“Over increasingly large areas of the United States spring now comes unheralded by the return of birds, and the early mornings are strangely silent where once they were filled with the beauty of bird song.”

Rachel Carson wrote those words in her classic book, Silent Spring, published September 27, 1962.

It’s an ironic coincidence that just as we’re celebrating the 50th anniversary of her warning on the unforeseen harm caused by pesticides, we’re experiencing the unforeseen harm caused by fossil fuel combustion – an even graver threat to humans and the biosphere (see “An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts“).

If we stay near our current emissions path, by century’s end, the outdoors may be strangely silent in the summer in large parts of this country and the world, as most species may well be extinct and most (remaining) humans and animals stay indoors (see NASA’s Hansen: “If We Stay on With Business as Usual, the Southern U.S. Will Become Almost Uninhabitable”).

And yet the story of the century gets dwindling media coverage, at most token mention by the president, and, tragically, no mention at all in the highly watched Presidential debates.

Adam Fetcher, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, “defended the president’s silence on climate change during Tuesday’s debate” in an email to The Hill Wednesday:

“Whether it’s on the stump or at the White House, President Obama has long focused on ways to develop clean energy as a core economic pillar. By advocating for the growth of renewable energy, as he did in Tuesday’s debate, President Obama has continually called for action that will address the sources of climate change”….

Fetcher said the differences between Obama and Romney on energy should indicate which candidate is more devoted to mitigating the effects of climate change.

“While Mitt Romney questioned the science behind climate change and mocked it in his convention speech, President Obama will continue to make the case for cleaner American sources of energy that will create jobs and fight climate change,” Fetcher said.

Obama has been widely criticized for this self-imposed gag order on climate. For instance, the great climate journalist Elizabeth Kolbert had a piece yesterday in the New Yorker on this:

CLIMATE CHANGE, THE DEBATE’S GREAT UNMENTIONABLE

… the President could never quite bring himself to discuss why it might not be a good idea to burn every gallon—or cubic foot—of fossil fuels we could conceivably bring to the earth’s surface. In the midst of what will almost certainly be the warmest year on record [in the U.S.], climate change has become to the Obama Administration the Great Unmentionable, or, as the blogger Joe Romm has put it, The-Threat-That-Must-Not-Be Named.

The problem with the sort of energy debate we saw on Tuesday is not just that it’s fatuous, though it certainly is that. The problem is that you can’t solve a problem if you don’t even acknowledge it exists. The true challenge facing the next President is not how to bring down gas prices, which may or may not come down as a result of global trends. It’s how to move beyond the tired arguments of the past and act as if the future matters.

In the case of climate change, silence isn’t golden, it is fool’s golden!

The Post Carbon Institute named climate hawk Paul Gilding a “Climate & Business Fellow” last week. But how could PCI best draw attention to that?

Tod Brilliant, PCI’s Strategy & Communications Director, had just finished my book, Language Intelligence: Lessons on Persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga. It has a long discussion of the importance of headline-writing in successful online communications and the importance of using the figures of speech in those headlines.

Brilliant was inspired to come up with this gem of irony for the news release: “Obscure Expert Joins Little Known Think Tank to Battle Issues Most Prefer to Ignore.”

The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media liked it so much, they did an entire post on it, “Seen a Better Headline than This One from Post Carbon Institute? Not Likely.” They say of this “satirical headline” that “It’s a sure way to attract attention, perhaps even some news coverage, for a release that otherwise would have landed with just a thud.”

The whole point of the figures of speech is to be memorable: They were, after all, developed by the great bards like Homer to help them remember long epic poems — and to make the epics memorable to listeners.

That’s why probably 90% of the most famous and memorable quotes use one or more of the figures, particularly puns, antithesis, irony, metaphor and the various figures of repetition (from alliteration to rhyme).

Satire uses irony and/or sarcasm — both figures — to make its point. I have a whole chapter in my book on “Irony: The Twist We Can’t Resist from Socrates to Seinfeld.” Kierkegaard famously said “no authentic human life is possible without irony. I argue in the chapter that “irony is a defining  feature of the great political orators” and “the defining feature of the great stories to the ages and our own pop culture.”

And in case you were wondering, the use of synonyms like “obscure” and “little known” in the headline is also a figure, synonymia.

Of course, we at Climate Progress are fans of Paul Gilding and have interviewed him and reported on him many times (see “The Earth Is Full”: Tom Friedman on “The Great Disruption”). But to attract wider attention, the figures certainly help.

We use the figures as much as we can here. An analysis I did of our 2011 headlines found that a high proportion of the ones that get retweeted the most use the figures. But that’s for another post.

Language Intelligence is for anyone who wants to stand out from the crowd, who wants to communicate more effectively, who wants to write headlines or tweets that people remember.

You can buy the Kindle here and the paperback here.

If only team Obama had a powerful metaphor to undercut Romney’s effort to Etch-A-Sketch himself into a middle-class-loving moderate.

Oh wait, they do. But even though the Romney campaign has apparently changed its losing strategy of being an “extreme conservative,” team Obama has so far failed to respond with the obvious, winning strategy — labeling Romney the Etch-A-Sketch candidate for attempting to erase his numerous unpopular policy positions and redraw himself as a centrist.

Back in March, Romney strategist Eric Fehrnstrom made what was, until the “47%” video, the political gaffe of the year. He was asked about how his boss’s politics might change after he gets the nomination. “I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign,” Fehrnstrom said, “Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”

Romney’s effort to recast himself with myriad untruths in the first presidential debate revealed that indeed Fehrnstrom was telling the truth.

I’ve been interested in this gaffe for two reasons. First, climate and energy are two of the major areas where Romney has shaken his position and started again — see, for instance, “Another Etch A Sketch Moment: In 2006, Romney Supported High Gasoline Prices To Discourage Consumption.”

In June, the NY Times had a scathing editorial, “Energy Etch A Sketch.” They point out that after Romney erased all the sensible energy and climate policies he had as governor, today “the policies he espouses would be devastating for the country and the planet.”

In last week’s debate, Romney said, “I love coal.” I guess it’s like one of those TV sitcom or movie romcom love affairs that began with really intense dislike, since back in 2003, then Governor Romney attacked coal jobs that “kill people.”

Second, my new book on persuasive communications – Language Intelligence: Lessons on Persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln and Lady Gaga — examines effective messaging, political gaffes, and the role of the figures of speech.

Read more

Betsy Taylor of Breakthrough Strategies & Solutions has put together an excellent messaging guide on climate and clean energy, “Climate Solutions for a Stronger America.”

She first “commissioned a national survey of likely voters to determine how leaders can engage and win on climate and energy in key races around the country.” She then consulted with leading communications experts to weave together a coherent narrative from the threads of those findings.

Readers know I’m a big believer in coherent narratives. Taylor’s guide is a must-read.

Here is more on the three major messages:

Key Finding 1: Extreme Weather

Voters have taken note of the nation’s unusual and severe weather—the tornadoes, heat waves, wildfires, and drought. The public clearly gets that something is going on with the climate because they see it in their own lives and on the news. Some are still uncertain about the causes of climate disruption, but three out of four now recognize it is real

Underlying Value: Responsibility

Message: We can’t ignore the increasingly severe weather: It’s already causing billions in damage and looks like it’s only getting worse. We owe it to our kids to protect them and their futures, and that means addressing climate change before it becomes irreversible. Running away from tough problems only makes them worse.  That’s not how America works. We need to implement common sense strategies now. We know what’s right, we know how to implement clean energy solutions, and we know that reducing fossil fuel dependence will make America stronger. It’s time to step up and get it done

Talk about current and recent weather. Spend less time talking about what may happen in the future and more on severe weather and impacts happening now. Use local examples, but also refer to the wildfires, drought, and major storms that have been in the national news.

Introduce “climate disruption.” Begin to use “climate disruption” instead of climate change when speaking about extreme weather and local impacts. “Disruption” makes it slightly harder for people to dismiss unusual events as being caused by natural weather cycles.

Focus on destructive weather, not just heat. Destructive, costly, and unpredictable weather events are more unsettling to voters than just record high temperatures. Voters do connect higher temperatures to destructive wildfires and drought.

Talk about kids and grandkids. In America, we put families first and that means making sure we leave a healthy, secure world for our kids and grandkids.In early August, the nation’s top climate scientist at NASA reported that things are going to get worse and that climate change must be addressed now if we want to make sure our kids have a safe future.

Message Pivot: Use the message triangle to link to messages grounded in the other two core messages of patriotic pride (#2) and accountability (#3). “We have a responsibility to act, and American ingenuity can drive the solutions.  It’s time to break the stranglehold that Big Oil and Coal has on Washington – a stranglehold that is preventing us from taking action on climate change.

Certainly it’s key to focus on increasingly extreme weather since we know linking that trend to climate change is scientifically accurate — see “Trenberth on How To Relate Climate Extremes to Climate Change” – and since it resonates with people:

• Poll: Majority of Americans Understand Global Warming Worsens Extreme Weather and Want Nation to Act
• Poll: Americans’ Understanding of Climate Change Increasing With More Extreme Weather, Warmer Temperatures

Here’s the second finding, on solutions:

Read more

I will focus on a “speaking secret” in my Sunday updates on “Language Intelligence“ – which has been the #1 Kindle book on “public speaking” since it came out in mid-August. Award-winning writer Sean Otto said in his review, “If you want to win the argument, in politics, in business, in life, Language Intelligence is an essential, entertaining and inspiring weapon in your arsenal of letters.” This post reviews why you shouldn’t repeat a myth you are trying to debunk.

President Obama’s failure to speak out repeatedly on the urgency of climate action is his biggest communications mistake. If our leaders don’t talk about an issue, it generally won’t become sufficiently salient for either the media or the public.

But Obama’s statement at the Democratic convention — responding to Romney’s mockery of his 2008 pledge of climate action — also contained a classic messaging mistake:

And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax.  More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke.  They’re a threat to our children’s future.  And in this election, you can do something about it.

The social science literature is quite clear that repeating a myth is not the best way to debunk it. Indeed, there is evidence that it can actually end up promoting that myth.

It’s why linguist George Lakoff titled his best-selling book, Don’t think of an elephant. If I say that to you, you will think of an elephant. Negatives carry very little rhetorical weight. In this case, the word “hoax” is very strong and memorable and is not one that should be repeated by those who understand the realities of climate science.

Read more

Meteorologist Dan Satterfield reviews Language Intelligence at his AGU blog:

If you are in any way involved in communication, especially science communication, this book is a must read. Rarely do I finish a book and like it so much, that I reread it almost immediately. I did this one.

Everyone can become a more memorable and effective speaker because there is really just one big secret to being a memorable speaker — knowing how and when to use the figures of speech, especially metaphor, antithesis, and the various types of repetition.

Of course a great speaker like Bill Clinton is a master of the figures. In his 1996 acceptance speech, he created an optimistic metaphor for his second term: “We need to build a bridge to the future….  So tonight let us resolve to build that bridge to the twenty-first century.” He repeated the bridge metaphor in various forms two dozen times.

In his Wednesday night speech for Obama, widely considered the best speech of both conventions, Clinton repeated the word “arithmetic” six times to drive home his point that the Republican budget doesn’t add up. He had lines like:

I want to nominate a man who’s cool on the outside but who burns for America on the inside.

This is antithesis—placing words or ideas in contrast or opposition. It was one of Lincoln’s favorite figures, in unforgettable lines such as “the world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here” and “with malice toward none, with charity for all.”

Probably 90% of the lines in books of famous quotations make use of one or more of the figures. The two biggest sources of famous quotes –  the King James Bible and the works of Shakespeare — were written by Elizabethans who learned more than 200 figures of speech in school. They called it “grammar school” for a reason. You learned Latin grammar to read Latin writers like Cicero and Virgil, especially to learn what they knew about the figures.

Research by social scientists and Madison Avenue has shown that the figures are indeed the key to being memorable and persuasive, as I discuss in my book, Language Intelligence: Lessons on Persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln and Lady Gaga. That’s why a major study of print ads found that three-fourths of ad headlines use figures of speech.

Obama’s most memorable speech was his keynote at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. It was a textbook in rhetoric:

Read more

JR: In this weekend update on Language Intelligence, Bill McKibben explains why the book has been endorsed “so enthusiastically” by people “from Van Jones to Al Gore.”

What Gaga & Lincoln Have in Common: A Review of Joe Romm’s Language Intelligence

by Bill McKibben via HuffPost

You may wonder why so many progressive leaders — from Van Jones to Al Gore — are lining up to endorse Joe Romm’s new book.

In part, of course, it’s because we admire what he’s done at Climate Progress. He’s not just turned it into by far the most important blog about climate science — he’s modeled the way forward for focused blogs of all types. And he’s done it despite the fact that climate science can be difficult, technical, and depressing: his skill as a writer and editor is to clarify, to repeat, to make vivid.

Which leads us to this book, and the other reason people are endorsing it so enthusiastically. We know that progressives haven’t been very good at what (dully) we call “messaging.” We’ve watched for years as a string of right-wing mediocrities have somehow convinced millions of people to vote against their interests and for the policies that have led to both economic inequality and ecological peril. The only thing they’ve had going for them is a command of some of the simple, deep, and time-honored techniques that Romm describes in this fascinating new book.

Rhetoric used to be one of the standard subjects for any educated person. Techniques like “anaphora” and “chiasmus” were the staples of any preacher or politician — Lincoln knew what he was doing. Now, when they’re employed, it’s by instinct or accident; hence Lady Gaga.

But Romm’s simple volume will let anyone in on the secrets. You may not be a Demosthenes overnight, but there aren’t many Demosthenes out there. All you have to be is better than some blow-dryed fellow with a list of GOP talking points. And that’s well within your grasp, as long as you’ve got your hands on this book.

JR: You can buy the Kindle here and the paperback here.

AP Photo

I have a piece at Time.com comparing the speechmaking of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

I use the three criteria for a good speech based on my review of the greatest speeches in history in my book, Language Intelligence: Lessons on Persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln and Lady Gaga. The most memorable and effective speeches make use of:

1. Short words
2. Repetition
3. Key figures of speech, especially metaphor

As I note in the article and my book, a 2005 study examined the use of metaphors in inaugural addresses of three dozen presidents who had been independently rated for charisma. The conclusion: “Charismatic presidents used nearly twice as many metaphors (adjusted for speech length) than non-charismatic presidents.” When students were asked to read a random group of addresses and highlight passages they viewed as most inspiring, “even those presidents who did not appear to be charismatic were still perceived to be more inspiring when they used metaphors.”

You’d need Superman’s ears to hear either Obama or Romney use an inspirational metaphor, let alone repeat it. This may be the single biggest failing in Obama’s campaign. His recent slogans, “winning the future” and “forward” are blandly literal and literally bland. Romney is no better.

The bottom line:

Obama may be credited as being a great speechmaker, but for most of his first term, he apparently left much of his speech-writing to people who aren’t very good at it. Fortunately for Obama, presidential elections are graded on a curve, and he just needs to have superior language intelligence to Romney, who could use a serious lesson in language arts.

You can read the whole thing here.

By Chris Mooney

I don’t normally do this. But right now, I am going to come out and gushingly endorse a book: Climate blogger Joe Romm’s Language Intelligence: Lessons on Persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga.

Everybody who cares about why science doesn’t get through to the public should read it.

Basically, it is a powerful treatise on the neglected art of rhetoric, the technique mastered by Shakespeare, Lincoln, and the writers of the King James Bible. As an English major, I particularly delighted in Romm’s discussion of figures of speech and how they make orators persuasive by allowing them to activate people’s emotions. Indeed, as Romm writes, modern neuroscience now confirms what the poets always knew about getting to people’s heads through their hearts (that’s a metaphor, by the way–one of the chief techniques that Romm discusses).

If you ever want to understand why scientists fare so poorly getting their message across–and why liberals lose policy debates and, often, presidential campaigns–this is also the book for you. In essence: too much higher education, too much wonk sophistication, destroys the common language simplicity of good rhetoric and makes you less persuasive.

Romm–quite-self consciously–uses powerful rhetoric himself to get the point across. And he shows how, slowly, climate researchers are coming to recognize the power of figures of speech–comparing global warming’s influence on the weather to a batter on steroids who hits more home runs, for instance, or to the loading of dice.

You can order the book here. Romm [was] my guest on Point of Inquiry, and we talk a great deal more about all of the book.

– Chris Mooney via ScienceProgress. Mooney is the author of four books, including the bestseller The Republican War on Science.