jesse Jenkins detail, Republicans opposed the bill but so did many Democrats giving Harry Reid only 30-40 votes in favor. And while the Chamber of Commerce opposed the bill, major industry members including Shell, BP, and Alcoa helped craft the legislation and actively lobbied for passage.

The public opinion and media environment also contributed to the legislative defeat, but this factor is far more complex than narrowly blaming the work of skeptics, conservative media, or claims about "false balance" in coverage. As I described in a panel presentation earlier this year at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, legislation on climate change--which necessitates a non-incremental, systemic change in policy--should be compared to other similar policy debates such as welfare or immigration reform where wider public opinion and the level of news attention has played a decisive role.

As the recent Six Americas of Global Warming report shows, the U.S. public has yet to come to the type of widespread consensus and opinion-intensity on the issue that creates the incentive for the White House, Democratic members of Congress, and moderates among Republicans to take the political risks to pass legislation.

To get to that point, we need to rethink the focus and nature of policy action and how we communicate about the issue. Following Copenhagen and now with the failure of cap and trade, a window has opened for discussion of alternative policy directions. New voices, seats at the table, and fresh ideas are needed on the most effective approaches to curbing greenhouse gas emissions, policy proposals that are also capable of gaining bi-partisan support in Congress.

In an interview with Ezra Klein at the Washington Post, Michael Shellenberger offers this perspective:

I think that some time needs to pass for Democrats and liberals and greens to assess what happened and start coming to terms with the political, economic and technological realities that are the driving force behind the serial political failures of cap-and-trade. Our view is you need a price on carbon, but that it's going to start very low. No one will impose or sustain a high price on carbon as long as the gap between fossil fuels and clean energy remains so wide. So we need to be moving to a framework where at the center is technological innovation to close the gap between fossil fuels and clean energy. That might need to be funded with a small tax on carbon. But the center is the technological innovation.

In conjunction with our policy approach to the problem, we also need to rethink how we communicate about the relevance of climate change and importantly the benefits that would accrue from proposed action. Environmental groups spent record amounts of resources on advertising and lobbying in support of cap and trade. From this effort, what lessons were learned? What appears to have been successful? What strategies can be ruled out as dead ends?

As the NY Times' Tom Friedman concluded in his column yesterday:

The Senate's failure to act is a result of many factors, but one is that the climate-energy policy debate got disconnected from average people. We need less talk about "climate" and more about how conservation saves money, renewable energy creates jobs, restoring the gulf's marshes sustains fishermen and preserving the rainforest helps poor people. Said Glenn Prickett, vice president at the Nature Conservancy: "We have to take climate change out of the atmosphere, bring it down to earth and show how it matters in people's everyday lives."

UPDATE: Eric Pooley has an excellent analysis arguing similar points in an article today at Yale Environment 360.

Study: Re-Framing Climate Change as a Public Health Issue

Slate: More Science Won't Solve Climate Change Gridlock

At Slate, A Need for Diplomacy in the Climate Wars

nisbetmc Thu, 07/29/2010 - 02:21

Tags

global warming

Political Mobilization/Activism

Public Opinion

At Slate, A Need for Diplomacy in the Climate Wars

nisbetmc — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:28:43 +0000

At Slate, A Need for Diplomacy in the Climate Wars

I have an article at Slate magazine today that ties together and elaborates on some of the themes explored at this blog over the past several weeks. Below is the lede to the full article. No doubt, the article will generate a good amount of discussion which I will highlight in follow up posts. I will also highlight specific comments made over at Slate.

Chill Out: Climate scientists are getting a little too angry for their own good.

By Matthew C. Nisbet

As Congress continues to struggle its way toward new energy legislation, climate scientists are getting a little hot. A series of major attacks from the global-warming skeptics--including last year's Climategate affair and unfair accusations stemming from the subsequent discovery of errors in the latest IPCC report--have left those in the research community understandably angry. Having spent eight years calling attention to the politicization of climate science by the Bush administration, they now find themselves on the other end of the same allegations. Whatever raw emotions this reversal might produce were on display a couple of weeks ago in yet another series of leaked e-mails: This time, members of the prestigious National Academies complained to one another about the "neo-McCarthyism" of the climate skeptics and lamented that "science is getting creamed with no effective response." One researcher called for "a relentless rain of science and scientific dialog on the incredible, destructive demagoguery." Another participant urged an "aggressively partisan approach."

The latest batch of e-mails reflects a bunker mentality among climate scientists, forged during the Bush administration and reinforced by the recent attacks on their credibility. Despite the promise of an Obama presidency, many now see themselves losing a "war" against "anti-science" forces allied with energy companies and the Republican Party. Meanwhile, scientists have been urged by liberal strategists and commentators to "fight back"--by forming their own political action committees and openly supporting "pro-science" candidates, among other things.

But urgent calls to escalate the war against climate skeptics may lead scientists and their organizations into a dangerous trap, fueling further political disagreement while risking public trust in science. A major transformation is needed in how scientists and their organizations engage the public and policymakers. The new direction is not to become more political and confrontational on the national stage, but to seek opportunities for greater public interaction, dialogue, and partnerships in communities across the country.

nisbetmc Thu, 03/18/2010 - 06:28

Tags

ClimateGate

global warming

Political Communication

Political Mobilization/Activism

Science communication research

Hi,
Slate is experimenting with a new commenting system. The new system is the comments at the bottom of the page and the old is their "Fray". If you are going to highlight Slate comments, you should check both although nothing interesting is going on in the Fray right now.

Excellent advice! With a few notable exceptions, scientists generally do not enjoy communicating their work to people outside their own field. To put it mildly. Given the right support, they might, but it doesn't come naturally to them.

Do Surveys This Week Show More Signs of Climate Fatigue?

nisbetmc — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:29:39 +0000

Do Surveys This Week Show More Signs of Climate Fatigue?

Two surveys released this week provide more information on how public opinion may or may not be shifting relative to climate change and energy. I provide some highlights and quick context below on fears over a growing "climate fatigue."

Pew: Global Warming and Energy Wane as Perceived Priorities

Earlier this week, timed to tonight's State of the Union address, Pew released its annual survey of perceived policy priorities for the President and Congress. As has been the case the past few years, global warming ranked last among the more than 20 issues polled with only 28% of Americans rating the issue as a "top priority." As Pew reports:

The percentage that now says addressing global warming should be a top priority has fallen 10 points from 2007, when 38% considered it a top priority. Such a low ranking is driven in part by indifference among Republicans: just 11% consider global warming a top priority, compared with 43% of Democrats and 25% of independents. Protecting the environment fares somewhat better than dealing with global warming on the public's list of priorities, though it still falls on the lower half of the list overall. Some 44% say that protecting the environment should be a top priority for Obama and Congress, little changed from 2009.

Perhaps even more significantly, the Pew survey indicated a sharp drop in the perceived priority of "dealing with the U.S. energy problem" with 49% of Americans rating this issue as a top priority, down 11 points from 60% in 2009. Energy now rests at about the level of perceived priority as was the case in the years 2004 and 2005.

Over the past year, the perceived priority of energy has ebbed among Republicans (51% in 2009 down to 43% in 2010), Democrats (66% to 56%) and Independents (61% to 45%) alike.

As I wrote in an article at the journal Environment earlier this year, the perceived priority of climate and energy policy--and the opinion intensity felt by the public on these interconnected issues--matters significantly to policy action. In the context of two wars and an economic crisis, absent a shift in the polls and a surge in input from a diversity of constituents, it is unlikely that a strong majority in Congress will accept the political risks needed to pass meaningful policy actions. Past research shows that opinion intensity and perceived personal importance of an issue is one of the strongest predictors of political participation i.e. contacting elected officials, writing or calling in to news organizations, attending local meetings, and other forms of political activity and civic voice.

More importantly than pressure on elected officials, democratic principles are at stake. Policies to address climate change and energy will bear directly on the future of Americans, impacting their pocketbooks, lifestyles, and local communities. These decisions are therefore too significant to leave to just elected officials and experts; citizens need to be actively involved and engaged.

Yale/GMU: Despite Fatigue, Scientists Still Dominate Public Trust

Anthony Leiserowitz and Ed Maibach were also in the field earlier this month and have released the first look at some of the very detailed questions they asked about climate change in a nationally representative survey. Their survey offers a direct comparison to multiple questions that they first asked in 2008.

According to the findings, in 2010, fewer Americans are sure that global warming is happening, that scientists agree on the issue, are worried about global warming, or think that it will effect them personally.

Specific to perceived priority and opinion intensity, just 20% of Americans feel that climate change is either extremely important (5%) or very important (15%) to them personally, down from a combined 32% in 2008.

Americans, however, still overwhelmingly trust scientists for information about climate change, despite the furor over ClimateGate the past few months and voiced fears that public trust might be damaged.

When asked "how much do you trust or distrust the following as sources of information about climate change," 74% of Americans trust scientists either strongly (22%) or somewhat (52%). Though this combined figure is down slightly from 83% in 2008, on the trust index, scientists still outrank every other societal group or individual queried with only TV metereologists and President Obama coming close at 56% and 51% respectively.

As I wrote last week, despite a dominant narrative on the part of many liberal commentators that blames an "unscientific America" and a prevailing "anti-scientific" public for societal inaction on climate change, these survey findings are consistent with a body of research and surveys that show a relatively unchanging public trust, admiration, and deference to science and scientists.

On climate change, scientists and their organizations have almost unequaled communication capital, part of the problem is using that communication capital wisely and effectively--partnering with other societal leaders to promote greater public engagement and trust across society.

nisbetmc Wed, 01/27/2010 - 04:29

Tags

global warming

Political Mobilization/Activism

Science communication research

Interestingly, in the Yale/GMU poll, the % of those surveyed who agreed "Most scientists think global warming is happening" dropped from 47% to 34% (Q59) despite a lack of signficant change in what climate scientists have been saying on AGW.

I can think of two explainations for this off hand - either the public perception of "scientists" is broad and includes people outside of climate science fields and precieves them to have been expressing more doubts recently (it would be interesting to see what the trust levels are for climate scientists vs scientists in general) or that what scientists say shapes changes in public perceptions of what scientists are saying less than changes in public perceptions of AGW shape the public perception of what scientists are saying.

Based on the coverage given on readily available news sources, I think that what the public perceives to be true about climate change is that a controversy is raging. I do not think that most people have the means to assess the credentials or numbers of actual qualified scientists on either side of this issue.

Many scientists and others who have been trying to report on climate change have fallen into some unfortunate traps. Too much effort is being spent on teaching the controversy. Many attempts at personalizing the effect of climate change have been done by pointing to local weather patterns and trends, which only can truly be attributed to global climate change in aggregate. Thus, one locally cold winter is enough to turn many people into skeptics.

I do not agree that climate change advocates have "almost unequaled" communication capital, I think that the opposing forces are much more powerful and media savvy.

People's sense of urgency is based on their feelings of personal well being. It is difficult to get people to think long term. I think that people do want to have a sense of hope about the future. A lot of the admiration of science is based on that hope.

Thus, I believe that effective communication is possible.

Pew: Messages Americans Receive at Church About Science

nisbetmc — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:02:30 +0000

Pew: Messages Americans Receive at Church About Science

When I was invited by the Pew team earlier this year to make suggestions about items and questions to measure in their recently released survey on science and the public, I suggested that Pew ask a variation of a question that they have used in the past that queries respondents on the types of messages and information relative to politics they might receive in church. Given their expertise in the area, they were probably already well ahead of me in thinking along similar lines.

I was interested in the potential results based in part on a study I co-authored at the journal Political Behavior that examined the church-based context as an important mobilizer of citizens in the stem cell debate and relative to other research that I have published on the church as an important context for political participation generally.

What's interesting from the Pew findings--excerpted below-- is that contrary to conventional wisdom, Americans report receiving generally neutral or favorable information from clergy about "science or scientific findings" at church. As I wrote in an article at The Scientist back in 2007 and more recently at the journal Environment, churches and religious leaders are an untapped resource for engaging Americans on issues related to science, especially on topics such as climate change, biomedical research, and evolution.

Some scientists view the church context as foreign and even hostile to discussions about science and society, yet in doing so they overlook a central setting where public engagement can take place.

About four-in-ten (42%) of those who attend religious services at least once a month say the clergy at their place of worship have spoken about science or scientific findings; more than half (56%) say the topic has not been raised.

Among all Protestants who attend services regularly, 46% say the clergy occasionally speak about science. That includes 48% of white evangelicals, 44% of white mainline Protestants and 40% of black Protestants. A smaller share of Catholics (35%) say science has been raised at church.

Of those who say their clergy occasionally speak about science or scientific findings, three-in-ten (30%) say the clergy at their church are usually supportive of science, while 11% say they are critical of science. A majority (52%) say the clergy's references to science are neither positive nor negative.

nisbetmc Fri, 07/10/2009 - 04:02

Tags

Pew surveys

Political Mobilization/Activism

religion

Hard to know what to make of these results. What does "critical of science" mean? Is it "The latest claims to human cloning are DEEPLY troubling to me, based on my reading of the bible" or is it "EVOLUTION IS A LIE AND IF YOUR KIDS LEARN IT THEY WILL GO TO GAY LIBERAL HELL BLAAAAAAGH!!1!!!1!"

To me, this doesn't seem all that surprising. I was raised Catholic, and while Official Church Policy coming from the Vatican was well-known, individual officials (priests, nuns, deacons, etc.) often followed their hearts rather than the Pope.

This meant that, for example, while the church was adamantly anti-gay, my youth ministers asked me, as an openly gay student, to have a talk with the confirmation classes about it as part of their "justice and service" discussions.

I'd have to assume that, aside from the media-minded "heads" of various religious groups, many officials from many religions probably "soften the blow" or downright abandon those aspects of Official Policy that they think are wrong.

I'm with ABM. All we know is that there is some respect for the name of science in the abstract, but what do they actually mean when it comes down to the details?

Those who denied the carcinogenic effects of smoking claimed to support science. Climate change denialists claim to have science on their side, as do intelligent design advocates and other creationists. Hell, Deepak Chopra claims that quantum mechanics proves all kinds of woo.

Do the positive statements in churches speak positively of the scientific consensus? Do they show any respect for its skepticism and empiricism or do they want the results by some entirely different method?

These are all the right questions to ask. It will be interesting to run some analysis with the raw data when released.

--Matt

Obama Invents Citizen Centered Government Communication

nisbetmc — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:15:55 +0000

Obama Invents Citizen Centered Government Communication

A model for government agencies and science organizations to replicate. From a Politico article on Obama's campaign pledge to use technology to enhance transparency, responsiveness, and citizen engagement:

The transition period between Election Day and Obama's swearing-in was just 76 days long, but in that time, it's fair to say that the Obama transition -- and in particular its website, Change.gov -- has made a serious down payment on these promises. Consider all the salient features of this dynamic, responsive and refreshingly open government website:

â¢ Its central feature is a blog, written with a conversational style and with the authors of posts identified by name.

â¢ The names and jobs of hundreds of members of the transition team are posted on the site.

â¢ For the hundreds of groups lobbying the administration-to-be, Change.gov created Your Seat at the Table, where meeting topics, dates and documents delivered to the transition are posted for public viewing and comment.

â¢ The site has launched discussion forums on several topics, including health care, the economy and community service.

â¢ Participants in those forums can rate the comments made by others, and tens of thousands of comments are posted on the site.

â¢ Transition staff, including top officials such as incoming health czar Tom Daschle, have posted video replies to those forums, using sites like YouTube.

â¢ Site visitors have been invited to host local community meetings to discuss health care reform, and thousands have responded.

â¢ The health care sector of the site even asks for participants in those local meetings to report back by uploading documents, photos and videos to the transition team.

â¢ Open for Discussion -- a gigantic forum for people to post questions to the transition and vote for their favorites -- has gone through two rounds, with more than 5.7 million votes cast by nearly 125,000 people on about 86,000 submitted questions.

â¢ The site features the Citizen's Briefing Book, where anyone can post or vote on proposals on any issue facing the administration. The highest-rated ideas will be gathered into a book that will be delivered to President Obama for his review.

nisbetmc Fri, 01/23/2009 - 11:15

Tags

Political Mobilization/Activism

Yes, change.gov was incredibly interactive. But whitehouse.gov is not nearly on the same scale. Granted, they're still having some issues, but the new site is not nearly as participatory.

Do you think they'll hang on to change.gov for this purpose? How will they continue to capitalize on their social media strategy if they can't make some immediate changes?

McCain's Biggest Contributor Also Leading Science Advocate

nisbetmc — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:04:32 +0000

McCain's Biggest Contributor Also Leading Science Advocate

To say that Republicans are anti-science has always been an extreme over-simplification, the type of characterization that carries weight at liberal blogs but doesn't really match up well with political reality. The facts are that science has always enjoyed strong bi-partisan support. Only on a few issues such as stem cell research, climate change, and evolution has bi-partisan consensus broken down, and in these cases Republican positions have been far from uniform.

A leading example of the diversity of views about science among leading Republicans is reported on today in the New York Times. As the article details, billionaire Robert Wood Johnson IV raised more than $200,000 for Bush in the last two elections, has been John McCain's leading fund raiser, and solicited friends in a personal effort to bankroll this year's GOP convention to the tune of $10 million dollars.

Yet Johnson is also a major fundraiser and advocate for biomedical research. He used his personal connections with former House Speaker Dennis Hastert to help pass $750 million in diabetes research funding and met personally with President Bush to advocate for the funding of embryonic stem cell research, a meeting that helped prevent Bush from completely banning funding in 2001.

The point is that to dismiss Republicans and the GOP as anti-science is not only inaccurate it also risks a strategic mistake. For every flat earth Sarah Palin or James Inhofe, there are also prominent Republicans who believe strongly in scientific research, its promise to grow the economy, and its ability to improve Americans' quality of life.

nisbetmc Fri, 09/05/2008 - 10:04

Tags

2008 Election

Political Mobilization/Activism

[from the "Last 24 Hours" blurb for this post:] Can we agree to retire the "anti-science" label as applied to Republicans?

Mooney? Mooney? Anyone?

but has anyone wondered why the *fuck* anyone so well intentioned would contribute so much money to someone so inimical to the causes that they putatively support?

what else does Robert Wood Johnson IV support that outweighs his support for the various sciences that you indicate?

and has it occurred that the only reason that he supported otherwise anti-science people is that they supported that which he desired because he gave them lots of money. and that he gave them lots of money because they happened to be in power when the question came up?

the political reality seems to be that when faced with the possibility of garnering a substantial amount of funding, the politicians in question voted with where the money came from, not that they were pro or anti science.

where is Robert Wood Johnson IV's money now that there is an election on the line that may dictate the next 4+ years of policy making?

"...Only on a few issues such as stem cell research, climate change, and evolution..."

Only? What's left? Military R&D?

"...For every flat earth Sarah Palin or James Inhofe, there are also prominent Republicans who believe strongly in scientific research..."

...except that those people are hushed and the Inhofe carries the day unless blocked by Democrats in Congress if there is enough of them there at the time.

Of the four prominent republicans named in your post, three are demonstrably anti-science (as of this election cycle, anyway).

At any rate, the anti-science characterization generally isn't made or perceived in a vacuum. It's made to contrast the Republicans to the Democrats; a party where for every prominent member who believes strongly in scientific research, its promise to grow the economy, and its ability to improve Americans' quality of life, there generally ISN'T a flat earth Sarah Palin.

True, but you also need to take into account the Republican themes of anti-intellectualism and reliance on on gut-feelings over research. These are prominent aspects of the Republican narrative, which embeds a disdain for science at the core of the party.

This is evident, for example, in the famous attacks on the "reality based community."

Donating some money to medical research isn't enough to make a party pro-science, in my book. (Nor is throwing lots of money into military research.)

>>For every flat earth Sarah Palin or James Inhofe...<<

True, but I'm having trouble thinking of a Democrat who's comparably reactionary on science-based issues. The Republican Party actively courts the flat-earthers.

There have always been very, very pro-science Republicans (including McCain himself - one of the few areas I really like him). Just as there have been hopelessly anti-science Democrats. (Part of me wants Obama to win just to change the discourse so that it's Democrats in the defensive)

If McCain wins (and I think it unlikely but more possible since this weekend) then one big positive will be changing the Republican view on science. McCain is pro-stem cell research, acknowledges global warming etc. Of course his VP is far less attractive on those fronts. (She accepts global warming but is skeptical about the man-made part; appears open to teaching Creationism in science class alongside evolution; and opposes stem cell research)

But as you note, it always was a complex issue well beyond what most bloggers portrayed. I know my representative who was a Republican was extremely pro-Science although we'll have a new one next year.

Nisbet says: "For every flat earth Sarah Palin or James Inhofe, there are also prominent Republicans who believe strongly in scientific research, its promise to grow the economy, and its ability to improve Americans' quality of life."

Then those Republicans ought to be shouting the top of their lungs and throw the anti-science bums out of their party. If this is a few-bad-apples argument, then why aren't they denouncing them and getting rid of them? While the anti-science label might be unfair to the larger numbers of rational Republicans, it seems the ones with the most power are the most anti-science, which is why the party gets the label.

"Only" stem cell research, climate change and evolution? Only one of the potentially most important methods for finding solutions to devastating illnesses like diabetes, and the huge threat to millions of peoples' lives in low lying, third world areas, and the basis of science?

No, we can't ignore these issues when the party supports politicians who are too ignorant or politically ambitious to risk lives by ignoring the science. That's like saying that a group that tolerates a lot of vocal racists shouldn't be branded as racist.

This is one of the most conservative blogs I have found on science blog entries, and I am glad.

I should also point out that those who believe in creationism, or those who believe ID should also be taught in the schools, are not anti-science.

For example, they might be pro hard science like physics and chemistry, and have some issues with aspects of some biology (e.g., theory of evolution).

Nice to see somebody who understands that.

One is know by one's fruits. Where are the GOP science fruits? Unless a large corporation profits from our tax dollars?

Umm...yeah, and there are Democrats who don't believe in global warming. The point is, which party is overwhelmingly against science?

And, surprise, this doesn't change hooey; the Republican party, generally, doesn't know sound science if it bites it in the ass.

And that applies to everything you mentioned plus every kind of applied and widely accepted science that disagrees with their beliefs, from Alternative Fuel and Peak Oil to transit, economics, etc. Pick your topic.

The problem is that anti-science attitudes are mainstream in the Republican party. Palin would be second in line for the presidency, and she denies both evolution and global warming. It's simply unacceptable to have people that profoundly ignorant leading our country.

(Luckily McCain's a bit better, but that doesn't change the fact that he chose a denialist for VP.)

Only on a few issues such as stem cell research, climate change, and evolution has bi-partisan consensus broken down, and in these cases Republican positions have been far from uniform.

The positions of individual Republicans no doubt span quite a range. It was Republican S. Boehlert (NY) who made a good response to Barton's harassment of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes. On the other hand, it's memorable because it is so extraordinarily rare at the national scene. And Boehlert is now retired while Barton is still (iirc) there.

But the Republican Party is a Party, with official positions, a strong record of voting the party line, and including antiscientific positions in its state and national party platforms.

To your grossly short list, add meteorology, oceanography, ecology, geology, at the minimum. All four, for instance, use satellite observation of the earth. The party has been cutting and 'redirecting' funds away from doing that since the 90s. While you compartmentalize to just 'climate', the truth is that any satellite that can be used for climate can be used for at least one of those four fields. So there are fewer data to study these things, and the science is weakened.

You can't attack one science or area of science without attacking all. Even if your short list were right, which it is drastically far from being, the efforts to undermine 'just' those areas will eventually undermine all others. Hence the Kansas board of education removing sections of astronomy and geology along with evolution. (First round of the story, second round they stayed more focused.)

Only on a few issue? Explain why the cut in basic human health science funding at the National Institutes of Health, especially the National Cancer Institute, during the Bush presidency and republican lead congress.

One is know by one's fruits. Where are the GOP science fruits? Unless a large corporation profits from our tax dollars?

MEMS based technology, star wars, GPS... Whether a large corporation benefits, or a CPUSA biologist who tithes to the NCSE benefits, I don't know what that matters. But this leads down a path I don't personally agree with anyway. Advancements in science and technology should be largely left to the private sector, in my view, as I am a small government conservative, where the government is sized and empowered per principles described by John Locke and Thomas Jefferson.

But, some fields related to science, like engineering and computer science, are either dominated by Republicans, or include a substantial number of Republicans, and these Republicans often teach their children science, pay for their kids' advanced science based degrees, and teach them about God, Christianity, and, sometimes, *gasp*, creationism.

Indeed, as I have been discussing recently at my blog, Copernican theory was not a scientific theory for a number of decades, in that it defied experimental confirmation. Even so, it was taught along side the emperically verified Ptolemy system, by teachers who themselves beleved the Copernican system to be incorrect based on scientific/emperical data available at that time, in what would be equivalent to today's science classes. And, fortunately, both sides (Geocentricism and heliocentricism) were taught, because Kepler was able to learn about Copernican theory, and confirm and extend it using data gatherd after Copernicus's death by the preeminent emperical astronmer Tycho Brahe (who himself disavowed Copernican theory). This according to Dr. Steven Goldman (history of science and philosophy) at Lehigh University.

The point this diatrive: It is an an analogy. Intelligent design *should* be objectively described in the *science* class, and not by partisans at either DI or the NCSE or the AAAS.

William Wallace says: "I should also point out that ... those who believe ID should also be taught in the schools, are not anti-science."

Are you trying to parse the definition of 'anti-science' here? If advocating teaching complete and utter non-science isn't anti-science then what is? How far do we have to go down that path until it is labeled anti-science? Where is the threshold for you?

Science is a process, a methodology ... ID fits nowhere within that framework and you know it. To advocate teaching non-science in a science class is certainly anti-science.

You must have skimmed over the recent issue of SEED talking about the pressure of the White House to bury NSF research regarding climate change during this administration. That hardly sounds like an open-minded scientific policy of the Republican party. Where was the Republican outcry?

@Wallace: troll.

your right, the republicans don't, as an aspect of thier platform, dissuade science. However the Neo-Cons and the Religious Right do, and sadly the GOP base is overrun with the attitudes of these two groups. While they have a seat at the republican table science flounders.

Only on a few issues such as stem cell research, climate change, and evolution has bi-partisan consensus broken down ...

You forgot to include the Big Bang. One of Bush's political appointees was re-writing NASA reports to water down references to the Big Bang and the age of the universe, at least until the scientists finally revolted.

Do you serious think, as you post seems to imply, that these areas are just a trivial part of the scientific understanding of our world and it doesn't really matter that it is predominantly Republicans who deny them?

Biomedical science is an area few could argue against supporting because of potential health benefits and profits from biomedical inventions and discoveries. Unfortunately, withholding support for stem-cell research puts a big dent in some of biomedicine's modern potential. Moreover, funds for biomedicine are often not matched with blue-sky investigatory science, including physics. Witness the U.S.'s defunding of the large Hadron Supercollider in 1993, leading the way for European preeminence in high-energy physics. We are also slipping in space exploration, alternative energy studies (witness the European consortium on break-even fusion) and other fields in science. We need more public investment. People like Johnson won't fill in these gaps.

There's no doubt anti-science attitudes are in the mainstream of the Republican party. There are some in the Democratic party albeit in different areas. (Most anti-vaccine people I meet are liberals, for instance; ditto with most alternative medicine although I've met plenty of Republicans into that as well) With regards to the environment it used to be that a lot of environmentalists went well beyond science although you just don't hear about that as much anymore.

I suspect that when Obama wins in November things will change and we'll start to notice all the liberal special interest groups that are anti-science.

The reason we've noticed so many the past few years is the inexplicable politicization of global warming. (And frankly I think many global warming proponents hurt themselves hereby making it political which spiralled it out of control. Yes it's irrational but when the main spokesman is a former Democratic Presidential hopeful...) Then there are the issues attractive to the Evangelicals (who still are primarily voting Republican). That includes Creationism and Abstinence only education. Given that Obama's fairly strong outreach to Evangelicals isn't working as well as hoped I suspect that won't change.

What I will say though is that if we politicize science (i.e. make it seem like science is a Democratic issue rather than an issue for all of us) then bad things will happen. You intrinsically make it a one party issue. While I'm not a fan of McCain it is a great thing that he's the top Republican and is so pro-science. We need more Republicans like this so that science isn't politicized but is accepted by both parties! If Republicans who are pro-science aren't successful then chances are that half the time you'll not have good pro-science policies since Democrats aren't always going to win and are, to many people, wrong on many other issues outside of science.

Larry,

You're already at the "troll dismissal" block of the TalkOrgins debate tactics flowchart (TODTF)? The reverse engineering of said flowchart should be at least as interesting as the Wedge document. Sad that you have such contempt for others' abilities to reason.

Tex, nice framing. Referring to the big bang and the "big bang theory" is now anti-science. LOL. Do you want have Obama author a bill requiring it to be referred to as the "Big Bang natural law"?

Rob Keys, while I disagree, I do wonder, even if true, for the sake of argument, why you're so concerned?

Sorry, BrianR, I forgot to respond to you. Anti- means to oppose. Even assuming you're correct, getting something wrong is not opposed.

For example, advocating socialism (getting it wrong) doesn't mean one is opposed to government.

William Wallace ... you can dissect the wording all you want ... advocating teaching non-science in science class is a giant step backwards. If you don't want to label it 'anti-science' and want to haggle over definitions, fine, I neither have the time nor energy for that. Bottom line: ID is NOT science and does not belong in science class. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Why an Actual Science Debate is Probably a Bad Idea

nisbetmc — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:01:45 +0000

Why an Actual Science Debate is Probably a Bad Idea

Over at my friends Chris and Sheril's Intersection blog, I posted a summary of some reservations I have always had about the staging of an actual presidential science debate. Bottom line: research suggests that when it comes to audience effects, a presidential debate is a really bad idea. Despite our best wishes, intentions, and hopes for deliberative democracy, the reality is that a debate would be sending the strongest of invitations to the American public to think about science in partisan terms. Go here for my comments.

If the goal is to turn science into a wedge issue, as the Dems tried to do on stem cell research in 2004, then a debate suits that goal. But that clearly is not the goal of most people organizing Science Debate 2008. Instead the intention is wider public engagement and even education. It's a noble goal and one that I obviously support, it's just that a political debate is the wrong tool for achieving that.

I will probably be writing something up about this in article form at some point. What do readers think?

nisbetmc Mon, 02/18/2008 - 05:01

Tags

2008 Election

Framing Science

Political Mobilization/Activism

I want to know exactly what actual science mean because always my 14 year old girl said she want to be an actual science after completing her matric. May you please send me information regarding actual science.

Thanks

I've been saying since the day this idea was announced that a debate about candidates' positions on substantive scientific issues is, at best, a waste of time and, at worst, counterproductive. What matters is process for addressing science policy issues involving in a new administration, not a bunch of soundbites about "green" this and "sustainable" that.

Matt - you're over-intellectualizing this. What you're saying is like advising the New England Patriots to not go to the Super Bowl because ... well, look at what a disaster it now is for them that they went and lost, clearly their franchise is done and over with. Clearly they're far worse off than the Miami Dolphins whom nobody will call losers.

C'mon. The world of science needs to exert its voice. And the doofuses at Nature have no clue about American society. And John Horgan should be eternally embarrassed for his cynical and clueless comments a few weeks ago on his video blog. This is an opportunity for a shift in public perception -- for the public to actually see the science world as having the ability to show leadership in society instead of assuming its traditional role of quiet and humble observer (and complainer as science gets misused and misinterpreted). It is possible for things to change in this world.

And furthermore, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." I have seen this so much in environmental groups who buy into the idea of, "we're not going to say anything on this issue until we have the perfect message that we know will work immediately." That's okay when you have unlimited resources and no timeline, but when things are changing rapidly, you need to simply enter the game and be willing to accept some trial-and-error dynamics.

What you're advocating is not entering the game.

Randy,
Communication is an art, a skill, and a craft, but understanding its effects is a science. And that science can and should meaningfully inform communication strategy.

I'm offering my honest analysis based on what research suggests would be the audience impact of an actual debate. If someone had called me up several months ago and asked my advice, it would have been exactly as I wrote. There's nothing over-intellectual about it. We can either rely exclusively on personal experience and intuition with sometimes the chances we take paying off, or we can plot out and think about communication strategy drawing on insights from research.

Randy,
Just a follow up. I know you have been a critic of how Inconvenient Truth was structured in terms of messages and you have noted that it is not surprising it has had polarizing effects. Either reviewing the research or doing additional research on how to actually structure the personal narrative and framing of climate change in Inconvenient Truth probably would have helped widen its audience impact and made it a more effective film at engaging a diversity of audiences.

Looking at the research on audience effects of debates and how they are covered in news coverage could have also informed moving forward with Science Debate plans.

Precisely. Inconvenient Truth is an excellent example. And what you're talking about here is STEP 2 - making the communication work perfectly. But Step 2 is of no use if you fail to start with STEP 1 - actually communicating. I have criticized Inconvenient Truth for not being perfect, but not for being the most powerful and effective piece of environmental media ever produced. Its a shame it was unnecessarily polarizing (didn't need the barbs against the Bush administration, could have allowed the opposition a little bit of a voice), but that said, it succeeded massively with Step 1 -- it COMMUNICATED.

Laurie David produced a first global warming film, "Too Hot Not to Handle," for HBO. It did exactly as you say -- was well thought out, filled with scientists, and got the information exactly right. And nobody watched it. The Al Gore movie was less well thought out, more visceral, and it changed the world.

The science world needs to get a little more courageous, as Laurie David did, and show some sponteneity. Instead of sweating over the supposed science of thinking you can predict human behavior, just frickin' get out there and start making things happen. This is the problem of intellectuals -- they are given the three options of yes, no or later, and almost always opt for later, as you are advocating here.

Like I said, c'mon, make something interesting happen. Look at what Al Gore did. It wasn't perfect, but the world is a better place for him having done it.

"Despite our best wishes, intentions, and hopes for deliberative democracy, the reality is that a debate would be sending the strongest of invitations to the American public to think about science in partisan terms"

Unfortunately, that public already thinks about science in partisan terms. One need only observe the discussion about global climate change in which the Republicans (with a few notable exceptions, one of whom just lost a primary in his district on the Eastern Shore of Maryland) on the nay side and the Democrats on the yea side. This is a scientific question that, in an ideal world, should have nothing to do with politics. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world.

A significant problem with debates is the conflation of policy choices with the truth about the underlying issue. That is, debates over policy about X can be easily transformed into assertions about what X is.

So, aside from the risks of candidates gaming a debate for their own agendas, we have the risk about discussions on science policy becoming debates over what science is. And while asserting our voice on science policy would be useful, there is no way to constrain the discussion in a debate to policy.

Matt,

You write, "a debate would be sending the strongest of invitations to the American public to think about science in partisan terms."

Isn't this an argument against doing a presidential debate on any topic?

Austin,
Let's agree that the goal of the science community is to educate and inform. It's very difficult to educate and inform via a presidential debate format, given the differing incentives of the candidates and the news media.

Because of this tension in goals between science as sponsor and candidates and media as participants, the result translates into ready made partisan heuristics for the public. The fact that only Dem candidate reps participated at AAAS is already one heuristic that science is a "Dem issue" but not a Republican priority. This is not the fault of the organizers, but just the reality of how things predictably played out.

I share your goal of increased public engagement, but my own expertise in political communication tells me that a debate is not a very good public engagement tool on science.

Getting science on the agenda is good for science, but I agree with Matt that the debate will politicize science and be counter-productive.

The debate is an attempt to pin down politicians and find out who's our friends, but we know that already. To an audience of non-scientists, the debate will say science is important fodder for partisan debates. The importance message is good, but the partisan message is harmful.

Perhaps the goal of the science community is to educate and inform, but that isn't the goal of Science Debate 2008. The goal is to help the candidates nourish the public discourse with their stances on scientific policy questions. The event may be a dud, but any So-and-So, PhD, can surely ask better questions than Wolf Blitzer.

Maybe this is just a nerd's revenge fantasy, but I would also love to see the commentariat trying to discuss the debate afterward. The post-debate debate would be as rewarding as the debate itself, and an excellent precedent would be set.

I see Matt's point but also think it could depend on the questions. Much like discussion of the economy, I can imagine a situation where the debate would focus on who has the best package for stimulating innovation or meeting challenges associated with one issue or another.

Some issues like stem cell research are clearly partisan but many others are questions over what policies and procedures are needed to get us to an agreed upon place. While it hasn't always been true, I can much more imagine a discussion about how to address climate change than one over whether climate change is real.

A debate about science POLICY is not the same as a debate about science.

Communication is an art, a skill, and a craft, but understanding its effects is a science. And that science can and should meaningfully inform communication strategy.

Seems to me that the science of communicating can produce a competent communicator, but never a brilliant one. Genius comes through creativity, through passion, through intuition and the analytical act can often destroy that, producing something too self-conscious and cold.

Andrew has it exactly right. It's not about having a perfect debate in which everyone gets oh so much smarter. It's about throwing the science voice out into the mix, and reaping all the add-on benefits.

In 2002 I told a group of ocean conservationists very worried about the state of the oceans and the public's lack of awareness to just take a big chance and blow $2 million on a Super Bowl commercial (which could have easily ended up costing a whole lot less with some ingenuity I have since learned). They scoffed and said, "What if it wasn't a good commercial?" in the same way as everyone here is fretting over, "What if it's not a good debate?"

That's not the point. Just a few weeks ago I saw a segment on ABC News in which they asked the question of whether one of the presidential candidates should blow $2 million on a Super Bowl spot. The conclusion was yes, given the amount of scrutiny every ad gets in the business media and elsewhere, even a bad ad results in a huge amount of exposure.

Those who buy into the metrics and supposed science of communication lead themselves to believe that it can all be controlled with laser guided precision. It can't. Just do it. Do the best that you can. Then work on guiding things at the next step.

The main reason a presidential debate about science is a bad idea is because most presidents don't know much about science.

And it's polarizing: The spin wil be that Democrats are for science, Republicans are against it. Obviously this is a distortion, but that is the message it will convey.

Finally, it will exacerbate the battle of special interests funding research that supports their political and money-making goals. The anti-science crowd will trot out as many PhD's as they can bribe into becoming flat-earthers to convince us that the debate is about whether evolution even exists or not, whether it's possible for humans to have an effect on the environment, why oil and coal are the only viable sources of energy,etc...and everyone who thinks otherwise is Berkley librul.

That's precisely the PR science does NOT need right now, if you ask me.

Al Gore's movie wasn't a science movie - it was Al Gore yelling as loud as he could to get people to wake the hell up. It wasn't a scientist explaining the phenomenon of fire - it was somebody grabbing you and shaking you out of a dream so you could realize your house is on fire.

It is a good point that in order to get people to move sometimes you have to fore go the wonky details and just grab folks' attention and get them to realize the urgency of the situation.

Hopefully that will inspire at least a percentage of people to want real information and start demanding change.

A high profile event that thrust science in front to of the mainstream is a great idea. But a debate between Presidents is probably not a good way to accomplish it.

The risk of it degenerating into dumbed-down distortions, which is exactly what we already have too much of, is too high.

I agree that a debate could backfire. But, I can recall a good number of lectures on the value of priming. Isn't that exactly what the debate is? Just introducing a debate on science gets people talking about science.

It is a rational fear that science will become a political football - but if it is already in the game, then it might as well be played with. Scientists and researchers across the country depend on funding from the federal government. That funding comes with caveats, like "this much must be spent on the mission to Mars", as opposed to saying, "You're the experts on this, spend the money how you will."

Without making science a political issue, scientists voices will never have the same volume.

Anything can become a partisan issue because one side is spending the time talking about it. Saying Democrats are the party of science - because they were willing to show up on a day's notice to debate - is like saying that Republicans are the party of family values because they make their voices heard about gay marriage and abortion.

The scientific community had the fear of interference for so long that they barely noticed the interference had begun. Now that it is obvious that funding is being cut or earmark-allocated, when huge scientific issues are barely newsworthy, when more than 60% of the country can't name a living scientist (though statistically, they probably know one personally); now, more than ever, scientists need to step up and get into the discussion.

The debate, however it turns out, can make that happen. The coverage of the debate - more than anything else - is going to determine how science and the issues are perceived.

Perhaps the best way to avoid the outcomes you predict would be to start shoring up members of the NASW and others to make sure the debate coverage is as impartial and positive as it can be.

The Oprah Effect: Activating Latent Supporters

nisbetmc — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 06:07:43 +0000

The Oprah Effect: Activating Latent Supporters

Why is this couple smiling? Because Oprah might be the friend they need in order to win ultra tight elections.

More than 8 million people watch Oprah's show and more than 2 million people read her magazine. Previous research shows that these heavy daytime TV viewers do not typically follow coverage of politics very closely and do not vote in presidential primaries. Indeed, the majority don't even vote in the general presidential election.

So what does it mean when Oprah comes out and endorses for president Barak Obama? The answer is that it is hard to say.

In today's political world, the country is so deeply and evenly divided, most people already know that they will vote their pre-existing partisan or ideological preference even before learning who the nominees will be. As was the case in 2004 the general election is likely to come down to a mobilization game rather than a traditional competition for swing voters. Why? There simply won't be many undecideds out there.

As Matthew Dowd describes the Bush strategy in the excellent documentary ...So Goes the Nation, the goals of contemporary campaigns should be very similar to the trends in marketing today. The question as he puts it, is whether you persuade people to switch from McDonalds to Burger King, or do you activate and energize people who already prefer Burger King to start going four times more often?

In 2004, instead of trying to persuade the few swing voters out there, Dowd and the Bush team focused their energies on micro-targeting and activating specific groups of citizens--such as Evangelicals--who might latently already identify with Bush. The goal was to get these latent supporters to vote for the first time, donate for the first time, volunteer on a campaign for the first time, and to turn out to vote for the first time.

Indeed, as US News reports, exit polls showed that 3.5 million white evangelicals who stayed home in 2000 cast ballots in 2004. Not only did the Bush team turn out more Evangelical voters, they also boosted their support, with 78 percent favoring Bush compared to 68 percent in 2000. This boost gained by activating latent supporters translated into nearly 6 million new evangelical votes, or twice Bush's margin of victory over Kerry nationally.

How does this relate to Oprah's endorsement of Obama? As USC history professor Steve Ross explains on a recent episode of NPR's On the Media, "If Oprah can get even one percent of the national population to vote who did not vote before, as we've seen from the last two elections, that one percent can make all the difference in the world." (audio above).

As a recent Pew analysis reports, Oprah's endorsement is not the only one that counts. Alan Greenspan and religious leaders rank higher among the total sample of adults surveyed. But in aggregate those figures are a bit misleading.

I read the Pew data differently. (So don't let the title at the top of that graph distract you.) Oprah's endorsement is a huge exclamation point for Obama because the diva's admirers have one major difference from those who might follow the lead of Greenspan or who might be mobilized at church: as heavy daytime talk show viewers, they are a demographic that barely pays attention to politics, much less votes.

By mobilizing these viewers, Oprah would be adding new people to the voter tallies and with a strong proportion favoring Obama. Moreover, the "Oprah Effect" spans beyond just her viewers. It's created the type of positive buzz that percolates into offices and interpersonal discussion. Not only that, but news of her endorsement has spread across the celebrity news outlets, giving one-sided promotional attention to Obama at places like Access Hollywood and People magazine, media zones that don't normally track the elections.

Electorally, it could prove to be a major windfall gain for Obama.

In today's political world, it's the law of small numbers. Not only in the general election, but especially in the upcoming state primaries. If Oprah's viewers suddenly turn up to vote in these primaries, diluting the concentration of liberal party faithful who traditionally dominate the selection process, in some states, the 1% to 2% gain is what Obama might need to win.

Note: For more on celebrity news impacts on the election, see my discussion of Fred Thompson.

nisbetmc Fri, 09/21/2007 - 02:07

Tags

Political Mobilization/Activism

Uluslararası piyasalarda, ABD tipi hafif ham petrolün varil fiyatı, 83 sent azalarak 87,88 dolara düştü. Brent tipi ham petrol de 79 sent değer kaybederek varili 87,47 dolar oldu

Propaganda 2.0: Analysis of Iraqi Insurgent Media

nisbetmc — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 06:33:45 +0000

Propaganda 2.0: Analysis of Iraqi Insurgent Media

Last week, analysts at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty released a 70 page analysis of the strategies, tactics, and messages of the Sunni insurgent propaganda campaign. It's the most interesting thing I've read in some time. Check out the full report, summary below, and listen above to an interview with one of the authors on NPR's On the Media.

The book-length report, "Iraqi Insurgent Media: The War Of Images And Ideas" by RFE/RL regional analysts Daniel Kimmage and Kathleen Ridolfo, provides an in-depth analysis of the media efforts of Sunni insurgents, who are responsible for the majority of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq. The popularity of online Iraqi Sunni insurgent media, the authors contend, reflects a genuine demand for their message in the Arab world. Kimmage and Ridolfo argue that the loss of coordination and message control that results from decentralization has revealed fundamental disagreements about Iraq's present and future between nationalist and global jihadist groups in Iraq and that these disagreements are ripe for exploitation by those interested in a liberal and democratic Iraq.

The report also finds that anti-Shi'ite hate speech is an increasingly prominent part of the insurgent message. With sectarian killings on the rise in Iraq, the tenor of invective points to the possibility of even greater bloodshed. A wealth of evidence shows that hate speech paved the way for genocide in Rwanda in 1994, for example.

Iraq's Sunni insurgency has developed a sophisticated media campaign to deliver its message over the Internet through daily press releases, weekly and monthly magazines, books, video clips, full-length films, countless websites, and even television stations. Part of the target audience for insurgent media projects are mainstream Arabic-language media, which often amplify the insurgent message to a mass audience.

The popularity of online Iraqi Sunni insurgent media, the authors contend, reflects a genuine demand for their message in the Arab world. A response, no matter how lavishly funded and cleverly produced, will not eliminate this demand. The authors argue that efforts to counter insurgent media should not focus on producing better propaganda than the insurgents, or trying to eliminate the demand for the insurgent message, but rather on exploiting the vulnerabilities of the insurgent media network.

nisbetmc Thu, 07/19/2007 - 02:33

Tags

Blogging/New Media

Political Mobilization/Activism

...exploiting the vulnerabilities of the insurgent media network.

Matt, could you please explain what these vulnerabilities are and how they could be exploited? Do they mean blowing up tv stations and hacking web sites?

Dinzer,
The report concludes that no American backed communication campaign in Iraq or the Arab world will be able to counter the success of the insurgency's propaganda campaign. Instead of fighting messages with messages, they recommend trying to eliminate the actual communication platforms that the insurgents use, such as their Internet and telecommunications access etc.

they recommend trying to eliminate the actual communication platforms that the insurgents use, such as their Internet and telecommunications access etc.

Sounds like a reasonable plan of action to shut down their internet. This must be where the plural form comes in, because I often get confused when people speak of Teh Internets.

If somebody is preaching on a soapbox in your local park and you don't like his message, you sneak up behind him, kick out his soapbox, and punch his fuggin lights out.
You can learn more about framing and framing science at American University in Washington D.C.

Is this the same thing?

Pentagon tries to learn from Madison Avenue

The key to boosting the image and effectiveness of U.S. military operations around the world involves "shaping" both the product and the marketplace, and then establishing a new identity that places what you are selling in a positive light, said clinical psychologist Todd C. Helmus, the author of "Enlisting Madison Avenue: The Marketing Approach to Earning Popular Support in Theaters of Operation." The 211-page study, for which the U.S. Joint Forces Command paid the Rand Corp. $400,000, was released this week.

Helmus and his co-authors concluded that the "force" brand, which the United States peddled for the first few years of the occupation, was doomed from the start and has lost ground to enemies' competing brands. While not abandoning the more aggressive elements of warfare, the report suggested, a more attractive brand for the Iraqi people might have been "We will help you." That is what President Bush's new Iraq strategy is striving for as it focuses on establishing a protective U.S. troop presence in Baghdad neighborhoods, training Iraq's security forces, and encouraging the central and local governments to take the lead in making things better.
----snip----
Wal-Mart's desired identity as a friendly shop where working-class customers can feel comfortable and find good value, for example, would be undercut if telephone operators and sales personnel had rude attitudes, or if the stores offered too much high-end merchandise. For the U.S. military and U.S. officials, understanding the target customer culture is equally critical.

Helmus recommends expanding military training to include shaping and branding concepts such as cultural awareness, and they underscore the perils of failing to understand your consumer.

Yeah, that. And letting the death squad dogs loose.

Might as well throw your hands up into the air, and fall back on that which works. Sort of half-assedly.

The New Atheism and a Purpose Driven Life

nisbetmc — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:01:13 +0000

The New Atheism and a Purpose Driven Life

The Barna Group maintains some of the best data tracking the consumer and opinion market for religious Americans, especially among Evangelicals. Though not an independent survey organization like Pew, over the years, I have found that their poll data is relatively consistent with poll findings from other organizations. In fact, often Barna has the most precise measures when it comes to segmenting the born-again Christian community across its diversity of doctrinal beliefs and group affiliations.

So yesterday, when Barna released a survey on American views of poverty and their personal behaviors relative to addressing the problem, I found the data quite interesting. One particular finding stood out, see especially in bold:

A substantial majority of adults engage in multiple personal responses to poverty. The most likely responses include giving material resources (such as clothing or furniture) directly to poor people (75%); donating money to organizations that address poverty (60%); giving food directly to a poor person or family (58%); spending a "significant amount of time" praying for poor people (55%); and donating time to personally serve needy people in the community (47%). Other responses include visiting institutionalized elderly or sick people who are not family members (40%); donating money to organizations that address poverty in foreign countries (31%); serving as a tutor or friend to an underprivileged child (30%); and helping to build or restore a house for a poor family (16%).
The survey showed that most Americans have similar patterns of responsiveness to poverty, regardless of their faith. Born again Christians were somewhat more likely than non-Christians to donate money to organizations addressing global poverty and slightly more likely to give food directly to poor people, but otherwise the two groups showed few differences. The only other exception is those people who have no specific religious faith they embrace. Atheists and agnostics emerged as the segment of people least likely to do anything in response to poverty. They were less likely to engage in eight of the nine specific responses measured, and were the faith segment least likely to participate in eight of the nine responses evaluated.

This is a single poll finding, so you want to look for other consistent findings to back up the data, and I would like a bit more clarification on the Barna findings specifically. One place to turn for confirmation would be the General Social Survey, and I hope to have some other findings to report back as I plow through that data on a related project. But if this survey finding is supported by other data, what might explain a lack of responsiveness among atheists and agnostics to poverty? I lay out three possibilities below the fold.

(Note: Even throwing out the "praying" indicator, Barna measures lower scores for atheists across the other items.)

As someone with close ties to the atheist and agnostic community and who holds a non-religious worldview, I know that there is at least a shared perception within the community that we often might lack a certain level of social compassion, and as a group, are not as involved in community life as many religious traditions. But why? Here are three possible reasons:

1) The most parsimonious explanation might simply be social desirability. Meaning that religious Americans believe that they should answer in surveys that they care about the poor and take action to support the poor. Atheists, on the other hand, don't feel nearly as much normative pressure, and therefore don't fib in answering the question. The survey finding therefore is not a reflection of reality, but rather a measurement artifact.

2) Based on what we know from research on why people participate in their communities, volunteer, or donate, atheists as a group are missing a central mobilizing factor and ironically enough, that's church. I'm not talking about the belief system that comes with religion but rather the mobilizing and recruitment context that churches provide.

Attending church is America's number one volunteer activity and that context often involves much more than just attendance, rituals, and socializing. At church, people receive strong requests to get involved in their community and these requests come with a lot of social pressure. If people see others like them getting involved, they are much more likely to do so. Certainly there are humanist groups across the country that convene for meetings and even ceremonies from time to time, but as a group, atheists probably score a lot lower on the number and strength of their social ties than religious Americans and this translates into less community involvement.

Indeed, the number and influence of social ties among atheists in comparison to other social groups is a testable proposition using data from the General Social Survey, National Election Studies, and various social capital surveys. (I have published several studies with colleagues examining the church context generally as a vehicle for political recruitment, and specifically on the stem cell debate. I can send copies to those who are interested.)

3. One of the things that bothers me about the Dawkins & Hitchens campaign is that they have radicalized a "New Atheism" movement of complaints and attacks that is almost completely absent of a positive message about what it means to live life without religion.

Leaders such as the philosopher Paul Kurtz have dedicated their careers to developing a positive, non-religious worldview and articulating a set of social values, but in the Dawkins et al. campaign this constructive and important message is completely lost. Instead, what replaces this positive view is a radicalizing "us versus them mentality" that feeds polarization. Without a frame of reference connecting a common set of values that guide personal behavior and social compassion, atheists are probably less likely to engage in solving problems such as poverty.

Long before the Dawkins movement, sociologists began to identify an increase in the number of Americans who report "no religion" in surveys. What this growing segment of Americans needs is not a set of leaders who offer complaints and attacks but leaders who set an agenda focused on community life and social responsibility. We need leaders who encourage atheists to work together with religious Americans to solve poverty and the many other collective problems we face in society.

nisbetmc Tue, 06/26/2007 - 04:01

Tags

Political Mobilization/Activism

religion

Categories

Social Sciences

I'm coming to this conversation nearly four years after the fact.

After looking at the groups The Barna Group uses for its polls, I have no doubt whatsoever that their data - and hence their results - are highly biased.

They poll mostly ministers and people involved in churches: how would these people know anything about atheists or how we contribute to charities?

Most of the religious 'charity' aimed at poverty actually maintains poverty. (Casting spells on them is neutral, I suppose, although it certainly isn't helpful.)

How many religious people will back programs for the poor that include sex education, birth control, access to low-cost abortions, health education, job training, home economics, how to eat better when money is tight, and so on?

I live in Alhambra, a suburb in Los Angeles County (where Phil Spector's Pyrenees Castle is) and we have a weekly farmers market where we can get better fruits and vegetables (and bread) than the supermarkets sell, and for much lower prices. (The farmers make out by unloading their surplus while eliminating the middlemen.)

The poor in Compton or East LA have very few, and very small, markets. A weekly farmers market would vastly improve their eating while saving them money, but no such markets will be allowed by the political forces in control.

All the programs for the poor seem to be designed to keep the poor poor, make them poorer, keep their children poor, and increase their general level of misery.

I think there's a lot of truth to your second point. My wife and I aren't religious, but we donate a considerable amount of time and money to The Salvation Army, simply because it's a very efficient way of helping others.

As a person who was raised deep in fundamentalist circles, I would add two possible reasons for the descrepancy.

1) I would like to know if there was any control for the nature of organizational giving. For example, there are religious organizations that advertise themselves as addressing third-world poverty, but whose most basic purpose is to convert third world peoples. Religious people who give to these organizations are well aware of the subtext, though they don't necessarily admit it to themselves.

2) Most conservative churches put a lot of time and energy into indoctrinating people to give financially, because most of that giving ends up in the church coffers. Obviously they don't come out and say that most of the giving should be done in the collection basket--since that would make the motive obvious. Consequently you have people being indoctrinated to make donations--often with the promise that God will pay them back, multiple times, financially for any "sacrifice" they make. Again, this could lead to more giving in other places as well--and also give people good reason to kid themselves, and therefore the poll, on exactly how much they gave.

Which are you claiming, that the "New Atheism Movement" might

explain a lack of responsiveness among atheists and agnostics to poverty

? Or are you saying that the New Atheism movement possibly bolsters the perception that we might lack a certain level of social compassion? It seems you claim both, but the second is so qualified as to be nearly content-free.

In either case, it seems strange and somewhat disingenuous to use one non-quantitative summary, provided by one religion-promoting group, of its own survey, to make a point against..Richard Dawkins? This is a far-reaching triangulation. And I do not consider the point to be relevant: it's not his job to be a role model, or provide a philosophy of life that makes people happy, although he has written often about some secular sources of meaning in his own life.
I do acknowledge what you mean about the us-vs-them mentality; it seems every article on the RDF website is immediately vetted and judged whether it's one of ours or one of theirs, and the rest of the comments pile on praise or scorn accordingly. But one must never judge a "movement" or a blog by its most obnoxious posters.

Pete,
Both. It bolsters the perception but also radicalizes a following around "us vs. them" complaints and attacks instead of thinking meaningfully about what it means to live life without religion.

I'm also not saying that everything churches do is normatively great when it comes to promoting community involvement. Robert Putnam has made the argument, and I find support for it in several of my published studies, that the Evangelical movement has been very good at creating "bonding social capital," meaning that most of the social interaction is among like-minded others, and any wider community involvement is focused on conversion.

What I am suggesting is that much like many of the more liberal protestant traditions, atheists need organizations and leaders who promote "bridging social capital," a set of values and exhortations to participate that encourages working with a diversity of groups across society to solve collective problems.

What I am suggesting is that much like many of the more liberal protestant traditions, atheists need organizations and leaders who promote "bridging social capital," a set of values and exhortations to participate that encourages working with a diversity of groups across society to solve collective problems.

Why do "atheists" need this any more than, say, Armenians, or anvil-makers, or airline attendants, or any other random social group? Atheism is about defending rationality, it isn't about a way of life, or social cohesion, or solving societal issues. Its purpose is not to replace all the functions of religion. There are plenty of compassionate, energetic atheists who work for social change to solve collective problems, just as there are plenty of Armenians and anvil-makers and airline attendants who do so. But being atheist entails no more of a burden of social responsibility than being in those other groups. Society needs the kind of organizations and leaders you suggest, and there are many of these that don't have an overtly religious flavour or agenda (e.g., the ACLU, the NAACP, the Sierra Club, Ducks Unlimited, etc.), but I don't see why you single out atheists for a special responsibility in this regard. As a group, their shared interest is fairly narrow, and has nothing necessarily to do with social change.

Did the authors control for age and income when comparing charitable activity? My understanding is that non-believers tend to be young, male, and single, which could easily confound the results.

Tim,
Definitely a possibility, something I plan to look at when I dig into the GSS data down the road.

A good chunk of the world may be somewhat progressive in religious matters but there is still much of this globe that is living in the 10th century. Maybe confronting Christian creationists in our own backyard is good practice for the inevitable confrontation with that 10th C. part of the world. We don't have to deal with interpersonal relationships on a day-to-day basis in an ugly, confrontational manner, but if we have an opportunity as communicators we can be straightforward about encouraging critical thinking. I see the Dawkins, et al, "movement" as facilitating this. Let's not be complacent about the dumbing-down of the world. I'm reminded daily of my religious (science-poor) upbringing. This does involve social change. Oh, and as for the Sally Ann, they are literal biblical fundies for the most part. Spend your $ elsewhere, please.

Tulse,
You might define atheism as defending rationality, but much of the New Atheism rhetoric focuses on acceptance of their social identity. Atheists as a group in society, just like Catholics or Lutherans, should be respected and tolerated.

If that's going to happen, if atheists see themselves as a cohesive minority in society that lacks acceptance, then the complaints and attacks need to end, and we need to start doing constructive and meaningful things that set forth a positive image and set of values in the media and to our fellow community numbers.

The radicalized movement of attacks and complaints that the Dawkins/Hitchens PR campaign has spawned is not helping.

Someone not me wrote:

if atheists see themselves as a cohesive minority in society that lacks acceptance, then the complaints and attacks need to end

If gays see themselves as a cohesive minority in society that lacks acceptance, then the complaints and attacks need to end.

If blacks see themselves as a cohesive minority in society that lacks acceptance, then the complaints and attacks need to end.

If women see themselves as a cohesive minority in society that lacks acceptance, then the complaints and attacks need to end.

It doesn't look so good when stated that way, does it?

Actually Tulse, with all of those groups, they have focused on a positive message about their community and their common values. They've worked to improve their portrayals in the entertainment media while promoting leaders who bridge divides within local communities.

The problem as I see it with the New Atheism movement is that it offers little more than complaints and attacks, using misleading "us vs. them" reasoning, and radicalizing a portion of atheists to engage in similar self-defeating tactics.

Matthew,

Your point is well taken with respect to churches as a social organizer. I think the sociology literature would support the contention that individuals give more/behave better in group settings under the influence of peer pressure. It goes without saying that agnostics/atheists lack such organization - there's no Sunday morning trips to the Church Without God where attendees are exhorted to give, give, give by Cardinal Dawkins (or Bishop Hitchens).
And although much of the collection is siphoned off to self-perpetuate the church and to fund patently ineffective programs (abstinence education), it would be incorrect to suggest that none of the cash is used for good. Some is.
So, I'm voting for Dennett to be Pope of the Church Without God - he's just got that pope-y look, you know.

Matthew wrote:

Actually Tulse, with all of those groups, they have focused on a positive message about their community and their common values.

Actually Matthew, that is a profoundly ahistorical view of those movements, and I am extremely surprised that an informed academic like yourself would espouse it. Perhaps you don't remember the often violent fights for civil rights in the US, including race riots (or more recently, the aftermath of the Rodney King beating). Perhaps you don't remember Stonewall. Perhaps you don't remember Andrea Dworkin, and bra-burning.

Basic civil rights are never won simply by being, well, "civil".

But to return to my original point, I'm not sure that atheists have any "common values" apart from their lack of belief in God. There are libertarian atheists and socialist atheists, atheists who are politically active and atheists who are not, atheists who collect model trains and atheists who fly airplanes and atheists who just bum around on a beach. You seem to feel that atheists should be re-creating the social aspects of religion, building a secular equivalent, but I don't see any logical reason why. (And if that's what you want, there are plenty of folks in the "secular humanist" movement who have tried to do just that.)

Sure, there are a lot of uppity "New Atheists" out there who are making a lot of political hay about religion, but why should they be seen to be representative of all atheists, any more than Al Sharpton should be seen as representing all blacks, or Camille Paglia representing all women? Atheists are a diverse group, and the folks in that group should each do what they feel most appropriate. As for the pro-social impulses of atheists, they can certainly express those in various existing non-religious organizations and charities -- there is no need for a "National Association for the Advancement of Atheist People", or "National Organization of Atheists".

Tulse,
I will say it again, unlike blacks, women, and gays, atheists have never been denied basic civil rights. It's more akin to Catholics winning mainstream acceptance or Mormons for that matter.

The problem with the Dawkins/Hitchens PR campaign is that it translates in the public's mind as the most readily available image of atheists, reinforcing the stereotypical image.

At this point, we probably agree to disagree. ;-)

Manual TrackBack, sort of. It's more about the first comment here than the main post, but it's still worth a ping.

Maybe believers donate because they believe some fantasy sky-fairy will reward them when they are dead? And maybe atheist are just rational enough to know that giving to strangers won't do any good for themselves?

Unless you suffer from religious delusions about an afterlife, charity is completely irrational. It may feel good (due to social conditioning, and maybe genetically-favored altruism), but so does religious worship for many people. A truly rational person looks out for her own advantage, not that of strangers.

You should know that I am a Christian, a liberal and a scientist. I wish to contribute to a dialogue about topics like this rather than pick a fight.

If the goal of this post is a discussion of the image problem that atheists have in America, then this entry and its comments are right on. If, however, you are interested in addressing the findings of the Barna survey, there seems to me an important consideration missing.

I hope this is not because you (collective) are attached to negative stereotypes of religious - particularly Christian - people. It seems to me that just about every comment here referring to Christians is cynical. I know that this is not representative of all atheists, but if ScienceBlogs is taken as a representative section of atheists, I might wonder if the negative impressions of atheists are true! I have close interactions with one group of atheist secular humanists, and I would characterize only a very small minority of them as militant cynics. You might be on to something when you suppose that community is linked to good works.

My question related to the Barna study is: Are atheists willing to accept that Christians honestly pursue the teachings in their tradition?

If you would like to understand how Christianity can be a religion of social justice, read the Sermon on the Mount. (The summary at Wikipedia is good as long as you don't read the muddled interpretation section.) Christ's teachings advocated giving alms (as the Barna study examined), reducing war, withholding judgment, healing sick, and were against materialism.

Jesus interacted with women, lepers, the underclass, tax collectors, priests and aristocrats. Paul preached to and formed friendships with Jews, Greeks, slaves, soldiers and Roman leaders alike.

You will, of course, be able to cite contradictions to these points - mostly in the Old Testament. And surely you will find Christians that do not place the social justice commandments high on their priority list. I am just saying that there are stereotypes of atheists and stereotypes of Christians, and to shake off one, you may just have to let go of the other.

YuckyYummy wrote: "Charity is completely irrational" and "A truly rational person looks out for her own advantage, not that of strangers".

That would ignore any possibility of innate morality - Peter Singer would differ with you, I'm sure. But, I'm assuming you're being sarcastic or ironic, and I've missed the joke.

And although some believers surely donate to charity from a sense of reciprocity (i.e. I give to charity, you reserve my box seat in heaven), there are many others who sincerely want to do good - it's a base sterotype to characterize all religionists as self-serving simpletons. Many aren't.

sandman in TN wrote: "That would ignore any possibility of innate morality - Peter Singer would differ with you, I'm sure."

Read what I wrote: "It may feel good (due to social conditioning, and maybe genetically-favored altruism)" -- that's your "innate morality" right there: genes+conditioning make people do stuff that is considered moral. Doesn't mean it's rational.

Yep, you heard right. A lot of morality is irrational: why should I care how other people feel? Not killing or stealing, sure, that's needed for pragmatic reasons to have a functioning society. But why on earth should I make a sacrifice so some lazy bum can have dinner, or to pay for other people's kids? There's nothing rational about doing that; people just think of it as moral because they haven't yet fully thrown off their Xian conditioning, and because our genes make it feel good (but they also make drugs and ritual feel good, so that's no argument in favor of doing it).

How does the survey account for atheists who chose a profession which provides service to others like, say, investigating cures for disease, thereby passing up many more $$ in the pocket year after year? and what were the relative percentages of Christians and atheists in biomedical science again? just askin'...

Thomas Robey, I'm willing to accept that many Christians do, but the people that atheists here and most New Atheists are really talking about when they talk about Christians are fundamentalists, and the record is completely against them on this matter. They sometimes give lip service to social justice, but usually just ignore it and focus on the few things that matter to them.

The reason that we conflate fundamentalists with all Christians is that all too often regular Christians don't oppose the fundies, and let them represent themselves as the only true religious people, or they actually support them.

Anyways, you're probably a concern troll, but just in case you're not, I thought I would reply.

The Tulse/Nisbet exchange raises a question.

How many religious types will be excited by a viable US presidential candidate who is obviously atheist?

How does this compare to the number of non-women excited by the potential for the first woman president?

to the number of non-blacks excited by the potential for the first black president?

even to the number of non-gays excited by an eventual potential for the first gay president?

Nisbet, the atheist in this country is denied the 'basic civil right' of political representation, this is more obvious for the highest office but true at lower levels as well.

there is a good argument that those who are or have been prevented from obtaining abortion, death with dignity, marriage to a loved one, etc because of theologically-based interference in secular public policy have been denied 'basic civil rights' too...

oh, and smratmark715 , why don't you take a browse through robey's blog before deciding he's a "troll", eh?

Just on this point regarding whether or not atheism is a civil rights issue, see:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=grothe-da…

smratmark715,

If it is really true that, "the people that atheists here and most New Atheists are really talking about when they talk about Christians are fundamentalists," then I can see why you say the things you say. I agree with most of those things. My question is, why don't you just say fundamentalist Christians when you make such far-reaching claims.

You also comment that, "all too often regular Christians don't oppose the fundies, and let them represent themselves as the only true religious people, or they actually support them." What do you think I am doing by posting on this entry, writing my own blog or even reading these blogs at all? Furthermore, many mainstream Christians in America take a position that Fundamentalists have a right to say what they do, AND that atheists have a right to say what they do. There are still voices in the middle, but they are hardly as interesting. The media will not pick them up, even if that person is famous (Jimmy Carter, Francis Collins) Nor is it as easy for these sincere individuals to be attacked.

I have been characterized as ogreish before, but that was only on the rugby pitch. With regards to the trolling, don't you think I would use a pseudonym such as yours if I were a troll?

Where's the headquarters of this Dawkins/Hitchens PR campaign I keep hearing about? I'd like to order some buttons.

Watch out for distortion in the Barna Group data. I used it in this post on my blog and a reader found this distortion in the data:

Is this who we really are, socially disengaged loners? Or is that just what it takes to stand up to the social pressures imposed by religious communities? Will it change as our numbers grow? Maybe the impression this survey wants to leave us with isn't correct? A commentator reminded me that the Barna Group, whose goal is "to be a catalyst in moral and spiritual transformation in the United States" toward fundamentalist Christianity, were comparing atheists/agnostics/no-faiths with "active faith" Christians. The key word here is "active." "Active faith" was defined as simply having gone to church, read the Bible and prayed during the week preceding the survey. There were 20 million no-faith adults and 58 million active-faith Christians and that leaves a big gap full of "non-active" Christians. That means that there's a strong selection bias working here, those who go to church are more engaged in the community than are others who call themselves Christian.

If a survey were to compare atheists who are actively engaged in with groups like "American Atheists" to all those who call themself Christian they might have gotten similar but opposite results. This might represent an element of dishonesty in the design and analysis of their survey.

I took a quick look at the GSS. Using the 2004 data, I just looked at the scores for two groups from the variable GODCHNGE (which basically asks whether you believe in God or not, though to get non-believers and believers, you have to combine two scores each), and GIVCHRTY, which asks how often they give to charity. There is a difference between non-believes and believers, with believers giving more on average. Unfortunately, this isn't a very good comparison, because in the 2004 survey there were 15 non-believers and 600 believers. Percentage-wise, that sounds about right (2.5% outright non-believers), but comparing samples of such divergent sizes is a baaaad idea.

Also, there are other measures of charitable giving in the GSS, but I was just taking a quick look, so I didn't look at them.

Matthew -

I agree with what you say about Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. There is a small, yet growing, push to articulate the positive aspects of the science-based world-view of naturalism. While it doesn't call itself Secular Humanism, it definitely encompasses it.

Tom Clark at The Center for Naturalism has recently published a slim volume that compiles his various expositions on the implications and consequences of a naturalistic world-view which is a viable alternative to the traditional faith-based world-view. The book is called Encountering Naturalism

Best,
Juno