Climate Shift Unintentionally Proves Enviros Far Outspent By Opponents of Climate Bill

Prof. Matthew Nisbet of American University has written an error-riddled, self-contradictory, demonstrable false report, Climate Shift: Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate [big PDF here]. The 99-page report's two central, but ridiculous, claims are:

1. The environmental movement outspent opponents during the climate bill debate.
2. Media coverage of climate change has become balanced and was not a factor in the defeat of the cap-and-trade bill.

The report makes these untenable claims in order to shift the blame for the bill's failure to climate scientists, environmentalists, foundations, and most especially Al Gore.

None of the report's major conclusions can stand the light of day, particularly those two. Climate Shift is not a revisionist history. It is a counterfactual history.

Now I don't think progressives have tried hard enough to explain why the climate bill failed -- including what we and our allies did wrong -- leaving the door open for bogus analysis. So in a series of posts, I will not merely refute every aspect of Nisbet's paper, I will try to explain what in fact did go wrong (and right) -- and why. This post will serve as an overview of the paper's myriad flaws.

The bombshell is that Dr. Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University had his name pulled off the report's list of expert paid reviewers late last week when he finally saw the whole finished report -- and he returned Nisbet's check. In an exclusive series of interviews, Brulle, whom the NYT called "an expert on environmental communications, explained to me that "I think it is really bad and I don't want to be associated with it."

Brulle told me the study has "many flaws," and "selectively used the literature." Indeed, Brulle, who is past chair of the Environment and Technology section of the American Sociological Association, says "I gave him refereed articles that countered his thesis and he ignored them."
Nisbet's Financial Misanalysis

• Nisbet in the Executive Summary: "The national environmental groups working on climate change have closed the financial gap with their longstanding opponents among conservative think tanks, groups and industry associations."
• Brulle: "I say 'no' and Nisbet's own data contradicts that statement."

Brulle took me through Nisbet's financial analysis -- the report's big 'news hook' -- to explain how Nisbet's own data proves the exact opposite of his main conclusion. Nisbet's own data proves environmentalists were outspent at least 4-to-1 on advertising and beaten 10-to-1 on election spending.

Brulle pointed out one "extremely dubious assumption" that will make your head explode. Nisbet counted the entire lobbying budget on all issues from major corporations like BP, Bank of America, GE, and ConocoPhillips, in the total of what was "representative of the capacity for power and influence" that the environmentalists supposedly had to bring to bear on the climate bill debate. Lobbying experts I spoke to said it was a "complete joke" to think companies like BP spent any signficant amount of its lobbying budget pushing for the climate bill.

Even with this assumption, Nisbet's numbers show that opponents held a spending edge in lobbying. But absent this absurd assumption, Nisbet's own numbers would suggest opponents of the bill had more than 10 times the lobbying muscle of environmentalists.

Nisbet asserts, "The analysis of lobbying expenditures is based on data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics." Yet, last August, Open Secrets blog, which investigates money in politics, published "Pro-Environment Groups Outmatched, Outspent in Battle Over Climate Change Legislation," which concluded, "the oil and gas industry unleashed a fury of lobbying expenditures in 2009, spending $175 million -- easily an industry record -- and outpacing the pro-environmental groups by nearly eight-fold, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis."

Since that eight-fold ratio is not inconsistent with Nisbet's (corrected) numbers, it stands as the most plausible estimate until something far more thorough is published in the peer-reviewed literature.

Brulle said that after his detailed review of the financial data, "My overall analysis is that the rest of the report eviscerates the executive summary." This afternoon I'll publish a detailed reanalysis of the financial data.

Nisbet's Media Misanalysis

I interviewed a number of experts about this report, including Max Boykoff, one of the country's leading authorities on the media coverage of climate. Boykoff was also a paid expert reviewer, and, like Brulle, he also didn't see the finished report or Executive Summary until it was also distributed to the press late last week.

• Nisbet in Exec Sum: "The era of false balance in news coverage of climate science has come to an end. In comparison to other factors, the impact of conservative media and commentators on wider public opinion remains limited."
• Max Boykoff: "This particular conclusion reaches beyond the findings in the study."
• Brulle: "I think this conclusion is bogus."

So the second, shaky pillar of Nisbet's analysis is built on quicksand.

What's unfortunate is that, according to Boykoff, Nisbet did an interesting, but narrow piece of research that "just looked at media coverage surrounding the human contribution to climate change" and the reality of climate change in a few print and online news sources, but not television. That said, Boykoff explained to me that he stands behind his 2010 analysis that "exaggeration of outlier voices ["denialism"] continues within the U.S. media" (see Boykoff on "Exaggerating Denialism). Both he and Brulle believe the impact of the disinformation campaign and media miscoverage can't be dismissed. Many other experts ignored by Nisbet agree.

Amazingly, Nisbet, who doesn't do any analysis of his own on the impact of Fox News, repeatedly asserts that watching Fox News has no net impact on viewers since but merely reinforces the views of those who choose to watch it (p. 66):

... the use of conservative media outlets such as Fox News and focusing events such as Climategate tend to reinforce existing views about climate change rather than altering them.

The problem for Nisbet is that both of the major papers he cites on the subject come to a different conclusion. In particular, he cites a study led by Jon Krosnick of Stanford, "Frequent Viewers of Fox News Are Less Likely to Accept Scientists' Views of Global Warming." Nisbet claims this is an accurate reading of the paper (p. 67):

Krosnick attributes the findings to motivated reasoning. Conservative-leaning individuals who already hold stronger doubts about climate change are more likely to view Fox News, and this viewing reinforces these doubts.

But that isn't what Krosnick concludes, as anyone can see. Krosnick notes that his "Figure 1 shows how more exposure to Fox News was associated with less endorsement of the views of mainstream scientists about global warming," and says while he can't know for sure whether people were persuaded by Fox or selectively chose Fox:

We therefore suspect that the relations documented in Figure 1 are likely to result from a combination of persuasion by Fox News coverage and of selective exposure by Republicans and conservative viewers to Fox News.

Nisbet himself correctly notes that the second study he cites, "Climate on Cable: The Effects of Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC on Global Warming Beliefs and Perceptions," led by Feldman found that "the views of Republicans on climate change may be less solidified than Democrats, thereby making them more easily influenced by the content of cable news," specifically Fox News. In fact, Feldman's study itself explicitly says its findings are "suggestive of direct persuasion, whereby the views of conservative-Republicans are reflective of the cable news outlet they watch."

So the two key papers Nisbet cites find that the viewers of Fox News' biased climate coverage are less likely to accept scientists' views of global warming -- and that direct persuasion appears to have played a role in shifting their views. So much for his Exec Sum assertion "The era of false balance in news coverage of climate science has come to an end." For more background on why Nisbet's claim is absurd, see "Foxgate: Leaked email reveals Fox News boss Bill Sammon ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science."

Also, you have to wait until page 57 for Nisbet to briefly mention journalists Eric Pooley's devastating analysis of how the U.S media miscovered the economic debate over climate change in 2007 and 2008. Nisbet notes, "Pooley strongly criticized his colleagues for balancing the assessment provided by academic economists and nonpartisan agencies with the exaggerated economic impacts claimed by many conservative organizations and Republican leaders." Indeed, as I reported, Pooley concluded, "The media's decision to play the stenographer role helped opponents of climate action stifle progress." He found, "The press misrepresented the economic debate over cap and trade" and "The press allowed opponents of climate action to replicate the false debate over climate science in the realm of climate economics."

There are many other biases in coverage that Nisbet's 99-page report ignores entirely, which I'll cover in a separate post. One of the most obvious is simply the overall collapse in coverage of the story of the century (see, for instance, the work of both Brulle and Boykoff cited in Media herd's coverage of climate change "fell off the map" in 2010).

UPDATE: MediaMatters further debunks Nisbet's media analysis here: "Report Glosses Over Media Failures In Climate Coverage."
Nisbet Goes After Gore

Nisbet writes head-exploding stuff about Al Gore:

• Nisbet in Exec Sum: "Gore has consistently sought to mobilize progressives politically, pairing his messages about climate science with attacks on Republicans."
• Boykoff: "I don't agree with that statement."
• Brulle: "His claim about the role of Vice President Gore has no valid empirical data behind it."

Another counterfactual. Gore reached out to Republicans in his famous WE campaign -- remember Gingrich and Pelosi on the couch. Many major Republicans, including Gingrich in 2007, supported cap-and-trade before flip-flopping in 2009, suggesting it was something other than Gore's advocacy to blaim (see Tim Pawlenty: "Every one of us" running for president has flip-flopped on climate change).

"The discussion of Al Gore ignores basic scholarship on the climate denial efforts, and supports an ideological position that is not grounded in an empirical analysis," as Brulle put it to me. In a later post on Gore, I'll show how Nisbet ignores facts and mis-cites scholarship on this subject to make his case. Nisebet's counterfactual report should be retitled Blame Shift.

In the report, Nisbet actually calls the Nobel-Prize winning former VP 'the Goracle' -- "the media widely speculated as to whether the Goracle would run for president" (p. 65) -- which Brulle considers "totally unprofessional."

Later Nisbet writes of "Gore's divorce and news stories alleging sexual misconduct" and how it "contributed to a 14 percent drop in his favorability (see Figure 4.2)"! Seriously. For the record, Gore is separated, one of countless small, but telling mistakes that accompanying the large blunders in Nisbet's report.

The ideology Nisbet is pushing is The Breakthrough Institute's, as we'll see in a later post. And like TBI, we have someone who seems to be an environmentalist launching a trumped up attack on the role of environmentalists and Gore in the climate bill -- with a report and major media briefing right before Earth Day to maximize media coverage and media sensationalism.

What the Study's Press Advisory Tells Us

Consider what happened when Nisbet sent out the embargoed report to the media (not CP, though) along with a press advisory. NY Times opinion blogger Andy Revkin immediately ran the press advisory on his Tumblr page (his headline):

13th April 2011

Greens Far Outspent Fossil Fans in Cap-Trade Fight

Most intriguing press advisory of the day (same was true with California climate-bill ballot initiative):

For Immediate Release
In Cap and Trade Fight, Environmentalists Held Spending Edge Over Opponents, New Report Finds

American University Study is First to Compare Funding, Media Coverage and Strategy of Green Groups and Industry-Linked Organizations

Web Media Briefing April 19, 2011, 2:00pm ET....

Washington, D.C. - New research counters the commonly-held view that cap and trade legislation failed because of the spending advantages of opponents and false balance in news coverage.

The report, Climate Shift: Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate, will be released April 19 by American University Professor Matthew Nisbet, Ph.D.

Nisbet will host a web-based media briefing on Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.

The study is the first to systematically analyze the financial resources, strategies, communication activities and impacts of those advocating for action on climate change and to draw comparisons to those opposing action among conservative groups and industry....

As you can see, the claim in the release -- "New research counters the commonly-held view that cap and trade legislation failed because of the spending advantages of opponents and false balance in news coverage" -- is disputed by two of the five original reviewers, is eviscerated by the data in the report, and is inconsistent with a number of studies that Nisbet cites (and miscites).

The headlines of the press advisory and of Revkin's reposting tell you what the news hook for this study is -- the financial (mis)analysis.

And these quotes on the shifting characterizations of the funding "gap' between environmental groups and the opposition tell you all you need to know about how this study is being over spun to the media and how it might be wildly overspun by the media:

• Full Report (p. 1): "As the analysis indicates, the environmental movement has made sizable gains in closing the spending gap with their conservative and industry opponents."
• Exec Sum (p. 2): "The national environmental groups working on climate change have closed the financial gap with their longstanding opponents among conservative think tanks, groups and industry associations."
• Press Release headline: "In Cap and Trade Fight, Environmentalists Held Spending Edge over Opponents, New Report Finds."
• Revkin's headline for Tumblr: "Greens Far Outspent Fossil Fans in Cap-Trade Fight."

Yet Revkin routinely accuses others of exaggerating the findings of reports or being too quick to jump on one single new study without checking it with independent experts or other studies!

Updated Final Note: In the original embargoed report [big PDF here], on the very first page, we can see Nisbet trying to give his treatise the veneer of scholarship by assembling an expert panel of paid "formal reviewers," which he states was done "to make sure that the report meets the highest standards for rigor, evidence and accuracy." Brulle withdrew his name in part because he does not believe the report meets any of those standards. Nisbet later revised this section, but the veneer remains. I was sent the (slightly) revised report [big PDF here].

As an important aside, normally I would not break be the first to break an embargo, even for a report that was sent to me by a third-party. But once it became clear how the analysis was being misrepresented to the media, and how the media itself might further misrepresent the supposed findings -- as Revkin's Tumblr posting makes clear -- I realized that if I waited until the report was released, there was a good chance that extremely erroneous stories would be written. Since I had no idea who the report and press material were sent to, the only way to be sure it was widely seen was to do this post.

I have no doubt the right wing media, whose impact Nisbet discounts, will take up his misinformation unquestioningly. I hope the traditional media dig harder based at least in part on the reporting and sources in this post.

 

Comments

[rlclark65]

01:56 AM on 04/22/2011

You know, the climate is changing. It always has and always will. 100000 years ago north America was covered in ice, glaciers came down past Illinois and NY. But the science blaming it on CO2 emissions is weak and the worst kind of science. I know I am a scientist. there are solar cycles, solar flares, volcanic activity all proven in the past to have huge long lasing impacts on our environment.

Do I believe the 7 billion people and associated infrastructure is affecting the climate in some way? Sure, I would be a fool to believe we have no impact. The question, is it all that bad? Humans have struggled to control our environment since we've existed. We re-route rivers, build reservoirs, build houses with heating and cooling and make it daytime at night, insecticides and fertilizer make us able to feed billions. We affect the world in so many ways but is that bad? Would we go back to living in caves?

What humans have done is wonderful and at times scary but overall I like where we are. I think in general we are pretty good tenants. Do we have room to improve? Who doesn't. You know a lot of environmentalists think the world without humans would be this serine place where everything is in harmony. Nature isn't that way. Lions kill their prey, carpenter ants devastate forests locusts destroy millions of acres. Nature is destructive but the world is resilient.

[AustinG]

11:20 AM on 04/19/2011

The problem with the numbers that are being used here is that it isn't all that clear who is on what side. Many of the groups that have all of their lobbying counted as against the bill have their own green energy programs. Those types of programs can't exist on their own. They are losers economically unless funded by the government. So is it being honest to count companies with those types of programs as being against the bill?

Again it is the so called green companies and programs that need the government to step in here so that they can survive. Without being able to feed at the government trough wind, solar, and other "renewables" can't compete. They are far more expensive over the life of the power plant. If they weren't they wouldn't need the government to interfere.

[Just19Percent]

10:20 AM on 04/19/2011

"Global climate disruption". I mean, "Climate Change." No, I mean "Global Warming." No, I meant to say, "Global Cooling."

Ahh; the Liberal conceit: it's never the unpersuasive content of the Liberal's message, only the failure of the folks to comprehend it. Poor 19%ers...

[fumes]

08:44 AM on 04/19/2011

''The report makes these untenable claims in order to shift the blame for the bill's failure to climate scientists, environmentalists, foundations, and most especially Al Gore.''

http://uppitywoman08.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/759-al-gore-fire.jpg?w=400&h=296http://uppitywoman08.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/759-al-gore-fire.jpg?w=400&h=296

[jf12]

08:11 AM on 04/19/2011

Nisbet writes terribly. Coupled with his lack of scholarship on the issue, and his obviously bent ethics, his writing should embarrass American University. Has there been any AU statement?

[lbrty 2112]

07:52 AM on 04/19/2011

Given the number of posts, I sense the movement has run out of steam.

[chrisd3]

08:30 AM on 04/19/2011

Or that it wasn't featured prominently on the HP topic pages.

Occam's razor applies.

[fumes]

09:42 AM on 04/19/2011

or in the..

SOTU..

[Trepasky]

08:35 AM on 04/19/2011

Yes the deniers are not getting paid as much to post here anymore.

[MyOwnPerson172]

05:23 AM on 04/19/2011

Ultimately it doesn't matter whether it is human caused, human accelerated, or just human contributed to. It is real and can severely impact human life on Earth. It is too bad that a few corporations and a cadre of i______s can keep us from doing anything that might mitigate its worst effects just for a little more profit and contrarianism.

[hark]

10:52 AM on 04/19/2011

On the contrary, it matters greatly to what extent human activity is responsible for the phenomenon.

[NeverUndecided]

02:19 AM on 04/19/2011

The 1 thing we have to understand is that we must dispense entirely with "growth". It cannot be sustained. We either adopt a minimalist approach, or it's over. Here, for example, is an insane hydro project (and series of projects) that will destroy the Mekong River, taking the food supply for tens of millions with it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/18/mekong-hydropower-xayaburi-laos

[rlclark65]

01:58 AM on 04/22/2011

You know that's the scary part, in a few thousand years we have gone from hundreds of millions of people to 7 billion. Unsustainable, kind of like our national debt.

[SoSad1969]

02:09 AM on 04/19/2011

It's good to know that even people on the right that write these reports don't even check their own work. They then send it to one of their right wing buddies, they don't even vet the report either. They obviously didn't even read it. What, do they send "cliffs notes" along with it? I know 99 pages right? Far too much to read and check. Just copy and paste the subject line and call it good. Math and facts are about as real as a unicorn and the loch ness monster to the average rightey. They want climate change to be a hoax so bad that even the simplest of ideas like looking around is lost to them. Weird weather has been getting progressively worse in the last few years and that's not enough. Faux news and the Koch brothers are doing a good job at keeping the lie which is climate change denial alive. When it's too late these same people will be the first to want to know who's to blame. Small government, cut budgets but yet whine about your roads not being cleared of snow. The hipocracy is epic.

[tinyrainbows]

04:43 AM on 04/19/2011

"It's good to know that even people on the right that write these reports don't even check their own work. They then send it to one of their right wing buddies, they don't even vet the report either."

Why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah...Obamacare. We can get the details after we vote on it.

[MyOwnPerson172]

05:17 AM on 04/19/2011

Even if what you say were true, where is the equivalence that makes it okay for a subject as dire to our life on Earth as our non-reaction to Climate Change?

[Trepasky]

08:36 AM on 04/19/2011

Interesting that health care reform is related to climate change by the right.

[nkurland]

01:26 AM on 04/19/2011

For years we've seen the major oil companies downplay global warming or try to spin new extraction technologies as "environmentally conscious." We've been inundated with "drill baby drill" news coverage that distorts and flat-out lies about the climate emails. Kerry-Lieberman, despite the massive subsidies it contained to exist energy technologies couldn't pass the Senate.

An absolute tidal wave of cash has completely stalled out any momentum for a binding agreement. The environmental movement lacks the cash and infrastructure to compete with the nuclear coal and oil industries.

[DFWBear]

11:35 PM on 04/18/2011

While Global Warming has nearly been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the uncomfortable reality for us progressives is that we are at least a decade or more away from being able to unlock the true effects of this warming due to computing power.

The limits of our computing power force us to making approximations in our models ( particularly with what is known in the HPC industry as 'grid spacing' ) that have routinely come back to bite us in butt when we proclaim something to be factual when it turns out to be false.

This article refutes a dangerous publication, but that dangerous publication will probably be somewhat limited.

Psychologists have shown that the more education some has, the less likely they are too accept an "authoritarian" opinion ( read scientific ) because they are able to come up with counterarguments against it if that fact goes against their political belief. Yes, non-college educated Republicans are less likely to belief a scientists claims about Global Warming than a republican without any college.

And before you go crazy making fun of the teabaggers, remember our side does it to. See: Childhood Vaccines = Autism, and the inflated lunacy over how bad Chernobyl really was.

[billyg223]

09:42 PM on 04/18/2011

Aren't these the same peeps who yelled "GLOBAL COOLING!" back in the '70s? It is all just a political power grab.

BTW, it's no longer "global warming'... it's now "climate change"

It's still a GREAT BIG HOAX!

[mothergrace]

10:27 PM on 04/18/2011

No, they didn't yell about global cooling.

Climate change was a name given to the phenomenon by the right because they thought it sounded less scary than warming.

There is a preponderance of evidence global warming leading to climate change is occurring and we are causing it.

[billyg223]

12:27 AM on 04/19/2011

when you only read things you agree with, you only get half the picture. google "global cooling" and see what you get.

the whole global warming brouhaha is only backed by computer models, and computers say whatever the programmers want them to say. if your income depended on your results, you'd give your funders what they want.

[RDB]

08:06 AM on 04/19/2011

Would you say that the HOAX started with the Nobel Prize winning chemist Svante Arrhenius who in 1896 calculated that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause a 5-6 C increase in global atmospheric temperature? Or would you say it was John Tyndall who made quantitative measurements of the heat trapping capacity of certain gases back in the 1850s? Or would you say it was Jean Bapiste Fourier who first demonstated that certain atmospheric gases trap heat back in the 1820s?

[patches12]

09:28 PM on 04/18/2011

Actually it has nothing to do with money.. it has everything to do with THE TRUTH....

http://www.redwingscentral.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&p=247676

the hysterical hyperbole never ends... and when the dire predictions are way wrong.... you'all just make new ones ... incredible

[tuoteg]

10:19 PM on 04/18/2011

The claim here is that Nisbet's report is filled with lies and errors. Specifically it mentions the claim that the environmental groups outspent their opponents and that the media coverage on climate change is no longer “falsely balanced” against climate change. If you want to defend the report feel free to do so, just don’t go shouting “THE TRUTH” and posting links to far right forums. The truth about human caused climate change is that scientists have proof that it is occurring and that makes a bunch of business interests nervous that they might be asked to make some changes. There is absolutely no valid research or science that disproves human caused climate change. All the opposition is either complicit with the deceit or too dumb and lazy to examine the issue themselves preferring to believe the words and images the pundits are selling. So why don’t you just take your antiscience ideology, go full luddite and leave reasonable people alone.

[Trepasky]

08:38 AM on 04/19/2011

Had a hard time reading the article and instead just posted stuff to promote your perspective.

[lbrty 2112]

07:02 PM on 04/18/2011

Says nothing of the 'spending' associated with the liberal media carrying water for the 'movement'

[jsgaetano]

07:21 PM on 04/18/2011

As opposed to the entire Faux News Channel being built around far right fantasies?

[Genders]

08:43 PM on 04/18/2011

What a great myth: the "liberal media". LOL.

[Javalation]

05:29 PM on 04/18/2011

Regardless of errors and deceits, Nisbet's report will most likely be considered the proof of a vast left wing/scientific conspiracy designed to deceive Americans into believing that human activity has anything to do with weather change. And who would oppose such a conclusion? The people who provide the fuels that emit all of the various gasses and pollutants the scientific studies are finding, or at least contributing greatly, to the aberrant weather changes.

Who woulda guessed?