Power of framing

In his Monday March 3, 2003 article for “The Guardian”, entitled “Memo Exposes Bush’s New Green Strategy”; quoting from Page 142: “The Environment” of his 2003 Memorandum entitled “Straight Talk: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America”; Oliver Burkeman of the University of Cambridge Christ’s College indicts University of Pennsylvania Adjunct Professor Frank Luntz [B.A., Political Science, University of Pennsylvania] as having been behind the change in terminology from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" [3]:

"Redefining Labels

The mainstream, centrist American now sees the excesses of so-called "environmentalists", and prefers the label "conservationist" instead. These individuals are still clearly 'pro-environment,' but not at the expense of everything else in life. They are the kind of voters who consider the environment as one of a variety of factors in their decision for whom to vote, but not the overriding factor. If we win these people over, we win the debate. It's that simple. The rest is commentary. Most people now recognize that some self-described environmentalists are - in their words - 'extremists.' Thanks to some pretty bizarre behavior, there are some negative connotations that attach themselves to those who promote environmentalism. In particular, Greenpeace and Ralph Nader have an extremist image that turns off many voters. We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with 'global warming'' and ending with environmentalism,'' It's time for us to start talking about 'climate change' instead of global warming and 'conservation ' instead of preservation. 1) "Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming". As one focus group participant noted, climate change 'sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.' While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge. 2) We should be "conservationists", not "preservationists" or "environmentalists". The term "conservationist" has far more positive connotations than either of the other two terms. It conveys a moderate, reasoned, common sense position between replenishing the earth's natural resources and the human need to make use of those resources. "Environmentalist" can have the connotation of extremism to many Americans, particularly those outside the Northeast. "Preservationists", suggests someone who believes nature should remain untouched - preserving exactly what we have. By comparison, Americans see a "conservationist" as someone who believes we should use our natural resources efficiently and replenish what we can when we can. Republicans can redefine the environmental debate and make inroads on what conventional wisdom calls a traditionally Democratic constituency, because we offer better policy choices to the Washington-run bureaucracy. But we have to get the talk right to capture that segment of the public that is willing to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt on the environment -- and they are out there waiting. The words on these pages are tested -- they work! But the ideas behind them -- translated into actions - will speak louder than words. Once Republicans show the public that we are for something positive, not just against existing environmental regulations, we can start to close that credibility gap.” [6]

However, on February 11, 2010, Heritage Foundation Center for Media and Public Policy Associate Director Conn Carroll and Online Membership Program Associate Director Nathaniel Ward [MBA, Gerogetown University McDanough School of Business] (not to be confused with the early 19^th Century English Doctor and Linnean Society of London Fellow) accused the “enviroleft” of doing exactly the same thing:

“No snow, too much snow. It does not matter to the enviroleft crowd. For them, global warming always is to blame. That is the whole reason the movement made a deliberate decision earlier this decade to stop calling it “global warming” and start calling it “climate change.” That way they could expand the universe of terrible things they could plausibly blame on global warming. One British citizen even maintains a comprehensive list of everything the enviroleft has tried to blame on global warming including: Atlantic ocean less salty, Atlantic ocean more salty, Earth slowing down, Earth spinning faster, fish bigger, fish shrinking, and (most importantly) beer better, beer worse.” [4] [7]

Heritage’s Carrol and Ward are referring to a December 5, 2008 article for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center by Erik Conway of the California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory entitled: “What’s In a Name? Global Warming Vs. Climate Change”:

“By any other name…Whether referred to as “global warming” or “climate change”, the consequences of the wide scale changes currently being observed in Earth’s climate system could be considerable.” [5]

In reality, Burkeman, Carrol and Ward are all wrong. As Conway points out for NASA, the phrases “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” were first used interchangeably in an article by G. Unger Vetlesen Foundation Vetlesen Prize-winning Columbia University Columbia College Department of Earth and Environmental Science Earth Institute Lamont –Doherty Earth Observatory Newberry Professor of Geology Wallace Broecker [B.A., Physics, Columbia University Columbia College; Ph.D., Geology, Columbia University]  in the August 8, 1975 Volume 189 Number 4201 of the journal “Science” [Pages 460-463], entitled “Climatic Change: Are We On the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” [2]. The same wording was later adopted by Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorologist Jule Charney [Ph.D., Physics, University of California—Los Angeles] in his July 23-27, 1979 National Research Council Climate Research Board report for the Nation Academy of Sciences Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences: “Carbon Dioxide And Climate: A Scientific Assessment” [1].    

1.      Arakawa, A.; Baker, D.; Bierly, E.; Bolin, B.; Bouadjemi, D.; Bretherton, F.; Chen, R.; Charney, J.; Clewell, D.; et. Al. “Carbon Dioxide: A Scientific Assessment: Report of an Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate”. National Academy of Sciences. July 23-27, 1979. Page VII. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12181&page=R1 http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf  

2.      Broecker, Wallace. “Climatic Change: Are We On The Brink Of A Pronounced Global Warming?” Science Volume 189 Number 4201. Augusts 8, 1975. Pages 460-463. http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf  

3.      Burkeman, Oliver. “Memo Exposes Bush’s New Green Strategy”. The Guardian. Monday March 3, 2003. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

4.      Carroll. Conn. “Global Warming—Is There Anything It Can’t Do?” The Daily Signal. February 11, 2010. http://dailysignal.com/2010/02/11/morning-bell-global-warming-is-there-anything-it-cant-do/   

5.      Conway, Erik. “What’s In a Name? Global Warming Vs. Climate Change” The National Aeronautics and Space Administration. December 5, 2008. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

6.      Luntz, Frank. “The Environment: A Cleaner Safer, Healthier America”. “Straight Talk”. 2002. Pages 131-146. https://www2.bc.edu/~plater/Newpublicsite06/suppmats/02.6.pdf

7.      Ward, Nathaniel. “Global Warming Hysteria Strikes Again”. The Heritage Foundation. February 11, 2010. http://members.myheritage.org/site/MessageViewer?dlv_id=17221&em_id=13181.0