Is science getting framed?
Today is Climate Crisis Action Day. I stopped by the rally at the Capitol just in time to hear Sen. Barbara Boxer, followed by some native people from Alaska the the Yukon, who are literally on the front lines of climate change impacts. Among them was Lorraine Peter who talked about changes they are witnessing first hand, which has led to close collaboration with scientists. She was followed by Bob Corell, who chaired the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Among other things, he encouraged blogging! Unfortunately I missed the earlier speakers, which included Rep. Waxman, Sen. Kerry and Sen. Sanders. I also neglected to bring a pen so I can’t provide much more detail.
If you haven’t yet, go here to become a Citizen Co-Sponsor of the Sanders/Boxer Global Warming bill, and here to sign a card Boxer will present tomorrow to Al Gore to thank him for his leadership, and here, to sign a message that Al Gore will present to the Congress
tomorrow. As you probably know, in the morning, at 9:30, he is scheduled to testify before 2 subcommittees of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce – back to back with Bjorn Lomborg. In the afternoon, at 2:30, before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chaired
by Senator Boxer – where he will also be questioned by Sen. Inhofe.
Predictably, Inhofe, who previously relied on Michael Crichton’s fiction, is now using the New York Times article hit piece on Al Gore as a prop – to make the case that his case is closed and that “we are all skeptics now.” For background on that case, see the previous PNT post and links therein, and this additional post about it by Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler, who directs his scorn this time at liberals who have kept their mouths shut about this media assault – and he isn’t just referring to the two bloggers quoted in the NYT. I’m really glad RWOS got widespread attention but it is only part of the story. Mooney’s reactions to the New York Times narrative about the new middle stance (here and here and here)
have had me wondering lately if he is trying too hard to position himself in this fabricated middle ground. And then there is Matthew Nisbet, at Framing Science, who edited his post, which originally referred to “Bill Broad’s excellent NYT article”- now it says provocative…. He also lists Broad as a “framesetter” in his blogroll – which only helps Broad to get away with this dishonest and irresponsible journalism that is indeed setting a frame. Now I appreciate information brought to my attention on the blogs of Pielke Jr, Kevin Vranes, Chris Mooney, and Matthew Nisbet. But if they are serious at all about improving science communication and constructive framing – the subject of which they preach, they would take on Inhofe’s media enablers – which we all need to do more earnestly. Without integrity and good faith negotiation, there is no middle ground. I’m going to refrain from further comment until after the hearings. Here is the C-Span link.
