Pollution Lobby vs. Lobby for Truth

President Obama announced today that he would be attending the U.N. Climate Change Conference this December in Copenhagen on his way to accepting his Nobel Prize in Sweden. Well, it's about time that he decided to go.

It will be interesting to see how climate change deniers discuss the meaning of his upcoming visit. Jim Tankersley, in his blog "The Swamp," wrote:

Obama's attendance carries political risks at home, where his energy and climate bill has bogged down in the Senate behind health care, and where critics figure to pounce if he fails to lead the world to a climate agreement. Republicans in particular are mindful of Obama's trip to Copenhagen earlier this year, when he lobbied unsuccessfully for Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics.

So watch for connections between the two Copenhagen visits -- regardless of whether they are really related. If you frame Obama as a failure, then you would see his lack of success in securing Chicago as the host for the Olympics as proof he doesn't know how to get things done. His return to Copenhagen probably will be framed as further proof of his failure as a leader.

On the other hand, the fact that Obama is going to the U.N. Climate Conference is proof, to those who frame him as a strong leader, that he's taking his rightful place on the world stage and helping shape world energy policies.

Let's see what happens. Tonight, I got an idea of what we can expect.

On CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer," host Suzanne Malveaux asked her guests -- Democratic strategist James Carville and Republican strategist Ben Stein -- what they thought the president could do "on this issue" being address in Copenhagen.

Carville said "not very much." He said he hoped that "talk radio and the Pollution Lobby were right that global warming is not a problem and 940 peer-reviewed scientific articles are wrong. That's about all we can hope for." Talk radio and the Pollution Lobby, he added, were winning the battle to persuade the American public -- including Congress -- that climate change is not a real threat.

Ben Stein reframed the argument by saying: "Calling the people who want to keep Americans free to use the kind of energy they want to use 'the Pollution Lobby' is a wild smear ... It's not the Pollution Lobby. It's the Lobby for the Truth. The truth is that the global temperature peaked around 1998. It has not gotten any hotter. In fact, it has gotten cooler. The truth is ... ." And he continued to share other "truths" that deny the reality of climate change, saying "...the whole thing about fighting global warming may be based on a false premise."

Stein was brilliant in his framing. He referred to Americans being "free" to do whatever they want to do ... which means "Government, keep your hands off my business!" When Carville tried to provide proof of the existence of climate change as presented by 940 or 958 or 950 peer-reviewed scientific articles (the number kept changing), Stein responded that there was a "cabal" of peer reviewers "determined to suppress information that challenges the conventional wisdom about climate change."

Carville wasn't as effective as Stein in framing his arguments. It's a shame Carville is often called upon to present the liberal or progressive case in televised debates.

Suzanne Malveaux pointed out that Americans are divided on whether global warming is really happening. She quoted an ABC News-Washington Post poll from Nov. 12-15 that among Democrats, the number who believe global warming is real has dropped from 92% to 86% since March 2006, a time when President George W. Bush was denying global warming was real. Among Republicans, the number has dropped from 76% to 54%, and among independents, the number has dropped from 86% to 71%. This is scary. Still, the majority in this study believe climate change is real.

But here is where Malveaux -- and other journalists -- failed us. Rather than bringing up facts from reputable scientists about the existence of global climate change, she hid behind the journalistic sense of "fairness" by saying, "Well, we could debate whether this [global warming] is real or not ... ."

For real?

Framing theory tells us that the media not only tell us what to think about; they also tell us how to think about it. In an effort to be "fair," many mainstream journalists are, by default, telling us that climate change is not real -- despite what the facts are.

Framing Global Warming/Global Climate Change

Welcome to my blog, "PR Goes Green." In this blog, I plan to combine my two passions: teaching public relations principles and practices that can foster ethical communication; and working toward solutions to global climate change.

Public relations is all about relations with publics -- Whom do we interact with? What do they want/need? How can we best meet their needs and those of our clients? How can we inform, persuade and move our publics to act?

One theory that will influence my discussions is framing, or how verbal and nonverbal cues shape the way we think about and respond to various issues. One of the leading theorists of framing is linguist and cognitive scientist George Lakoff of the University of California at Berkeley.

Here's an example of framing. The term "global warming" accurately reflects the fact that the AVERAGE temperature of the earth has risen between 1.2 and 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the last century, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. To come up with the "average" means that some temperatures have actually dropped while others -- such as the temperature in the Arctic -- have doubled. The steep rise in greenhouse gases (and thus, the earth's temperature) corresponds to our increased use of carbon fuels to heat and cool our homes, run our vehicles, and operate our businesses ... linked to the impact of the Industrial Revolution.

Those are the facts.

But how you understand those facts varies, depending upon your "frame." If you believe global warming is real and that the current rise in the earth's temperature is caused primarily by humans, then the facts would confirm your belief. And it makes sense, therefore, that humans must change their behavior to address global warming.

However, if you believe global warming is hogwash, that the extreme rise in global temperature is simply a cyclical event for which humans have not played a role, then you would look at the facts differently. Cool weather last summer in New York City would be proof that global "warming" cannot be real. And if weather changes are cyclical, then changing human behavior would be more than pointless; it would be misguided and would bankrupt our world.

How can people look at and respond to the same set of facts so differently? According to the Frameworks Institute, "if the facts don't fit the frame, it's the facts that are rejected, not the frame."

This is one reason some people choose to use the term "global climate change" rather than "global warming," even though the terms technically mean something different.

Cooler-than-usual summers in New York and lack of snow in January in Minnesota could be examples of "climate change," even if you don't buy into the concept of global warming.

Once someone says the words "global warming" (or even if people THINK you are saying "global warming," even if you are saying "global climate change"), your brain starts filling in the pieces:

Global warming/climate change = It's real; it's caused by humans; and we must change our ways to counteract dangerous consequences.

Global warming/climate change = It's false; it's cyclical; and changing our behavior is not only unnecessary, it's also dangerous.

I hope you will join me as I explore global climate change from the perspective of a public relations educator and professional.