August 2008

Republicans may be planning a crude surprise for Democrats this October. I mean crude in the sense that it will involve unrefined petroleum.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Ever read a story and think, "I can't believe what I'm reading?" I had that experience this morning when I read this report in USA Today, with the headline 'Psychologists determine what it means to think 'green:'

Armed with new research into what makes some people environmentally conscious and others less so, the 148,000-member American Psychological Association is stepping up efforts to foster a broader sense of eco-sensitivity that the group believes will translate into more public action to protect the planet.

"We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do," says Yale University psychologist Alan Kazdin, association president. "We know what messages will work and what will not."

During a four-day meeting that begins today in Boston, an expected 16,000 attendees will hear presentations, including studies that explore how people experience the environment, their attitudes about climate change and what social barriers prevent conservation of resources….

From one research presentation:

News stories that provided a balanced view of climate change reduced people's beliefs that humans are at fault and also reduced the number of people who thought climate change would be bad, according to research by Stanford social psychologist Jon Krosnick.

His presentation will detail a decade of American attitudes about climate change. His new experiment, conducted in May, illustrates what he says is a public misperception about global warming. He says there is scientific consensus among experts that climate change is occurring, but the nationwide online poll of 2,600 adults asked whether they believe scientists agree or disagree about it.

By editing CNN and PBS news stories so that some saw a skeptic included in the report, others saw a story in which the skeptic was edited out and another group saw no video, Krosnick found that adding 45 seconds of a skeptic to one news story caused 11% of Americans to shift their opinions about the scientific consensus. Rather than 58% believing a perceived scientific agreement, inclusion of the skeptic caused the perceived amount of agreement to drop to 47%.

American Psychological Association leaders say they want to launch a national initiative specifically targeting behavior changes, including developing media messages that will help people reduce their carbon footprint and pay more attention to ways they can conserve. They want to work with other organizations and enlist congressional support to help fund the effort….

I don't think I really need to add any other commentary other than that now the "greening of education" doesn't stop at the grade school-through-college vehicles — it can be legitimately called an all-out propaganda effort that will include brainwashing by psychoanalysts.

Forget about a candid national conversation on energy. As John McCain and Barack Obama campaigned last week, that much seemed clear. To lower oil prices (which were already dropping), Obama proposed releasing 10 percent of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is an atrocious idea. The SPR was intended as insurance against a catastrophic loss of oil from wars, embargoes, terrorism or natural disasters. It should not be manipulated cynically for political advantage. Earlier, McCain suggested suspending the 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal gasoline tax; that was another bad and expedient idea.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

One of the proud proclamations the Center for Climate Strategies makes whenever they start managing a new climate commission for a state is that their "process is fully transparent." That can be challenged on a few different points, and none more so than the issue of how much they get paid to do their work (that is, advance their agenda) for each state and how much the alarmist foundations (like Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Energy Foundation) are paying them.

Exhibit A is with the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group (KEEP), created and populated by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (pictured). If you read the "Process Memo" (PDF) posted at the KEEP site (which lays out the ground rules for the group and its process) you will notice that under the "Project Budget" section there is only this statement: "The estimated CCS budget for completion of startup and completion of the KEEP process covers the core facilitation process and quantification of approximately 50 policy recommendations. Changes in the number of meetings, number of policy options, or type of analysis may reduce or expand the level of budget support needed."

As you can see, no budget numbers there for the public to easily access (as is the case in all states where CCS works).

But take a look at this version (PDF) of the document that I obtained via a public records request from the governor's office. Voila — budget numbers (PDF single page) appear! And CCS will get nearly $554,000 out of the deal, thanks to their global warming alarmist sugar daddies.

So, will a curious Topeka press corps inquire about why there's such secrecy? Will they ask how much the enviro-foundations are each pitching in? Will KEEP leaders demand that CCS (who runs the KEEP Web site) live up to their promise of transparency? Stay tuned.