Most brilliant billboard ad campaign ever.

OK, for starters - climate change is real, it's caused by people, and the only real question is what should we do to stop it.  This really is the consensus from the scientific community, no matter what some politically or financially motivated people may tell you. If we lived in a society and had a media that cared about facts and reason and understood the dangers of misinformation, this would basically be the beginning and end of this discussion.

However, we live in America, so we get this:

Yes, this is part of a billboard campaign brought to you by our dear friends at the Heartland Institute.  In all my years I can think of no other billboard campaign in history that is so brain-searingly stupid and yet so utterly brilliant at the same time. Honestly, I look at it and all I can do is applaud.  I'm not even going to link to it because I really don't have to.

It's brilliant because it demonstrates a complex understanding of what it takes to make a splash in today's media and society.  We are rewarded when we go all-out, over-the-top, insert-lousy-metaphor-here crazy in public. And let's face it - this is Ted Nugent meets Octomom crazy.

It also demonstrates an understanding of where the money is.  While some reputable larger companies are pulling out of groups like Heartland after facing scrutiny when Heartland does... well... stuff like this, the Heartland guys know there are a couple of billionaires out there who will pay any price for anything that really pisses off liberals (and by extension here, scientists).  Now that the guys who almost singlehandedly bankrolled the Gingrich and / or Santorum campaigns are looking for something to do, up pops this idea.

Finally, it demonstrates an understanding of how to score "earned" media.  Millions of people will see these billboards - but only on computer screens. Stories about the campaign have been written by outraged liberals in the Guardian (UK), The Hill, The Daily Beast, The American Prospect, and countless blogs and tweets and Facebook posts.  Scientists and liberals will be giving this cheap stunt free publicity for weeks. And that's exactly what Heartland was hoping for when they thought of this.

Of course, this strategy probably isn't all that sustainable.  But then again, maybe it is. If you don't need facts or reason to get your point of view across, and all you have to do is annoy liberals and scientists who just plain NEVER go on offense, why would you ever stop?

Amendment 1: Social Media and the New South?

Next week North Carolinians will go to the polls to vote on a state constitutional amendment asserting that marriage is between a man and a woman only. (Of course, that's already the law here.)  One might expect that this would pass easily in a southern state, but the outcome is in question for a variety of reasons.  First, legal scholars say the amendment creates a host of unintended consequences on issues such as domestic violence.  Ohio had these problems for years after they passed a similar amendment.

Second, and perhaps more relevant to this blog - opponents of the amendment have employed an unconventional strategy.  They have used social media tools to highlight the words and actions of the amendment's most strident supporters. Two of the more popular examples of this are basic displays of typical redneckery - YouTube videos of young supporters, umm... defacing "oppose the amendment" lawn signs, either with urine or buckshot.  (The internet is forever, idiots.) Another popular one is the support the amendment has received from white supremacists. But to me, the most effective example has been the audio recording from a North Carolina pastor  suggesting parents should "punch" the gay out of their kids, and giving them a "special dispensation" to do exactly that.  Listen for yourself.

Normally it isn't wise to promote the views of your opponents in a political campaign. But amendment one opponents are banking on it - they assert that these views are held by most amendment supporters and they are trying to show the rest of the world what they're dealing with.

I'm an opponent of the amendment for a variety of reasons - mostly because I think gay people should have the same rights as anyone else, but also because this amendment goes far beyond what proponents say.  I do think, however, this is a somewhat risky strategy.   Social media tools can be very effective at times, but in my experience it serves to strengthen opinion within specific communities more than persuade people beyond that community.  Are the typical and perhaps undecided voters watching these videos and considering them as they come to a decision on the amendment?  Maybe.  But I'm completely convinced the overwhelming majority of views and shares are coming from people who are already decided and going to other people who are already decided.

Of course, this isn't the only strategic element to the campaign, and I do think opponents have done a good job garnering support from the business community and from mainstream media outlets.  But in the end, we'll see if highlighting the bigotry of the old south online will help lead to a new southern ideal of equality.

Science and policy: one step forward, two steps back

Some friends of mine at Science Debate released a survey a couple of weeks ago that reported something that shouldn't be at all surprising or even newsworthy.  Americans of faith want more sound science and less ideological nonsense in politics.  (Yes, that includes "born again" Christians that effete chardonnay-sipping Massachusetts liberal pansies like me like to mock so much.)

It makes sense, after all - believing in God doesn't mean you automatically think climate change is a hoax (it isn't) or that vaccines cause autism (they don't).  Best of all, I think, was the strong support given to sound science in policy specifically from Republicans. The survey suggested that Republicans oppose political censorship of scientific reports more strongly than Democrats do.  I'll be honest - this surprised me a little bit. But then, it was a Republican who tweeted this:

To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.
— Jon Huntsman (@JonHuntsman) August 18, 2011

I guess what's so confusing to me then, is this poll seems to fly in the face of beltway punditry conventional wisdom.  Nobody in DC ever thought Jon Huntsman had a chance to win the GOP nomination for President, and this tweet even prompted remarks from "leading" commentators how this eliminated any remote possibility of winning.  During the presidential primaries, all of the candidates either backed away from previous pro-science positions, fudged, or outright denied overwhelming scientific consensus.

effectiveness depends on residence in Tennessee

And then, of course, there's Tennessee.  Yes, the folks who brought us the original Scopes trial are at it again, this time with a law that "prohibits the punishment of teachers" who want to teach evolution - an interesting back-door path to asserting creationism in the state science curriculum. The governor there didn't sign it but didn't veto it either - not what I'd call a profile in courage.  I'm not sure where the law falls on whether it's ok to say magnets relieve pain (umm... NO) or even cure cancer (seriously) or "detoxifying electric foot baths" do, ummm.. something.

But I thought it was a good time to remind everyone what evolution is and isn't - from credible, articulate voices.  I'm so grateful to all the people who participated in this, and I hope we can do more things like it.  The voters are apparently on our side - hopefully someday the politicians will follow their lead.

Unleashing my inner broad

I'm pleased to announce that I'm now a contributor to The Broad Side, a new online project led by the PunditMom herself, Joanne Bamberger. As I've written before Joanne is the author of the book Mothers of Intention: How Women and Social Media are Revolutionizing Politics in America and she's an amazing female role model.   From the founder's welcome:

The mission of The Broad Side is to gather women who are writing about the most-discussed and important issues of the day from a fresh perspective, not in that stale, wonky, inside-the-Washington, D.C.-beltway kind of narrative.

While The Broad Side will mostly be a place to showcase all the women’s commentary that those talking head shows and op-ed pages are missing, we’ll definitely invite some men to contribute, as well. 

Joanne's project is a critical and long overdue addition to the American political discussion.  She features intelligent and articulate voices who haven't been corrupted by the beltway culture - people who care much more about policy options than political brinksmanship.  Joanne also refuses to let Washington continue to ignore a simple truth - women's voices simply aren't heard in politics as much as they should.  (by the way, you can hear Joanne's voice, talking politics with me here.)

I'm very pleased and proud to be one of Joanne's first contributors and I'm also pleased that my first Broad Side post focuses on another impressive female role model - Darlene Cavalier, the Science Cheerleader.  I'm looking forward to watching Joanne's continued success and I'll be heading over to The Broad Side often - I hope you will too.

Just another issue for women in politics

Flake

So Newsweek decides to publish the latest in the "cheap-shot unflattering pictures of political women" saga. And the media now plasters it all over the place because this is somehow a story now, and the Newsweek Daily Beast team gets free advertising for lowering our political discourse just a bit more. And this, of course, sparks another silly partisan sideshow that no one really cares about.  Fox News asks aloud "what does Newsweek have against conservative women?" - you know, because that network would never do anything sexist or insulting to Congresswoman Bachmann or publish any less-than-ideal pictures of a political woman. And sadly, we all miss the point. Again.

Weak

Because this is nothing new.  If a political woman dares to raise her voice, she can expect stories that cite anonymous snipers whining about her "abrasive personal style," which is the worst euphemism for "bitch" I've ever seen.  Put Secretary Clinton in the situation room during the attack on Osama bin Laden's compound and suddenly a picture that includes her hand over her mouth becomes a national story. I put my hand over my mouth all the time.  I look at that picture and I still don't get it.  But whatever I'm missing is apparently such a big deal that  one newspaper in Israel actually photoshopped her out of the picture altogether.  You know, because a woman shouldn't be in that room or something.  The paper apologized after the fact but shouldn't it make you wonder why someone felt the need to edit the picture in the first place? 

Ditsy

Pictures show up all the time that take cheap shots at women who dare to lead.  The editors and others who publish them usually won't have the guts to say what they really want to say - something like "Sarah Palin is ditsy"  - but they'll print the one picture in the roll of 50 that shows her eyes a bit wider than normal or in the middle of a gesture that takes a fraction of a second. They won't say "Nancy Pelosi is a lunatic," but we all see the pictures with the wide eyes suddenly appear in news publications.  

And that's just the mainstream publications.  Just do an image search on google for any leading political woman and you almost immediately see the wonders of photoshop.  Heads on the bodies of porn stars.  Faces planted on the backside of a horse. I've even seen an editorial cartoon of Secretary Rice pregnant with a monkey.  The original cartoon came from a Palestinian paper - and then it was quickly republished online by several American news sites.

Of course, what happens if the woman dares to complain?  She can't take the heat.  She doesn't belong in politics. She's easily distracted.  But nobody really thinks much about what happens when that woman's children see the pictures.  Some might even blame the woman - "you had to be prepared for that."

Scary

Do we see unflattering pictures of political men?  Sure.  Newsweek just took a cheap shot at Mitt Romney too.  Bloggers have posted photoshopped pics of Presidents and Prime Ministers.  But be honest- they don't get the reaction that pictures of women do, and I'm fairly certain the frequency for women is disproportionately large.  

And pictures are just one aspect of the larger cultural problem. I remember when John McCain told a joke at a Republican fundraiser - to great laughs -  "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?  Because her father is Janet Reno." Some papers censored the joke, but others, like the Arizona Republic, didn't.  McCain apologized (after his press secretary initially denied he ever told the joke), but again - what makes anyone think  it's even remotely ok to say things like this?  Why weren't there huge consequences to this?

Angry

A couple of weeks ago I recorded a discussion with Joanne Bamberger - the blogger known as PunditMom and the author of the new book Mothers of Intention: How Women and Social Media Are Revolutionizing Politics in America.  We talked a bit about this phenomenon and I asked her how she thought women should respond to cheap shots like Congresswoman Bachmann being asked point blank, "Are you a flake?"  The conversation should be available on her blog in the near future, and I think she lays out the issues really well and gives some thoughts on how things might change.  I hope she posts the interview soon.

There's one approach to addressing this issue that I'd like feedback from women.  I remember a while back a running bit on Saturday Night Live called "Janet Reno Dance Party," where the Attorney General was played by Will Ferrell in drag. It ran a few times, and at the end of the Clinton Administration, it had a "final episode" that actually featured Janet Reno. She was essentially saying "I'm in on the joke," but the joke is really "Janet Reno is an ugly man."

Is this how women should handle this?  What do you think?

To me, the response to things like this should be to celebrate female role models.  I've done this a few times on this blog before - I think it might be time for another installment.

Buy PunditMom's book or I WILL HUNT YOU DOWN

Joanne "PunditMom" Bamberger has a book coming out called Mothers of Intention: How Women and Social Media are Revolutionizing Politics in America.  You should buy it. And then you should read it.  And then you should do whatever Joanne tells you to do, because she's going to rule the world someday and you probably want to be on her good side now. (OK, kidding.)  (But not really.)

This book is important - and not simply because Joanne is more than qualified to write this book as an online mom with an impressive background in government and politics. (She was deputy director of communications at the Securities Exchange Commission, you know.)  It's important because she uses the book to amplify the voices of people the beltway chattering class too often ignore - "everyday" women from different walks of life in America. Seriously - read the essays Joanne compiled in the book and then think about what you see on cable "news" shows or hear on talk radio.

I've spent some time in DC myself, so I'm a bit cynical.  I hope the beltway crowd won't view this book and the perspectives of the women in it as an "I care about politics too" human interest story.  I hope they will take this book as a wake-up call.  I think Joanne and her contributors are telling the politicians (and their sycophants) that while the jobs they have are important, they're wasting everyone's time on irrelevant and potentially harmful flights of fancy.   Moms are life's true decision makers, and they don't have time to waste on distractions.  If moms have more input in political decisions, our politics will be more substantive and our policies will be more effective.

I hope you read this book - not simply because Joanne is someone I've known for years, or because she's helped me out with work from time to time.  I hope you read this book because we all need to do better at understanding what women want and what they care about - and not just for the purposes of selling moms stuff.  Finally, I hope you read this book because for me it's personal.  I was raised by a "pundit mom."  I'm married to another "pundit mom."  For years they've spoken up to help their families, and for as long as I can remember, strong political forces have been aligned against them.  Their actions have helped shape who I am.  In a very real sense, Joanne is speaking up for them and for all the pundit moms out there.

Oh, and the writers she features in the book are pretty amazing too.

Climate Change and Strategic Communications

This is how scientists prove their critics are wrong - but line graphs don't shift public opinion

The scientific case regarding man-made climate change has never been stronger.  Climate change is real, our actions are prompting it, and the failure to address this will lead to severe consequences.   (here's how it works - we burn oil and coal and gas, which belches a humongous amount of carbon into the air, which traps heat in the atmosphere, causing all sorts of weird weather and other nasty stuff.  It's more complicated than that, but that's basically it.  It's actually pretty intuitive.  Pour enough crap into anything that supports life and eventually bad things happen.)

The political position of those who would fight climate change has never been weaker.  Last year the US House of Representatives (under Democratic control) passed a "climate bill" that was widely regarded by pundits as the absolute most that could be accomplished politically - and widely panned by environmentalists as not nearly enough to turn the tide.  The Senate didn't pass anything.  Last year's UN meeting on climate change - the overblown farce known as COP 15 - saw a lot of speeches that said "the time for talk is over, the time for action is now" but produced an "accord" that basically said climate change is a bad thing and maybe someday someone should think about doing something.  Maybe.  Even though the "scientific" arguments presented by climate change deniers are absolutely pathetic (as outlined in Dr. Gleick's piece at Huffington Post), they're still winning on Capitol Hill.

This year, House committees (now under Republican control) will hold hearings designed to smear climate scientists.  A "climate bill" isn't even under serious consideration in the House or the Senate.  (We will see, however, a debate on abolishing the EPA.)  Companies that profit from burning oil, coal and gas have funded all sorts of "think-tanks" and hired a bunch of PR guys to work together to confuse the issue and make sure John Q. Nascar remains focused on the things he can see, like President Obama's birth certificate from Kenya.  (it's on the internet, you know.) The UN meeting on climate change that took place in December (COP 16) thankfully wasn't overhyped, but didn't really accomplish much more than COP 15. And I'm not the only person who noticed that the words "climate change" mysteriously disappeared from the State of the Union address this year.

The problem is simple: those who support the status quo have a coherent, coordinated, and well-funded communications strategy.  Those who support real change (and sound science) do not.

So when I see someone like Chris Mooney - someone who is smart and actually trying to fight this battle - point to a form letter written by a group of scientists addressed to every Member of Congress and suggest it "teaches us a thing or two about communication" - I have to sigh.  Chris clearly has an optimistic viewpoint on this and says he wants to encourage more scientists to get involved in the political process.  He's right about that.  However, since the pro-science (and actually pro-business) message on climate change comes in uncoordinated and often random spurts, it has very little impact.  And when scientists make the observation that their valuable time and effort on outreach like this is being wasted, they are less inclined to try it again.

So my advice - start working more closely together and agree on a strategy, a message, and a set of tactics.   And if all you want to do is criticize how others are doing this, or say it's not worth doing because it's not perfect, STFU and go away.   Here's an outline of what I'd do, as promised in an earlier post.

Topline Strategy: Position your side as the solution, the way forward.  Associate supporters of the status quo with the salient problems of the status quo more generally, and position them as opponents of progress.  You saw something resembling this in the most recent State of the Union Address. The President didn't mention the words "climate change" but he did talk a lot about "winning the future" and the economic benefits of clean energy technology.    Then develop a range of strategic and realistic policy goals and attack.

Identify your audience.  "Everybody" is not an audience. "Members of Congress" are an audience, but the way to reach them isn't a letter.  You need to have face-to-face meetings with them and their staffs.  More importantly, you need to have face to face meetings with the people who influence those Members of Congress most.   I think that means the real audience is the media, business leaders, trade associations, and political donors.   As for consumers - and they're also important, because they vote - Mom is unquestionably the household decision maker for basically everything, so you need to develop a coherent message for moms.

Messaging.  Have a backgrounder available for the paleo-clima-anthropomorphi-techno stuff, but scientists and environmentalists aren't losing this fight on the science.  They're losing on the economics. Right now, the message from the other side is simple: capping carbon = less energy use = less economic activity = less profit = fewer jobs for John Q. Nascar.   But to buy into their mindset you have to believe that we won't or can't change the way we use energy, that efficiency doesn't really move the needle, and that wind power is crazy-looking. I think it's time people realized that we don't have cap-and-trade, and the economy sucks anyway.  While messaging should always be in the authentic voice of the person speaking, I think it makes sense for everyone who's speaking on the pro-science side of the topic to assert the following general points:

• The people who deny climate science support a status quo that works for no one but them. High energy prices hurt the entire economy - except maybe a handful of companies and individuals.  We're looking forward but they're clinging to the past.
• Climate science deniers also deny consumer choice.  The technology exists to give us electric cars, energy-efficient appliances, and so on.  Polls show millions of people want them.  But the people who say climate change is a "hoax" also oppose policies that would make it easier for consumers to get them.
• Climate science deniers oppose innovation.  They've gone all-in for a 20th-Century energy strategy that says "dig it out of the ground and set it on fire." They work hard to make sure the rules favor this strategy, and they're holding on to their advantage for as long as they can.

There are other points to make, but if you notice, these general arguments (opposing the status quo, supporting choice and innovation) are largely generic arguments that "test well" with the public and with policy elites across all sorts of issues.  They're also relevant and truthful.  This sort of thing has to be THE message - not "the sky is falling," not something about tree rings, not something that must be measured in parts per billion.  

I'm sure some scientists are thinking "we've said all that already."  Not really, no. These messages haven't been forcefully, clearly, creatively, and repeatedly delivered to the people who matter.  They haven't been built into a coordinated campaign that includes earned media, paid media, social media, and lobbying.  

As for policy issues, there are plenty of options - but what's most important is going on offense.  A really smart political operative once told me "if you're not on offense, you're on defense - and if you're on defense, you're losing."  If you're looking for specifics I recommend my pal the Ecopolitologist for ideas.  Start with battles you have a good chance of winning, build momentum, and keep pushing.  And stop it already with the "it's not for scientists to decide policy, our role is only to share data and analysis."  Everyone has a right to participate completely in the political process. Everyone.

The State of our Oratory is... well... umm...

2011 SOTU as a Wordle text cloud

A few noteworthy items from last night's speech and response.  OK, responses.

First, the speech that really matters - President Obama gave a decent speech, albeit a forgettable one from a rhetorical perspective.  I was impressed that he focused so much on research, science, math, and technology. The bit about celebrating the winner of the science fair as much as you celebrate the winner of the Super Bowl was the kind of rhetorical salvo that should send warm fuzzies to my science advocate pals.    Overall it was an appeal to our better angels, something America needs at this moment.  

However the catchphrase that was intended to weave the speech together - "win the future" - fell just a bit flat to me.  It seems the phrase was designed to underscore the emphasis on competitiveness you could find throughout the speech, and it may have been designed to tap into a more modern version of the "manifest destiny" idea  that is embedded in America's cultural DNA.   People I know on Twitter explain that it's a reference with "digital age" and gaming undertones, and it's somewhat clear that the people who wrote this speech have a foot securely planted in that world.  As a piece of rhetoric I think it tries to be bold but is just slightly too vague to be useful. 

Overall the speech had all of the entirely predictable elements you find in the modern SOTU - the "we're #1," the laundry-listish recitation of policies, the references to the VIP's sitting next to the First Lady, the shout-out to our military, and the request for God's blessings. 

But let's also remember that the SOTU has its limitations.  It's nearly impossible to get into real specifics, even when the speech runs over an hour.  This speech is perhaps more about ceremony today than it may have been at one time.  So the bits that sound like specifics may or may not be.  For example, the President gave strong emphasis to clean energy and proposed what sounded like an ambitious renewable energy portfolio standard for... some year far enough in the future that he won't really have to worry about it. But in the list of energy sources he included something called "clean coal."  Coal is not clean and it's not renewable.  "Clean coal technology" is more a term of art than an actual, tangible thing.  Yet there it was.  So what is the portfolio standard?  Clean? Renewable? Or some new definition that gives the appearance of success without really doing anything meaningful?  Only time will tell, and it will likely be left to the Department of Energy and the EPA to clarify.  And it's no mistake that Carol Browner's departure was announced BEFORE the speech.  Energy companies no doubt saw that as an olive branch to help deal with the thorns of the rhetoric presented against them in the speech. 

I think the responses demonstrate how truly difficult it is to sit in a room by yourself and read off of a teleprompter and still seem engaging.  Seriously, it's not easy.  The President just gave this huge rhetorical address with the eyes of the world upon him, and you're confined to a small studio with a camera.  Do you try to sound conversational, like a "fireside chat?"  Do you try to be presidential, to match the gravitas of the President?  In this situation you really can't win because you're compared with perhaps the greatest orator of our generation on a stage designed to amplify his presence.   

I won't hide my politics - I'm a Kennedy Democrat.  But trying to take my politics out of the equation (probably impossible to do) I think the responses absolutely sucked.  They just did.  Congressman Ryan's speech was a focus group-driven list of phrases without a coherent rhetorical center.  But it was the format that really killed the speech. He had a limited amount of time to cram in a lot of things.  He spoke too quickly, and the tone of his voice and the expression on his face belied his words.  (You don't smile blankly when you're talking about a colleague who was shot in the head two weeks ago.) This created a fundamental disconnect for viewers - Ryan looked like he either didn't mean what he said, or he was simply reading through a text by rote.   (Oh, and I found the "substance"of the remarks to be misleading at best.)

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann's presentation - I think that's a far more appropriate term than "speech" -  looked like a Ross Perot infomercial, and fell short of even Congressman Ryan's address in terms of delivering substance.  The information she placed in charts - real speeches don't have props - was misleading and lacked context.   Of course, this wasn't the first presentation from a Member of Congress to play up some data and ignore other facts, but it seemed the "success" of the presentation relied on the ignorance of its audience.  That's never a good thing to do.  The repeated use of the term "Obamacare" - clearly designed to serve as a pejorative - was beneath the the moment.   And again, difficulties with the format led to the most obvious issue that detracted from the entire presentation.  The teleprompter was placed off to the side, and the speaker looked directly at it (and not the camera) for the entire address.  Combine this with the too-frequent "double-guns" pointing gesture and the result was a distracting and difficult experience for the viewer.  Finally, the iconic picture of the Iwo Jima soldiers raising the American flag at the end was superfluous, even overreaching as a rhetorical device - it lacked relevance to the remarks, and seemed to be forced, and frankly, pandering.   

Overall the night was a solid win for the President - he gave a decent speech (snap reaction to it was overwhelmingly positive) and the GOP demonstrated they couldn't overcome the complexities of the medium to deliver a coherent message in response. Of course, time will tell if any of it has any substantive impact, but at least beltway pundits (and rhetoric geeks like me) have something to write about for a couple of days.

I'm Tweeting My OWN Damn SOTU

Network prime time gets to step aside for one evening each year for the State of the Union Address - or as I like to call it, "Prom for Student Government Nerds."

It's actually a constitutional mandate of sorts - you can find reference to it in Article II, Section 3:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Over the years the State of the Union speech has taken on certain customs; some good and some not.  It's now an annual address of a joint session of Congress, though as you can see there's no constitutional mandate for that.  The speech has a certain amount of pomp and ceremony, with the House Sergeant at Arms yelling, "Mister Speaker, the President of the United States!" just before he walks in.  (This was a job that used to be performed by the House Doorkeeper, but they abolished that position sometime in the mid-nineties.)

The speech typically includes a reference to the First Lady, who will no doubt have all sorts of VIP's sitting next to her in the Gallery.  (I'm guessing at least one of those VIP's tonight will be someone who was at a Tuscon supermarket a couple of weeks ago.)  Recognition will certainly be given to our Armed Forces, and we'll no doubt hear that "the state of our union is strong" or some form of that.  We'll probably hear about a list of programs - getting a "mention in the state of the union" is often seen as some sort of lobbying plum. We'll learn that children are our future, that we need more jobs, and of course, that America is the greatest country with the greatest people.  And we'll wrap the whole thing up with asking God to bless us, everyone.  The whole thing will probably last an hour, give or take.  Someone will certainly count the number of times people applaud, people stand up, and if anyone shouts "you lie."  It's going to be a little different in that the Democrats won't all sit on one side and the Republicans on another, but I'm reasonably confident partisanship will be present in some form.  And of course, let's not forget the drinking games.

Then the opposition response will come - probably less lengthy, but probably more pointed in its criticism of the President and his policies.   This year we get a special bonus opposition response from a "tea party" person, and I'm sure it will be like the first opposition response - just with more invective and references to debt and deficits, but realistically with considerably less substance.

Then the news networks will have their turn to bloviate - the "major" networks will trot out people who have worked in the White House before to explain to us what the speech really meant and whether the President "succeeded" in doing whatever. The cable networks will trot out their people who will explain why the President "failed," and we may even see a focus group or two in action.

The simple truth is this: while it's important for the President to keep the people in the loop, I think we should maybe try tweeting SOTU and see if our democracy is torn asunder. I notice that the Washington Post is trying this out, but they're only giving people one word - I like the idea but I don't like limiting it to one word - my tweet, my rules.

 I'm betting the only people who would suffer are the people who care about cable news ratings.  And frankly, I think this will actually get more people to pay attention.

So if you had to tweet the State of the Union, what would you say?  Just for kicks, you could tweet yours and use the hashtag "#MYsotu" - hey, why not?

Mine:  "We need more jobs, more clean energy and better schools.   But health care reform is happening and we're coming back strong."

Getting Serious About Climate PR

It's not often I get to say I'm on the same page as the Union of Concerned Scientists. But back in November I wrote a post about some scientists (specifically the American Geophysical Union) pulling together a "rapid response" team to work with the media on climate change issues. I suggested that was good but not enough, and gave some ideas on action items:

One of the things they could do is hold a press conference in DC before the new Congress is seated and let the political reporters know some basic facts. Not necessarily the science of climate change, because most political reporters don't care about the science of climate change. The basic facts I'm talking about can be summed up thusly: if a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying. Get out there first and define the lie. Yes, it's been said before. But not really in this context - right as a session of Congress is beginning. Make sure everyone knows they're lying - make sure it's the default position. Then let the media investigate the motivation behind the lie.

Then follow up the press conference with editorial board meetings with the newspapers in key Congressional districts (i.e., the members of Congress who chair relevant committees), again with the simple, clear message: if a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying.

And so on.  So it's quite heartening to read this in Politico:

Expecting a surge next year in Republican-led House hearings on global warming science, the Union of Concerned Scientists sent experts out earlier this month to Washington and New York for meetings with reporters from 60 Minutes, Time, USA Today, Reuters, Bloomberg, MSNBC and other news organizations. Frumhoff said the journalists “were keenly interested in understanding how casting doubt about mainstream scientific findings that upset powerful financial interests, from the health risks of tobacco to the reality and risks of global warming, is a tactic that has been used time and again to delay or avoid regulation.”

UCS has also been leading behind-the-scenes efforts to get its scientists on television, radio and in print stories, as well as in front of Rotary clubs and editorial boards.

This suggests to me that scientists are thinking more strategically about communication and how it relates to policy, and this is a very good thing.

Of course, there is considerably more to this than just meeting in advance.  What does their messaging look like?  Has it been tested with focus groups or surveys?   Are they addressing the economic issues that critics leverage so effectively?  Are their spokespersons well-trained and all on the same page?  And do they have the commitment and resources to sustain a coordinated and aggressive campaign?

Here's the thing:  groups like UCS and AGU clearly have the science on their side, and they actually want more, not less, transparency in this discussion.  But critics have more money and more at stake in the short term, and they have much more experience developing and implementing effective, strategic communications campaigns.

In a future post I'll review some of the strategic pressure points advocates can use in their messaging to move from defense to offense, and win more of these PR skirmishes.

My personal history with "the gay"

Col. Cammermeyer

Tomorrow President Obama will sign legislation to eventually repeal a series of rules at the Department of Defense known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  For the past 13 years, it's been OK to BE gay and serve in the military, as long as you don't ever let anyone actually KNOW that you're gay. (Of course, if someone outs you, you're discharged.)  And theoretically, the DoD isn't supposed to care who you sleep with - i.e., for 13 years or so they haven't asked people who enlist about their sexual preferences. Of course that hasn't stopped them from discharging 14,000 people under this rule in that time.

It's always been an important issue to me, one I've always followed very closely - not just on the merits, and not just because I've always known a lot of gay people.

(No, this is not where I tell everyone I'm gay.  Sorry.)

This issue (then referred to as "gays in the military") was the first item I ever worked on as a paid Senate staffer.  It was 1993, I was fresh out of college (and a stint in Connecticut on the presidential campaign), and I had just scored a job as a staff assistant on Senator Kennedy's Labor and Human Resources Committee.   My boss was responsible for "gay issues" (among many other things) for the Senator and I was basically the guy who help his small office run - answered the phones, hired and fired interns, wrote the speeches/letters/memos he was too busy to write, do some help with research on this or that.

Politically, I don't think this was an issue any of us really expected to address at that time.  President Clinton had just entered office, the new session of Congress was just starting. The economy was top on everyone's agenda, and while candidate Clinton mentioned his support for lifting the ban on gays in the military, it was never considered a top-5 issue at the time.  But opportunists saw a wedge issue that played on people's fears and made the President look weak.  Republicans quickly tried to codify a ban and dared Democrats to oppose them.  The Senate Armed Services Committee, then led by Sam Nunn (a conservative Democrat from Georgia), almost immediately called for hearings. And this is when I started learning about how politics works in the big leagues.

On the merits, this was never a complicated issue to me.  Granted, I've always had a bias in favor of advancing civil rights and protecting minorities.  But to me, the merits have always gone something like this:

General: A lot of soldiers think gay people have cooties, so we can't have them in our military.  I need my soldiers to focus on killing enemies, not avoiding cooties.
Liberal guy: But gay people really don't have cooties.  You're just condoning prejudice.
General: I don't have the luxury of adopting your Utopian world view.  I have wars to fight, and I can't take on every social issue you want me to.
Liberal: But gay people are already in the military, you just don't know they're gay.  Gay people aren't the source of the cooties, it's the perception of gay people that brings the cooties.
General: Hmm... never thought about it that way.  OK, from now on, nobody is ever allowed to think about gay people.  I'm not going to bring it up, and you're not allowed to say you're gay.   Anyone who talks about the gay is out.   There - problem solved.
Liberal: Wait, that's not what I meant...
General: LA LA LA LA LA!!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! NO GAYS HERE! LA LA LA!

Of course, there was much more to the debate than this.  I saw a lot of nasty, nasty stuff.  I watched Senators tell gay people directly they had an affliction and they needed medical help.  I watched people tell decorated veterans they were condemned or unnatural.  I heard the same arguments that racists made against integration and that nazis made against Jewish people - things like gays spread disease, they hurt morale generally, they can't control themselves, they are all part of some big conspiracy.

I also saw what I thought to be cowardice but what was probably political reality - Senator Kennedy spoke up strongly in favor of lifting the ban in 1993 while most other Democrats were largely silent.  Today we see he was truly ahead of his time.  The political "compromise" that was struck represented little more than an accommodation for a new president who couldn't afford a total loss.  In substance, DADT wasn't a compromise at all.  Before 1993, the military began the discharge process as soon as it learned a person was gay.  That's still the policy today.  DADT was, however, a tacit acknowledgement that being gay wasn't the problem.  It took 13 years for that logical concession to result in a real change.

But what I'm struck by most is the courage I saw from so many people.  "Coming out" is a difficult thing to today, let alone 13 years ago.  I watched my boss, an openly gay man, stare down hate and work closely with people who had no bones about telling him he was an abomination.   I watched another young man, then in the closet while working for a Republican senator, risk his job by coming by the office after hours to provide strategic counsel and intelligence.  (That man eventually became one of the most influential liberal political bloggers in America.) And I watched a host of veterans who served in our military with distinction come through our office and tell their story - knowing the consequences would be significant.

One of those veterans was Colonel Grethe Cammermeyer, a decorated army nurse who acknowledged she was a lesbian during a security clearance interview in 1989  About 3 years later (military bureaucracy being what it is) she was "separated" from the military and quickly filed suit.  Her story was the one that really catapulted the issue to the forefront - she wrote a book, the book turned into a movie (Glenn Close played her character), and she testified at the Congressional hearing, where I remember Senator Strom Thurmond openly questioned her mental health.  I never spoke with her that much but she came by the office a few times and I remember her as personable, courageous, engaging, and smart.  Eventually she won her lawsuit, was reinstated in the military, and retired in 1997.

Earlier this year the Undersecretary of Defense issued a press release without much fanfare, announcing some additions to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, "an independent advisory committee that provides the department with advice and recommendations on matters and policies relating to the recruitment and retention, treatment, employment, integration, and well-being of highly qualified professional women in the armed forces." Tucked in a list of ten names was Col. Cammermeyer.

These changes have come far too slowly.  And more changes are still needed.  But tomorrow I'll be thinking of all the brave people I met and all the lessons I learned and I'll smile.

When "Rapid Response" Isn't Enough

First, know this: if a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying.

It's somewhat heartening to learn that some in the scientific community are trying to prepare for the political onslaught that Congressional Republicans and anti-science zealots will be launching next year:

On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution.

John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to climate change skeptics, is also pulling together a "climate rapid response team," which includes scientists prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows.

The notion that some (not nearly all) scientists want to mix it up a bit and push back on political aggressors is unmistakable progress.  But here's the simple truth in politics and PR these days: If you're waiting for something to say something untrue about you or your work before you decide to speak, you're waiting too long.  

So what should scientists do now?  Simple - strike FIRST.  Define the lie. Do it in a political context.

One of the things they could do is hold a press conference in DC before the new Congress is seated and let the political reporters know some basic facts.  Not necessarily the science of climate change, because most political reporters don't care about the science of climate change.  The basic facts I'm talking about can be summed up thusly:  if a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying.  Get out there first and define the lie.  Yes, it's been said before.  But not really in this context - right as a session of Congress is beginning.  Make sure everyone knows they're lying - make sure it's the default position.  Then let the media investigate the motivation behind the lie.

Then follow up the press conference with editorial board meetings with the newspapers in key Congressional districts (i.e., the members of Congress who chair relevant committees), again with the simple, clear message: if a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying.

Then take the most noteworthy climate scientists in particular states where members of Congress are beholden to those who might see value in obfuscating climate science and have them deliver a clear, simple message to the media there: if a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying.

Do it first.  Do it NOW. Do it again and again and again.  Have the scientific details available in a hand-out for anyone who asks, but keep the message clear and simple. Yes, it's been done before, but not like this.  Hey, politics is inherently uncomfortable, regardless of the level of "civility," but leave no doubt about what's the truth and what's a lie.

If a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying.

Ending Isolationism in Politics, Science, and Social Media - The Battle For Mom

One of the things I like about my job is the freedom I have to work with (online) communities that interest me - parenting, environmentalism, politics, and science.  One of the things I don't like about my job is how so few people in one community really know or care about people in another.  From a work perspective, moving from project to project, or from community to community means I often have to "shift gears" considerably - I have to reacquaint myself with a community's vocabulary, cultural norms, influential players, current events, and so on.   It's not crippling but it requires some time and effort.

The promise of the "World Wide Web" - breaking barriers, bringing people together and solving problems for the greater good - has been largely unfulfilled. Arguably, social media has contributed to even more isolationism, more homophily, more entrenched positions in our civil discourse. I'm by no means the first person to suggest this.

But it really struck home for me when I saw this: half of the incoming GOP Members of Congress deny the existence of man-made climate change.

The incoming Congress is preparing to conduct hearings and investigations based on a premise virtually all climate scientists know to be demonstrably false.  Their actions will prompt the collision of three of "my" online communities - politics, science and environmentalism.  The key to how things shake out lies with the fourth community - parents, mainly moms.

First, consider these points:

• The Internet has transformed American politics.  In 2008 it gave Democrats a fundraising tool to to compete with the GOP. In 2010 it gave Republicans (or more specifically, hard-right conservatives) an organizing tool and communication platform.  It has also prompted the rise of a new community of punditry - political bloggers.
• The blogosphere has given science writers a home. The Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism reports that science topics get ten times the amount of coverage in blogs than in traditional publications. 
• One of the reasons commonly cited today for "why the Democrats lost" this week is the decline in support from women - I realize not all women are moms, but moms are actively engaged in civic and political activities.
• Environmentalists are currently struggling mightily to find their collective voice - their "organized" communications efforts range from ineffectual to disgusting.   

I'm not trying to make a political statement on energy and the environment here.  People can and will have strong differences of opinion on policy; about diversity of fuel portfolio, about efficiency standards, subsidies, and so on.  But these discussions should be based on facts.  The facts are crystal clear: climate change is real, man's activities contribute significantly to it, and the consequences of inaction are measurable. It's really not even an issue of "agreeing on a set of facts" - facts are facts, whether you agree with them or not.  So we're asking communities who frankly don't talk with each other much - scientists, environmentalists, and political activists - to begin a vital conversation with either accusations of fraud or declarations of lunacy.

And this is where the moms come in.  Mom is the opinion leader of everyday life.  She decides everything from what we're eating for dinner to what car we're buying to what the local school will teach the kids.  She represents the demographic that tips the balance between winners and losers.  Most importantly, mom is the one who is going to tell each side to stop yelling, accept reality, and figure out a solution anyway - because that's what moms do everyday.  And nobody - NOBODY - has really made a meaningful effort to do anything with this community beyond selling it stuff.

So from a competitive standpoint the side that engages mom first and best will probably win.  But more importantly, if ANY side engages mom at all, we all win.

On the road again...

gonna be a busy couple of weeks so posting will be light.  Again.  just a couple of quick things.

First, the latest iteration of old-school vs. blogosphere happened in, of all places, a chemistry journal. Just the same old arguments - bloggers can't be trusted etc - from another obsolescent form of publishing. I was going to write the obligatory I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I post but the science bloggers did it better, so you should read this from David Kroll and this from Deborah Blum if you care to get the smart reaction.

I also noticed Maureen Dowd recently lamented the rebirth of anti-intellectualism on the right wing. I'm not going to do the "it happens as much on the left" thing because honestly, it doesn't.  

My take on it is simple - we've allowed our politics to descend to new depths of stupid.  We're poised to elect people who essentially believe dinosaurs and people lived together on this earth and belching a gazillion tons of smoke into the air really doesn't do anything bad, and it's totally OK to ignore challenging questions from reporters or even citizens, and it's even ok to hide where you get your money to broadcast your made-up crap.

We've allowed it to happen because no one with real power on the left (or even in the middle) has actually done anything to make it stop.

It's especially harmful to people in my line of work because most people see politics and PR as largely the same thing these days.  PR is actually about getting to the truth.  It's about telling people what's important.  Sadly our politicians (and too many PR folks) think PR is about changing the subject or hiding what matters most.

If you do this right - or if you really want to do this right - you think Campaign 2010 is inherently bad for business.

Bonnie Tyler's Words Live On

OK, so, I like big hair

Remember "Total Eclipse of the Heart?" Bonnie Tyler had another hit - "Holding Out For A Hero."  And I'll thank you for refraining from the "dude likes Bonnie Tyler" jokes.  Don't fool yourself into thinking you didn't like Footloose because you DID, dammit.  Just admit it and we'll get along just fine.  But enough about that.

Today she's singing about the need for a hero to scientists  - because it's not just science funding that's under attack.  Virginia's Attorney General is at it again:

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has sent a new civil subpoena to the University of Virginia, renewing a demand for documents related to a work of a former university climate scientist that was stymied when a judge blocked his previous request in August.

For those of you just joining us, Cuccinelli's target is Michael Mann, a researcher who worked at the University of Virginia until 2005.  To be quite general, I think Mann's research said something along the lines of "climate change is happening quickly." Then someone stole some of his emails and alleged he and other scientists were faking their data or something like that, creating the farce the media sometimes called "climate-gate."  Mann has since been exonerated from the allegations, though to the best of my knowledge no one has ever caught the person or people who hacked into those computers and stole and published those private emails.

I'll readily acknowledge that when Cuccinelli did this the first time I thought it was nothing more than a stunt by a political opportunist in the wake of this faux scandal. After all, his subpoenas were obviously sloppily crafted and they were quickly shot down by a judge.  But now it's apparent he wants to press this issue. He's trying to intimidate researchers and he's essentially adding a page to the climate change denial playbook - if you can't win an argument on the merits, make stuff up and use taxpayer resources to sue.

It's clear that AG Cuccinelli, drawing on his vast experience of exactly zero days as a climate change researcher, now believes he can tell what's good research and what's not:

"Specifically, but without limitation, some of the conclusions of the papers demonstrate a complete lack of rigor regarding the statistical analysis of the alleged data, meaning that the result reported lacked statistical significance without a specific statement to that effect," the CID alleges.

Of course this isn't the first time that climate science has come under attack from a politician. There are plenty of scientists who are quite used to this sort of thing in a variety of fields - evolution, reproductive research, even vaccines.  But this clear abuse of power strikes me as particularly egregious - the specific allegations have already been shown to be without merit, and the AG is simply on the wrong side of the science.  If I were a Virginia taxpayer, I'd want a refund.

But Cuccinelli gets away with it for one simple reason: there is no organized opposition.  No one stands up for science in our public discourse or in our policy debates when standing up for science gets the least bit uncomfortable or expensive.  When a researcher's conclusions start to rub someone the wrong way, someone just makes stuff up about the researcher, turns him into a villain, and suffers absolutely no consequences for their lies. Scientists have no allies who will come to their defense, because scientists have done remarkably little to build relationships with influential people beyond their own, cloistered communities. (It's called "ivory tower" for a reason, people.)

And no, I don't consider the occasional rant from a science blogger, with or without f-bombs, to be "consequences." (Though I quickly searched the science blogosphere for reactions to this and I didn't even find this.)  Bottom line: there is no real, organized, diverse opposition that encourages people to take action and demonstrate a real down side to attacking science and scientists.

I'm sure someone at the University of Virginia will say something along the lines of "attacking scientists is bad."  I'm guessing the words "chilling effect" and "academic freedom" will be used.   And I'm guessing that will be the extent of opposition.  Because, you know, it's uncomfortable to get into discussions like this.

There are political constituencies in this country that Cuccinelli would not dare attack.  Many of those constituencies have much less money than you may think.  But they're organized. They have leaders.  They have people who mobilize.  And they're not afraid to mix it up.

Not so for scientists.  And as long as this continues, scientists will continue to be "picked off," a handful at a time.

I'm probably not going to make too many friends for saying this - but it's the truth.  Scientists don't seem to have much trouble mocking their critics from behind their keyboards or using heated language when talking about science itself.  But I really don't see much when it comes to speaking truth to power.  I really don't see much when it comes to building a movement that would make people like Cuccinelli think twice before pulling a stunt like this.  Going on the attack is uncomfortable.  Executing a well-planned and coordinated attack is time-consuming on top of uncomfortable.  People would rather advocate or do something polite or "positive."

But it's long past time for scientists to go on the attack.  It's long past time for someone among their ranks to emerge as a leader. It's long past time for scientists to organize.

Who's going to step up?

It's Official: Nomenclature Is a Weapon of Mass Destruction

this is what happens when oxygen levels drop in the ocean

It's a common practice in politics and PR. The easiest way to avoid responsibility for something is to just call it something else. Put it in another category and wait for people to focus on the next outrage.  It usually works.   The most salient example in recent memory is the depraved attempt to define waterboarding as something other than torture. Sure, the media covered the issue well for a while, but it's not as if anyone has ever truly been held accountable for torturing people. The experts on the topic never had a chance against a PR strategy run by political consultants.  That's because "experts" - scientists, academics, intellectuals - really have no serious influence in policy when it matters most.  (Seriously, they don't.  I'll debate anyone, anytime on this.)

Now nomenclature has suddenly (and perhaps officially)  made millions upon millions of gallons of oil miraculously disappear from the Gulf of Mexico.  A report earlier this month from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports:

The vast majority of the oil from the BP oil spill has either evaporated or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed  much of which is in the process of being degraded. A significant amount of this is the direct result of the robust federal response efforts.

Which in government-PR speak means "we won't be spending a ton more time or money dealing with this because the way we've defined it, we're almost done fixing it. So chill out.  We got this."

Enter the scientific community, led by some really outstanding researchers from The University of Georgia. (Goooooooo DAWGS.)  They took a look at what the government said and then looked at what's actually going on and had this to say:

“One major misconception is that oil that has dissolved into water is gone and, therefore, harmless,” said Charles Hopkinson, director of Georgia Sea Grant and professor of marine sciences in the University of Georgia Franklin College of Arts and Sciences. “The oil is still out there, and it will likely take years to completely degrade. We are still far from a complete understanding of what its impacts are....

The group analyzed data from the Aug. 2 National Incident Command Report, which calculated an “oil budget” that was widely interpreted to suggest that only 25 percent of the oil from the spill remained.

Hopkinson notes that the reports arrive at different conclusions largely because the Sea Grant and UGA scientists estimate that the vast majority of the oil classified as dispersed, dissolved or residual is still present, whereas the NIC report has been interpreted to suggest that only the “residual” form of oil is still present. 

This is science-speak for "Yeah, ummm... dudes?  Not so much.  'Dispersed' doesn't mean 'gone.'"  There is no doubt that the ecological impacts of this spill will be devastating for years to come. And NOAA is spinning it.  The media, to their credit, took the UGA folks seriously.

comes with a side of defibrillator

Here's how I might try to explain it.  First, grab a Double Coronary Burger, which can be found at the Vortex Bar & Grill in Atlanta - probably less than 2 hours from UGA.  (I learned about it at the website This Is Why You're Fat.)  The Double Coronary features a burger topped with five slices of bacon, four slices of cheese, two fried eggs, mayo, lettuce, tomato, and onion between two grilled cheese sandwiches.

Now, cut it in half.  Cut the halves in half, and eat one of the quarters.  Try not to die. Take another quarter and put it on another plate.


Take the remaining two quarters and cut them in half.  Then cut all those pieces in half.  Then repeat this until you basically have a bunch of little pieces of heart attack smeared all over a plate.  Then spray that smushed up death plate with some liquid borax or something like that.

Then take both plates, head over to the local supermarket, and dump the plates into the lobster tank and see what happens.  (Be prepared to pay for all the lobster. And maybe the tank.)


I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure our government would be pleased if you thought the borax-infused death smear in front of you doesn't really exist any more because it's in a bunch of little pieces.  You really only need to worry about that quarter on the other plate, and that's going away naturally or something.  

And when the borax-infused death smear makes its way up the food chain?  You can be damn sure the company that gets sued for selling food that got someone sick will say the government told everyone it was ok, so they shouldn't be held responsible.

The post in which I lose friends

I realize this is slightly off-topic, but a few people have asked my opinion on the "mosque at ground zero" debate, and since I have some experience in "crisis" communications and some in politics, I can sum up my opinion on the issue thusly:

You either support the first amendment or you don't.

Science Needs a Strategy

I'm back.  I'll have something to say about "Pepsi-gate" but I'm trying to get some insights from others closer to the situation first.  Before I disappeared from the blog I mentioned an interest in examining Chris Mooney's assertion that scientists need to be better listeners when it comes to (for lack of a better term) public relations. For a while now I've pushed something somewhat related:

Science has a serious PR problem, and it's this: Critics of science are searching people out and talking with them in the simplest terms possible. Scientists and "science writers," if they talk at all, are basically talking with each other. 

When Mooney talks about "listening" I think he means understanding where certain critics are coming from and understanding more about what makes the more neutral (and potentially persuadable) public tick.  I think we all see a certain amount of value in that. But I also think Mooney would agree that "listening" is only the beginning.

If I understand what Mooney's critics are saying, he's been blasted for being either too simplistic, or too brief, or that he doesn't put enough of the burden on non-scientists, or that his ideas won't be a complete solution, or that engaging critics is like talking to the wall, or that scientists really shouldn't wade into some areas of discussion because it compromises their important role or their integrity or something.  

But then I cringe when I read headlines like "Scientists expected Obama administration to be friendlier."  (Really?  Why? Because he said he would be?  As Speaker Pelosi once said, "There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail.") Or when I read the Attorney General of Virginia wants to investigate scientists who did nothing more than write uncouth emails about climate change critics - even after the scientists have been cleared of any wrongdoing. (No word on whether the AG plans to investigate the theft and leaking of said emails.)  Or when the scientific community is flatly ignored by our own government and an oil company whose CEO insisted the greatest ecological disaster of our time would be "very, very modest."

Here's the sad, simple truth: Scientists are marginalized in politics and the media because there's no downside to marginalizing them.  The community is loosely organized at best from a political / PR standpoint - despite the multitudes of organizations within the community.  There is no groundswell of support, no army of activists ready to go at a moment's notice. Worse still, there's no real agreement among scientists how to address this - or even if they should.

When it appeared the White House was going to drop immigration reform as a priority, Latino groups organized and made some noise.  Now reform is back on the table.  When it appeared the President's promise to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a military policy would be cast aside, the GLBT community organized and made some noise.  Now DADT repeal is back on the table. 

It's not like these communities are monolithic.  But there are some issues where they all get together and fight.  Where they let a group within the community identify an audience, set a goal, develop a strategy, and work relentlessly to implement it.   People either support that effort or they get out of the way.

Critics of science (you know, like some national groups with the word "family" in their name) consistently kick scientists' asses in PR and politics not because they're made of money but because they have a plan and they stick to it.  They learn as much as they can about the pool of persuadable people and the pressure points of people in power.  They test messages relentlessly with focus groups and polling.  They identify speakers and develop talking points and pitch stories to reporters.  They recruit allies.  They don't expect to "win" in a day, or a week, or a month - but they have specific benchmarks and timelines.  They have specific actions they ask people to take at specific times - typically in advance of milestones in a court case or a political campaign or the legislative calendar. They build databases of supporters and they stay in contact with them.  They constantly work to build relationships beyond their own, cloistered community - so when the time comes to build a coalition of support around an issue they're not introducing themselves by asking for something.

Bottom line: there's nothing even close to this from scientists or their "allies."  Nothing.  Instead there's mockery or infighting or indifference.

The mockery bugs me a lot. You're not shaming an adversary, you're getting their blood up and getting them to work harder. For example, I've heard educated people refer to National Rifle Association members as "ignorant hillbilly gun-nuts with no teeth."   But ask a politician where he or she stands on banning gun sales to PEOPLE ON THE TERRORISM WATCH LIST.  Nine out of ten of them will be looking over their shoulders, asking those ignorant hillbillies what they should think before they tell the guy who writes love letters to al Qaeda not to buy that AK-47.

The infighting bugs me even more. Chris Mooney had a thought.  Some people agreed with it, some people didn't.  That's fine.  But if Mooney and his pals launch a campaign to implement his ideas - ideas that they think would help all scientists - I'm fairly convinced there would be other scientists peppering insults from the sidelines, undermining the credibility of the campaign because of differences over minor tactical details or personality conflicts or whatever.  There would be people jumping in, saying "Chris doesn't speak for me," but not having a lot to say beyond that.  Let's face it - there are a lot of big egos in the scientific community.  But not even Darwin was correct 100% of the time.  It doesn't mean he wasn't brilliant.

The indifference bugs me the most.  I may be a civics nerd, but I think everyone has an obligation to participate in the political or civic process in some way.  With education comes a responsibility to the greater good.  If our political leaders are basing their decisions on folklore instead of science, then scientists must step up, organize, and make real noise. It can't be "that's a climatology issue, I'm a chemist."   It can't be "they just won't listen."  It can't be "I don't understand this process and don't have the time to learn it." 

Right now the politicians are blowing scientists off because they can.  Frankly, that's not even close to the worst.   Pretty soon they'll be looking for pots of money to cut the deficit or pay for something else. Guess where they'll find the cash?  Then the textbook re-write parties will migrate to Northern states.

This tide can be turned, but it won't if the community doesn't step up, organize, plan, and make some noise.