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.