Pricing Fossil Fuels Out of the Market

That article presents long-anticipated news from Bloomberg Technology that particularly in emerging markets, unsubsidized solar is less expensive than wind or fossil fuels.

Reframing the Message on Climate Change

This Scientific American article takes a while to get to the point made by its headline, but has a great call to action for liberals to shape their message to appeal to the American mainstream.

Educational Engineering

My latest scholarly publication is Chapter 14 of monograph published for the 25th anniversary of the English Teachers’ Association in the Republic of China (ETA-ROC), in November.

Educational Engineering for CALL and MALL, is an invited article on curriculum development, taking an engineering approach to developing outcome requirements and then engineering a theory-based system that will accomplish those outcomes.  The CALL and MALL in the title refers to Computer Assisted Language Learning and Mobile Assisted Language Learning.  But it's all Mass Communication to me.

The overall monograph, Epoch Making in English Language Teaching and Learning, is out in hard copy and CD.  I am not sure when or where it may eventually be available online, other than my pre-press version on ResearchGate.

It may be cited as:

Marek, M. W., & Wu, W. C. V. (2016). Educational Engineering for CALL and MALL. In Leung, Yiu-nam (Ed.), Epoch Making in English Language Teaching and Learning, Twenty-fifth International Symposium on English Teaching, English Teachers’ Association, Republic of China (pp. 115-125).

Geese and Climate Change

The geese used to migrate in late October and early November.  Now they are migrating in December.

They have apparently bought in to the global conspiracy of thousands of scientists created by Mainland China to take money out of the pockets of hardworking billionaires.

Darn geese.

Surprising Realities of Oil Imports and Exports

Why does American export oil at the same time it imports huge quantities?

The economics of oil crude exports and imports are strange. U.S. Oil Exports are Skyrocketing, while at the same time we import 7.3 million barrels of oil a day. Why?

Social Media Activism 2.0

From "The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: 

Divided they blog" by Ladal Adamic and Natalie Glance.  By extension, 

it is an excellent representation of the current understanding of the 

"Echo Chamber" in which people online mainly interact 

with people of similar thoughts and orientations.

Political observers have noted recently that people on social media inhabit an "echo chamber" in which they only talk to themselves. As a result, no matter how much they post, they don't really change people's minds.

Yet, social media is huge in terms of selling stuff and corporations spend a fortune to influence people via social media.

How do we resolve these apparent conflicts into a paradigm for political activism via social media post-2016?

What is social media?

The idea of social networks long predates computers and smartphones.  It is "a social structure made up of people or organizations with one or more specific connection, such as friendship, family, common interests or dislikes, financial exchange, sexual relationships, and relations of belief, knowledge or prestige."

Social media is a technology-mediated social network, i.e. one pursued via electronic communications technology.

The key is that it is a network of relationships, not just information exchange.

What is persuasion?

Persuasion is "communication that is intentionally devised to influence attitudes, beliefs, or actions."  Persuasion, then, is about getting people to behave in ways you desire by appealing to their beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and motivations.

There are MANY ways to persuade (I have taught an entire semester course about persuasion). One of the most powerful, in the context of politics, is appealing to the threat/fear response. This works most effectively when the threat is personal.

How did social media fail in 2016?

To succeed, social media cannot be seen as persuading people directly to do something.  Social media needs to be seen as building relationships that will influence people to engage in a certain behavior.

In practical terms, we need to get people to do something because it is an expectation of the their reference group(s), or to support their group. Therefore, we use social media to forge and strengthen this group identify, and to present actions that align with the group.

when someone already agrees with you, this is not too hard.  When someone disagrees with you, it is much harder, and where you need to draw on psychology and established persuasion techniques.

The decision of which presidential candidate to vote for is a big, high-stakes decision.  Not many people change their minds easily about high-stakes decisions, and people HATE to change their minds, which means admitting that they were wrong.

So, how do we proceed?

We use sequential persuasion, that is, we accomplish our big goal via gaining compliance in a series of smaller persuasive steps.

We start by getting our target audience to agree to a small point that is so easy to accept and so logical that they cannot really object to it. Then we build, getting them to agree to another, and another, and another, each a logical step based on their previous agreement.

Businesses do this all the time in ways that are grounded in consumer psychology. Some typical tactics are:

• Pre-giving – Giving "free" return address labels, meals, etc, to get you in a more receptive frame of mind.
• Foot in the door, or a free consultation.  "We're not here to sell you anything.  We just want to understand your situation more" but in reality we are assembling evidence to use to sell you later.
• "But wait, there’s more” – Adding allegedly free stuff that is really hidden in the price you pay.  You see this in infomercials all the time.
• Lowball – Start with the basic version, but extol the benefits of upgrading.
• Incremental – Provide little bits of additional information at a time.  The dozens of little revelations about governmental surveillance of citizens accomplished this. People accept it now who would not if it all came out at once.

How do we apply this in social media?

We need to apply it top-down. Hundreds of thousands of people trying in uncoordinated ways to gain compliance isn't going to work as well as centralization of the message.  The centralization needs to be based on VERY careful analysis of the mindset and world views of the people who are NOT YET part of the group.

We need to find little points that are relevant to the big issues, and frame them in ways favorable to ourselves, but also that are hard for anybody to disagree with.  Then ask readers who agree to take some easy logical action, like sharing to their friends.

When we can show that it is particularly important based on THEIR frame of reference, we can to ask them to do something bigger, like send an email or make a phone call.

What we are asking may be straightforward and obvious our in-group people, but it may be more challenging for the folks we really want to reach, who are not yet in the group.  This is because they think differently from how we think.

How do I figure out the way the other guys think?

Number one, we listen to them.  Eavesdrop on their own talk and see how they present their logic.

But as I have posted before, there is also research that can help a lot.  It shows:

• Liberals make decisions based on data and analysis.  They are less emotional and more adaptable.  They are more likely to respond to complex information, considering multiple possibilities before making a choice.
• Conservatives make decisions based on fear-driven emotions, emotional attachment to an idea, and group identity.  They want stability, i.e. they resist change. When faced with ambiguity, they have a strong emotional response and are more protective of assets and loved ones.  For them, stability equals predictability, equals more expected outcomes, equals less fear.  They go with the choice that seems least threatening.
• The more conservative you are, the more group loyalty, authority, and purity/sanctity are important to you. The more liberal you are, the more harm/care and fairness are important.

To rally your base, use tactics that appeal to your own way of thinking.  To reach across party lines, you need to employ the kinds of arguments and communication styles that resonate with the other party.  This cross-party thinking can be hard to do, because it is alien to how WE think for ourselves.

If the liberals failed in their use of the "echo chamber" in 2016, it was through NOT framing the issues in ways that would appeal to undecideds (and conservatives) and in NOT employing organized, strategized calls to action.

I haven't seem much post-election change in their strategies, but maybe it is still a work in progress.

Research Milestones

13,000 manuscript reads for my peer-reviewed journal articles and other publications. 2,500 profile views.

A couple of nice milestones this week for my ResearchGate presence.

Indiana Jones and the Deathly Hallows

Indiana Jones and Newt Scamander
(pictures combined under fair use)

How cool would it be if the current Harry Potter universe storyline connecting dark wizards with NAZI Germany could be a crossover with Indiana Jones?

Newt - A typical Hufflepuff

I've seen Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them a couple of times. It was not quite what I expected, but I see exactly what J. K. Rowling was doing with the characters, and I enjoyed it.

Education & Politics

Analysis is going around, concluding that it was education, not income, that predicted who would vote for Trump. This conclusion fits well with research that shows that people become more liberal as their educational level increases.

Why does education make people more liberal?  

In saying this, I am talking about people's foundational beliefs, not simply their political orientation.  But it all fits together.  It is not very common to find a Unitarian Republican.

When a person does not know much about a subject, it is natural to think about it in simple terms.  The more is known about the subject, the more complex and nuanced it appears.  This understanding is domain-specific.  A farmer will have complex understanding of a combine, whereas a concert violinist would likely perceive the combine as a mystery that either works or does not.

But in college, we learn that knowledge is complex and changing, requiring extended work to master.  Someone with less education is likely to see knowledge as simple and fixed, and gained quickly or not at all.

But these are also the deep down world views of liberalism versus conservatism.

The differences are even more pronounced in people with graduate degrees.  When you have to write hundreds of pages and tens of thousands of words on one topic for a doctoral dissertation, there is no way you can understand it in simple, black-and-white terms.

There are many other factors that also affect your liberal versus conservative world view, including your personal experiences and how you were raised.

For the record.....

Around 40% of Americans have a college degree. Another 22% have attended some college but not graduated.  About 12% of Americans have an advanced degree beyond a bachelors.  A little over 3% hold doctorates. In 2016/2017, women are projected to earn 64.2% of associate degrees, 59.9% of bachelor's degrees, 62.9% of master's degrees, and 55.5% of doctorates.

Trump Cups - Bletch

This USA Today story illustrates the self-contradictory campaign of Donald Trump supporters to spend money with Starbucks, but get the baristas to shout the name "Trump" when the order is ready.

In my opinion, fast food restaurants should be shouting out the order number, not somebodies name or food items ordered.

Please, protect the privacy of all of your customers!

The Counter-intuitive Truth: A warmer planet can mean colder weather

We have had our first winter storm where I live in North America.  No doubt it will result in jokes about "we just got three inches of global warming."

But when the Polar Vortex brings colder weather and more snow to northern North America, it really IS the result of a warming planet.  Here's how it works:

Warmer water in the arctic warms the air above it more than in years past.  The North Pole is currently 36 degrees warmer than usual.  The warm air rises, and it is more humid than in years past because of the warmer water.  

When it gets up high, the warmer water moves southward.  As it cools off, and gets even colder than it started because it is up to high.  Being cold, it drops down closer to the planet again, bringing colder air to the surface, where it is pulled back up north to replace the rising air.  This causes cold, humid wind to be felt farther and farther south as warmer and warmer air rises over the North Pole.

But because the planet rotates, the wind doesn't go straight south to north. It rotates around the North Pole, west to east, or counter-clockwise as you look down from above.    

This is exactly what happens with a hurricane, except that it is not at the North Pole.  Warm air rises in the middle (the Eye) and air rushes in from the sides to replace it, rotating around the eye counter-clockwise.  The way the Earth rotates, and the tidal currents, make hurricanes move.  The rotation of the Earth keeps the Polar Vortex in place, centered on the North Pole.

And THAT is how a warming planet can cause colder, snowier winters in parts of North America.  

------------------------------------------------------

Bonus note:  People who really and truly think "it's cold where I am today so the planet can't be warming" are engaging in inductive reasoning, i.e. making broad generalizations based on limited specific observations. This is a logical fallacy.   

Proper deductive reasoning requires a large number of observations (data points) to be merged into a model or framework (theory) that can be used to predict future specific observations within acceptable error.  

How to Talk to the Other Side of the Asile

This Slideshare PPT, from 2015, contains a nice analysis of how Conservatives and Liberals think.

Your brain on politics the cognitive neuroscience of liberals and conservatives

Therefore, it contains ideas to keep in mind when we are communicating with people who think differently than we do.

Distorted News

There has been a lot of talk recently about fake news in social media.  There is some, deliberately intended to deceive, but the much bigger problem is advocacy cloaked as journalism, that distorts the story in order to advocate a particular political or social agenda.

Here are some examples of recent headlines that are probably NOT news:

       It's worse than you think

       The electoral system was rigged — for Donald Trump

       Trump releases seven-point health care reform plan . . . and it's excellent

The secret is understanding whether the source has an editorial bias.  MUCH of what we see coming down our news feeds is actually advocacy for one side or the other.

How do you tell?  It's really not hard.  If the headline or story contains a value judgement or opinion that is NOT attributed to someone, it is advocacy, not journalism (even if it resembles a news story).

The only things that do not need to be attributed in journalistic writing are facts that are "widely known or easily verifiable."  But in promotional writing using journalistic style can stretch this "widely known" criteria to the breaking point, making for the subtle implication that "everybody else knows this but you."

The complicating factor is that you can't just base your evaluation on the publication or website.   Many legitimate news sources also carry editorials, guest columns, and other opinion pieces.

You have to make an article-by-article evaluation!

Super Moon, ya, sure.

Not going out to see the imperceptibly larger than average (7%) so-called "super Moon" tonight?

This is probably my best Moon photo, from a couple of years ago.

Not Very "Super" Moon

Note that the largest the Moon ever appears in the sky is not much bigger than the smallest it ever appears.  The largest is only 14% larger than the smallest.  Average is in the middle.

Hardly anyone would notice a  "Super Moon" if not for social media.

Let's Make People Smart Again.

Image Credit & Copyright: Catalin Paduraru

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap161113.html

Social Media is not about Advocacy

I've seen all kinds of chatter this week, second guessing the presidential election and blaming whoever they can think of for the outcome, including a hefty dose of blaming social media.  But most of this social media blaming is from people who do not understand social media.

Social media is about relationships, not about persuasion.

Social media is about relationships, not about advocacy.

Let me say it again -- social media is about relationships, which is why you are much more likely to see posts that agree with your social, political, and religious orientation.

Not quite seeing the difference?  Let's take a step back.

In the 1990s, visionaries were learning that the Internet was not simply about moving data from place to place.  It was about social relationships. Look at these two Prodigy commercials:  In 1990, it was all about stuff, but by 1995, it was about people.

Facebook and Twitter were created for the express purpose of connecting together people who already knew each other, and people who shared common interests.

When social media evolved to also be about marketing and selling you things, it drew on the fundamental principals of marketing communications, which are giving people information to which they are most likely to be receptive, and minimizing content to which people will react negatively.

This is why the Facebook newsfeed algorithm sends you news about things it believes are your interests.  In politics, this means content (news and advertising) that aligns with your political views.  Note that such advertising usually has a line at the top listing a couple of your friends who also supposedly "like" this content.

See?  Facebook is not only sending you content it thinks you favor, but it is emphasizing your relationships, in effect using your friends to make endorsements.  If you are not sure about a product or service, you are more likely to consider the product or service because people you know appear to like and endorse it.

It is your social relationships that they depend on to persuade you to consider the advertising.

Jack Wagner has pointed out that, because of the way social media works, many people who favored Trump did not really even see the opposition to him.  Many who favored Clinton never saw the opposition to her.

But even more important, they probably saw it, but did not feel any social connection to people espousing it, so discounted it.

Jim Wright observed that neither party is good at reaching out to the other side.

If progressives want to counter all of their feared Trump policy initiatives, they need to find new ways to communicate -- new ways of making contact with people who do not think the way they do, and new ways of explaining their positions in ways people who think differently can relate to.

But the real lesson here is that memes and fake news stories do not persuade people. Peer groups persuade people.  In real life and in social media.

What's next?

I was disappointed by the election results, but I could care less about second-guessing who should have done what differently.

I could care less what MIGHT happen under Trump.  All that speculation is just a distraction.

What I DO care about (as a registered independent) is whether Progressives figure out that the way they have been telling their story hasn't worked.

I DO care about whether Progressives are able to retool their system and tell their story more persuasively to people who do NOT think the way they do.

I DO care about whether Progressives are able to organize in a way they never have before to stymie policy initiatives they don't like.

Business as usual will not cut it.

Technology Assisted Language Learning

One of my scholarly journal articles has just been cited in a paper entitled "Technology Assisted Language Learning is a silver bullet for enhancing Language competence and performance: A Case Study."

The specific citation is:

"Wu, Yen and Marek (2011) explored in their studies the unprecented impact of technology in increasing learners’ motivation for listening to online audio and video resources in order to improve their listening skills. They also found that while listening to online audio and video resources, the ESL learners were found to ward off their hesitation and shyness and try to speak English."

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

Jobs & China

China isn't somehow stealing jobs.

The government isn't somehow sending jobs to China.

American business people are deciding that they can make more money to having products made in China and shipped tot he US than making theme here.

The only way to change that formula is to tax or penalize businesses that contract for overseas manufacturing (and call centers).  Make it too expensive for them.

So, bringing all those jobs back to America means reducing the profit margin for American businesses.

How is reduced profits for business a Republican thing to do?

Educational Technology

One of my academic papers was cited in a conference paper from the 2016 International Symposium on Educational Technology, held 19-21 July in Beijing.

Collaborative Online International Learning: A Case Study between USA and Thailand

What's REALLY going on with NoDAPL

Why are state and local government officials in North Dakota freaking out about peaceful protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline?  It's because the protesters are challenging economic development amidst a tanking state economy, plain and simple.

North Dakota “has been the economic envy of every state in America for most of the past decade” according to Bloomberg. North Dakota had the lowest jobless rate, the highest increase in personal income, and the fastest-growing population, added Bloomberg, the result of the fracked tar sands oil boom that made North Dakota second only to Texas in domestic oil production.

But as you would expect from a boom-and-bust product, the market for North Dakota oil has tried up, the state's economy has collapsed, employment has plummeted, and the state has a $1 billion budget deficit.

Finding more markets for North Dakota oil would help reverse this free-fall. That's where the oil pipelines come in. DAPL says it would create 8,000 to 12,000 local jobs across its route during construction, plus lots of on-going local tax revenue.  It is not surprising that North Dakota officials eagerly want this revenue, and officials in all four states like the idea of income that does not result from taxes on voters.

THAT is why the local authorities are so vehemently on the side of the pipeline company.

As I have said before, I believe we need to get off fossil fuels as a primary energy source.  We need to do this because we are running out, because they cause global warming, and because renewable energy is simply a good idea.

Pollution of drinking water and tribal rights are important, but there is considerably more justification to NOT build new fossil fuels infrastructure.

Fall

Why we sometimes refer to Autumn as "Fall."

(We have two VERY large maple trees in our back yard.)

Russell's Teapot and Climate Change

In 1952, Bertrand Russell wrote that when a claim is made that is not supported by science, the person making the claim has the burden to prove it. Those denying the claim do not have the the burden disprove it.

Russell was writing in the context of religion, i.e. about people believing in God even though science can neither prove or disprove whether God exists, but I have been thinking recently about how this principle works in other settings, like climate change.

Russell said that if he asserts that a teapot orbits the sun between Earth and Mars, too small to observe by any telescope, we would NOT believe him, even though there is no way to disprove that it exists.

Russell held that just because a claim has NOT BEEN disproved does not mean that it IS factual. In fact, if there is no existing way to DISPROVE an assertion, then for all practical purposes, it is NOT true, or so goes Russell's argument.

We have LOTS deniers in America today. Because a scientific finding contradicts their world view, they struggle to undermine the science, in effect to disprove the scientific assertion. Often they use logical fallacies or inductive logic (reaching general conclusions from limited small amounts of data).  They contend that there is a controversy, when there really is not.  However, THEIR assertion that there is doubt is disproved by the preponderance of evidence.

The assertion on the other side of the question is that humans are emitting the greenhouse gases that are changing the climate. Every time the assertion has been tested by a fair scientific evaluation, it turns out to be correct (within small tolerances of error).  So the only avenue available to disprove the science...has not produced evidence of disproof.

The assertion that humans are causing climate change is proved.  The assertion that the science is invalid is disproved.

Ergo, according to Russell's framework we must ACCEPT the scientific conclusion that humans are affecting the climate, and that this affect is undesirable.

Could VALID disproof be discovered in the future?  Scientists are open to new evidence that changes our understanding, but it needs to be powerful to shake the broad and persuasive current evidence, not logical fallacies.

Red-Tailed Hawk

This little Red-tailed Hawk was perched on a power pole as I drove home the other day, down my rural Nebraska highways.

What do the election polls REALLY say?

If you are not watching this site:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com

........you probably should be.

The editor in chief, statistician Nate Silver, successfully called the outcomes in 49 of the 50 states in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election and in 2012, correctly predicted the winner of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Hawk

Autumn is a time when I often see hawks perched along the highway on my daily commute, particularly in the afternoon. This one posed nicely for me a while back. Nikon D5000, 300mm, F5.6, 1/1500th, 200 ISO.

Words that Persuade, and Words that Don't

I see very few words in my social media feeds that support Donald Trump. Some of this just reflects who my friends are, but I also think that many people planning to vote for Trump are reluctant to have it be known they will vote for him.

I have been a registered independent (not affiliated with a party) for almost all of my adult life.  My choice of candidates is based on who I think is best able to perform critical thinking, which is one of my own skills.  I find that candidates who are critical thinkers are likely to share my views on individual policies.

But there are a lot of political words out there that do not come from critical thinking. They are based on rampant logical fallacies or convenience.  "Doctrine", which people in a given party are told they must support, almost always has big logical gaps.

So right now, almost all am seeing are words of ridicule against Trump, which he well deserves.  I am also seeing quite a bit of negativity aimed at Clinton.  In her case, much of it is based on decades of attacks by conservatives, drawing on faulty logic.  In Trump's case, the liberal attacks are mostly based on facts.

So why aren't people planning to vote for Trump coming out and saying they support him?

Some have "drunk the Kool-aid" and insist on voting against Clinton.

But I have concluded that in many cases it is it is because every day, they are experiencing a sort of anonymous criticism because how they plan to vote contradicts the overwhelming majority of factual stories floating around about the candidates.

When we are bluntly criticized, we tend to clam up and get defensive.  We tend to insulate ourselves against such criticism, in this case by simply not talking about it.

Do you have someone in particular you want to persuade?  Do it in person, not via distance technology.  Avoid criticizing the current views of the person.  Begin with areas in which you know you agree and gently move into the grey policy areas between you.  Words have power, but they must be the right words, at the right time, delivered in the right way.

Educational Engineering

Spent the evening galley proofing this invited chapter.

It will be chapter 14 in a "monograph" to be published recognizing the 25th anniversary of the English Teachers’ Association in the Republic of China (ETA-ROC).

Here is the full abstract:

Innovation abounds in the fields of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) and Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL), but recent evidence reveals that innovative instructional designs are often not repeated in subsequent semesters, much less integrated into the permanent curriculum. This “how to” article presents the perspective that educational curriculum and technology design should be treated as an engineering process, i.e. using evidence-based principles to create instructional and technology designs that meet the long-term needs of students and allow them to achieve required outcomes. Factors influencing CALL/MALL teaching are discussed, followed by presentation of educational engineering as a seven-step process – identifying  marketplace requirement goals, determining measurable outcome objectives, choosing theory-based instructional methods, selecting CALL/MALL technology by affordances, developing integrated lesson plans, teaching the class, and evaluating success. Six figures give concrete examples of how the process should work.

Is Kneeling for the national anthem the right time and place?

Around the world of athletics, we are seeing people kneel and presumably pray, rather than standing at attention, hands over their hearts, during the national anthem. They are protesting racial injustice.

At best, the national anthem is a celebration of the brave spirit of those who defended Fort McHenry, and thus the American government, from British attack.  At worst, the national anthem is an automated ritual that most people don't think about, and that is often intertwined with specific political agendas.

So, I have been thinking recently about the folks who believe that American has racial injustice and police brutality, and are making the point by kneeling during the national anthem.

The people who believe this already believe it. Therefore, the message of the athletes is presumably aimed at people who do NOT believe that there is racial injustice, or at least haven't thought about it much.

In marketing communications, we teach that a persuasive message should be crafted such that it receives the most positive response from its audience.  Part of this means understanding the audience well, so you KNOW what will cause them to respond positively.  Part of it means deliberately keeping elements out of the message which might cause people to react negatively.

In addition, while I completely support the right of the athletes to their free speech, I think that it is a valid expectation that we exercise our free speech on our own time, not on-the-clock with our employer or volunteer organization we represent, etc.  When we are being paid by an employer or in a volunteer capacity for a non-profit organization, ethics requires us to represent the best interests of that employer or organization.

When we are off-the-clock, we can fully exercise our right to free speech, making clear that we are speaking for ourselves.  This is particularly important for professional athletes and other celebrities who are closely associated in the minds of the public with a team, business, or organization.

So what about the fundamental message of the athletes?

I agree that there are big problems of racial injustice and inequality in the United States.  A lot of the rhetoric about these issues is based on logical fallacies.  We need to address the problems, but the way democracies make ground-breaking changes in social policy is political and messy and usually takes a lot longer than advocates wish.

It is important that advocates for social change avoid negative perceptions related to their causes that distract from the real message.

Therefore, my advice to the athletes is that the beginning of a football game, in the uniform of their employer or school, is not the right venue for their personal messages about the need for change in social policy, regardless of how valid the fundamental message is.

Why Climate Deniers Deny

The study linked below used scientific analysis to examine the fallacies in arguments denying human-caused climate change.

         http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6

It found that the arguments climate change are often self-contradictory and that dissent is used by stakeholders to undermine the authority of science in order to postpone inconvenient political action: 

"Climate science denial is therefore perhaps best understood as a rational activity that replaces a coherent body of science with an incoherent and conspiracist body of pseudo-science for political reasons and with considerable political coherence and effectiveness."

In other words, whereas the deniers complain loudly about a conspiracy against them, the evidence points to a dcoordinated conspiracy to ward off political action addressing global warning because they think it will be to expensive and hurt their short-term profits.

Fears and Threats in Politics

This presidential campaign is based deeply in what research shows about using fears and threats for persuasion.  I have taught Persuasion.  Here are some notes from my class:


Gain-framed and Loss-framed Arguments

Persuasion research shows that to achieve a choice which AVOIDS risk, an offer or argument should be made in terms of what people will GAIN if they do NOT take the risk. This is called a "gain-framed" argument.

On the other hand, to achieve a RISK-SEEKING choice, the offer or argument should be rooted in what people will LOSE if they do not take the risk. This is called a "loss-framed" argument.

Persuasion also teaches us to appeal to PERSONALLY RELEVANT threats that are neither too big or too small. Too small and it is not enough of a threat to motivate people.  Too big, and they don't think they can do anything about it.

We can boost the perception of the audience that they CAN make a difference by convincingly presenting our offer as easy and effective.

When we use fears and threats, we need to provide a clear and strong call-to-action directly after or next to the description of the threat. When the desired response is received, we need to provide reassurance that it was the right thing to do.


Applying it to Politics

I would suggest that if you are in, or leaning toward, a party, voting for that party can be seen as the choice that avoids risk. We know from the party's track record how they will behave in office. On the other hand, the risk-seeking behavior is voting for the other guys, in hopes that they will be better.

There two strategies are at the core of what we hear every day in the campaign rhetoric.  If you DON'T vote for me, you will LOSE this and this and this, whereas if you DO vote for me, you will gain this and this and this.

Convincing people how to vote is ALL about fears and threats.  Both sides do it.

• Fear of terrorist attack vs. gain from better defense and enforcement
• Fear of loss of abortion rights vs. fear of threats to your religious beliefs
• Fear about loss of guns vs. fear of murder 
• Fears about retirement income vs. fears about limitations on the stock market
• Fears about being low-income vs. fear of limitations on big business 
• And many other pairings of fears

Next time you listen to someone making a political point, see if it isn't a fear/threat appeal, right out of a Persuasion textbook.

Happy Autumnal Equinox.

And as we experience the equinox, harvest is beginning in my part of the world.

Reporters and Fairness

From https://www.flickr.com/photos/marcn/24550116329/

The professional media has had a tough time trying to figure out how to cover the current US presidential campaign.  Many of the things they learned as student journalists are leading them astray this year. But the general public is also being led astray by the greater cloud of amateurs and promoters using fake journalism for advocacy.


Advocacy Masquerading as News

A large percentage of what appear to be news stories coming down your social media news feed is actually advocacy.  When the headline, the lead, or the body of a story contains value judgments that are not attributed to a news maker, then it is advocacy, not journalism.  But the public generally doe snot differentiate.

I teach media and journalism, including an introductory news writing class this semester. Because their social media feeds contain such poor role models, I have to hammer away at NO including their own opinions in their story assignments.

A good journalist will attribute everything, except for straight-forward information that is "widely known or easily available."  For example, a local news story can simply state that it rained last night, without citing a source of the information.

Now, when public relations folks write news releases, they write as if they were writing a news story, but they only tell the positive thins about their cause.  In particular, they state things as fact that are really promotional talking points without attribution, in effect claiming that they are "widely known or easily available."

Again, the general public does not differentiate between professional news sources and quasi-journalistic advocacy.  It is all "the media" to them, not journalists and advocates.  Therefore, it's all opinion to them.


Fair to Both sides?

The other journalistic tradition that is leading professionals astray is that we teach them that they must fairly report both/all sides of a controversial issue.

Generally I believe in this way of telling a story, but when one side has all the preponderance of evidence and the other is strictly opinion, based on logical fallacies, or is a nut-case, giving equal attention to their position legitimizes unsupported positions.

It is a no-win situation for the professional journalists.  Either they get criticized for excluding some positions, or they legitimize illegitimate positions, and they do it in a way that appears to contain bias.


Where do we go from here?

Professional journalists have been making the attempt recently to do more fact checking and pointing out inaccuracies of statements from the candidates.

But the high "noise" of fake news in the media environment makes people mistrust "the media."  That means that they see fact checking as opinion, and thus also untrustworthy.

When empirical evidence is seen as opinion, promoters and advocates love it.  They can reinforce the people who already see it their way, and sow the seeds of doubt in those who don't.

the professional journalistic media is going to need to future this out.  Unfortunately, I don't have a good solution.

Where I start from, however, is that facts and evidence can be "widely known or easily available" whereas opinions are not.  Journalists should not be shy to differentiate widely-known facts from beliefs and opinions that may be widely, somewhat-widely, or narrowly believed.

For more perspective on how journalists are trying to work their way out of this quandry, see this story.

How We Solve the Problem

Wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal energies are among the solutions to global warming.

Last time I talked about what we know about climate change and global warning. Change IS HAPPENING and we need to reverse it before it reaches a tipping point that we CANNOT reverse.

The number one way to reverse global warming is to stop, or at least greatly reduce, the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) humans pump into the atmosphere. We do this by developing and operationalizing alternative energy sources, including wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and other energy sources.

As you see from the chart, power generation, transportation, and fossil fuel production make up nearly two-thirds of human greenhouse gas emissions, mostly CO2.  Solving the problem in those sectors would help scale back greenhouse gas production in other sectors, as well.

So, we need a policy climate in which we discourage further fossil fuel development, and promote alternative energy production.  We will likely never completely stop using fossil fuels, but we need to receive then for the most critical uses, not as the primary national energy source.

The corollary to this policy is that we need to stop building new refineries and pipelines.  You don't build expensive new infrastructure for something you need to phase out.

What else?

There are several other things we need in order to have a functional energy system for the decades ahead that is based on alternative energy and does NOT contribute to global warming:

• Rebuild the electrical grid.  The current system (in the United States, at least) is antiquated and fragile.  It is failure-prone, and time-consuming to repair.
• Storage capability.  The current energy system is use-it-or-lose-it.  With a few minor exceptions, there is no practical way to store energy when demand is low and retrieve it when demand is high.  California is trying, but we need a major state-of-the-art expansion so that we can even out high and low energy use times, which is more of an issue with wind and solar energy than it is with a fossil fuel economy.

We can do all of these things.  What is holding us back is rich people who think that solving this pocket will cost too much, reducing profits.  The problem with this way of thinking is that of we do NOT solve these problems, it will be even worse for business.

Climate Change Deniers

Increased flooding is one of the most common extreme weather consequences of global warming. 

I came across the tired old arguments of climate change deniers recently, in a Facebook group as it happens.  As usual, a few folks were parroting back the usual logical fallacies like "when it's -15 degrees, nobody talks about global warming."

Actually, scientists do. Science is about explanations that are consistent with observed facts, updated as observed facts become more and more accurate.

We know that the Earth is warming. We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know that about twice as much carbon dioxide is appearing in the atmosphere as what the Earth can take back out via natural processes. We know that industry in general, and fossils fuel industry in particular, emits huge quantities of carbon dioxide. We know that the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

We know that water vapor has significantly more effect as a greenhouse gas than CO2, but stays in the air for only a few days whereas CO2 stays for decades. We know that warmer air has more carrying capacity for water vapor and that the water vapor mostly resides in the upper atmosphere (meaning that what happens on the ground, like drought, it not particularly relevant because it is a local/regional thing). We know that water vapor concentrations at high altitude have been climbing at a statistically significant rate. So, the warming caused by the elevated CO2 is amplified, reinforcing itself because the warmer air holds more water vapor, causing even warmer air.

We also know that in the past, when the temperature was higher, the CO2 in the atmosphere was also higher. We know that there are natural sources that can cause increases in CO2, notably volcanoes, but the number of volcanic eruptions and other natural sources in the last century is not sufficient to explain the observed increase in CO2 and other less significant greenhouse gases.  Similarly, the deforestation of the Amazon has reduced the ability of the planet to turn CO2 back into oxygen, but not enough to fully explain the CO2 increase.

So the question is "what is the source of the excess CO2?"

The hypothesis that man-made CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming is NOT consistent with the facts. Human industry is CLEARLY producing large amounts of CO2. If man-made CO2 is somehow not the determining factor, then where is the excess CO2 coming from?

Those who would try to shrug global warming off as a "natural cycle" are not explaining anything.  A "natural cycle" still has causes and effects that can be studied and understood, particularly when they are happening NOW and not in the ancient past.

The natural-plus-man-made CO2 is causing the planet to warm. This is disrupting long-term weather patterns.  One result is more extreme weather events.

And, yes, some places DO get colder or more snow in the winter, because shifting currents and winds take arctic air to places it has not been before.

Some thoughts about solving the problem in my next post. 

Harvest Moon/Moon Festival

Harvest Moon September 16, 2016, Nikon D7100 and 70-300 mm lens.

In spite of the fact that most people know very little about astronomy, events in the sky fascinate people.  This is true today, just as it was in ancient times.

In the United States, there was a burst of talk this week about the Harvest Moon, which is the full moon closest to the Autumnal Equinox. Most people don't know what the Autumnal Equinox is, but I know many people who made it a point to take a look at the rising moon.  This full moon is remembered from non-mechanized times as illuminating the fields for farmers as they worked late into the night to complete their harvest before the snows came.

My friends in Asia, simultaneously, are celebrating the Moon Festival, also known as the Mid-Autumn Festival and by other names.  It honors the full moon as a symbol of peace, prosperity, and family reunion, and it is held in hopes for a bountiful harvest.

It is interesting to me that most people have never experienced the full impact of a full moon, because of the preponderance of artificial light in our world.  If you get away from artificial light and give your eyes time to become dark adapted, the full moon provides plenty of light to do what you want outside.

I find the similarities in Eastern and Western moon traditions to be very interesting.

To the ancients of the West, the Moon was a god/goddess. After the advent of Christianity, the Moon became a thing, but one that was very important to the cycles of life, and thus deserving of attention and study.

Eastern tradition is far different. All things possess a spirit (Chi), some weak but some very powerful. The Moon is a source of great spiritual power, as evidenced by the influence it has on many things, including the oceans and the crops.  It is not surprising, therefore, that the people would want to communicate with this spirit and seek its support in their lives.

Regardless of motivation, the full moons of Autumn always attract attention and interest.

9-11

9-11 was an act of hate.

Too many people responded to it with hate and a desire for revenge.

9-11 should be about love and remembrance, for the people who lost their lives, and for the amazing work of rescuers.

If you look at the anniversary as an opportunity to renew hate, I do not respect you.

As Martin Luther King said:

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. You may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. You may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate, nor establish love. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

Dakota Access Pipeline: Public Policy

© 2014 Michael Marek

In my part of the country, the efforts of the Standing Rock Tribe to oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline have been all over the news.  I know people who have been at the site on the upper reaches of the Missouri River and I support their actions.

There are serious legal questions about whether construction approvals to date has been handled properly and in ways that respect tribal sovereignty.

But there are also considerations here that many in the media, and even many who are supporting the activists, miss.


This is about the whole planet, not just Standing Rock 

Global warming is real.

About twice as much carbon dioxide goes into the atmosphere as can be processed back out by nature.

The above-ground Alaska Pipeline

People are producing that carbon dioxide, mostly from energy industry use of petroleum and coal.

Therefore, we need to stop, or radically scale back, our use of petroleum and coal.

We need to replace it with renewable energy, such as wind, solar, and geothermal power.

Ergo, we need to stop building new infrastructure that will tend to perpetuate the use of energy sources which produce waste carbon dioxide.


This is about the entire Missouri/Mississippi River watershed

The Sacred Stones Camp is on the upper Missouri River, but the combined Missouri and Mississippi River is the longest river in the world (the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers form the longest tributary of the lower Mississippi River).

Pollution of the river in North Dakota goes all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico.

The pipeline companies have been said to have "lousy leak-detection systems" and all pipelines WILL leak eventually, often with disastrous consequences.

          Freeman, SD

          Yellowstone River

True, there can be spills when oil is transported by train, but such spills are limited in geography and do not pollute thousands of miles of river used as the drinking water source for millions of people in cities along the river.


"Sacred" to a Native American is not the same as in European religions

Much has been made of claims of desecration of sacred sites of the Standing Rock tribe.  But "sacred" in Native American spirituality is different from religions that evolved in Europe.

In Christianity, generally, a place becomes sacred because of its use.  When a church, for example, is no longer used as a church, the place may no longer be considered to be sacred.

In Native American spirituality, however, a place is sacred because of its history, including its role in oral history and origin stories, and because of a people's emotional attachment.  These places do not become less sacred when the people move on. Therefore; land perceived by some to be empty or unused can still be highly sacred to a tribe

Here is a good, detailed analysis:

          American Indian Sacred Places


The oil is for other countries

Crude oil fracked out of the ground from the Bakken Fields is largely destined to be refined in the US and then shipped to other countries.  Like the Keystone XL Energy Pipeline, the oil is largely not intended for domestic American use.

So that means Americans get the earthquakes caused by fracking.

Americans get the contamination caused by crude oil spills (and fracked shale oil is the dirtiest kind of crude oil).

Americans get the pollution from the refineries.

And Americans get little or no contribution to energy independence.


Final thoughts

Everything considered, I think that supporting the Standing Rock tribe is worthy.

We SHOULD be supporting their tribal rights.

We should NOT be building new petroleum infrastructure.

We SHOULD be very concerned about toxic river pollution.

As long as we are still using petroleum as an energy source, we SHOULD conserve it and NOT ship it to other countries.

I drive past a large grain terminal on my rural county highway commute.  This train actually showed up for loading three days early, my spies tell me.

Mild HDR processing used.

I was in China in 2013, and this is one of my favorite places that I visited -- Fenghuang City, or Phoenix City. It is a UNESCO World Heritage site and is a remarkably well-preserved ancient city. I would love to be able to go back.

Macro Photography

I really like macro photography, but I don't have a macro lens.

In photography, "macro" means close-up.  You get in close, as close as your camera can focus.  Then you crop, and maybe a little sharpening in Photoshop, to produce a final shot that reveals detail we usually miss.

Depth of field often plays a big part in macro work.  Because you are focusing so close to the lens, only a narrow slice of distance is in good focus.

Carefully controlling your point of focus can bring even more attention to in-focus elements of your composition.

This can make the final photo even more dramatic.

To do this kind of photography right, you need a special macro lens, especially designed for close-up work. Because of it's design and construction, it can focus very close and portray very small things quite large.

There are a lot of lenses that have reasonable macro capability, but thre are also some designed for exclusive use in macro work.

As I said, I don't have such a lens.  My more versatile lenses, such as my 18-105 zoom, do pretty well close-up.

WilI I get a true macro lens some day? I would like to, but there are a lot of camera-related things I would like that I don't  have.  Only time and the budget will tell.

Musing about Politics and Social Media

Research generally shows that posts about issues on social media do not change minds.

So why are we bombarded by advocacy in social media?  Why do businesses, organizations, and politicians invest so much time and effort into social media marketing?

First and foremost, individuals like and share things they like, often not fact-checking and filtering them for accuracy.  

More specifically, people often like and share posts about issues that validate their pre-conceived opinions and biases.  They rationalize this by saying "my friends might be interested." We know from the research that nobody's mind gets changed, but by posting, people feel that they are doing something about the issue.

When it comes to businesses and organizations, it is different.  Largely they want to accomplish two things -- reinforce the perceptions of people who already like them and influence those people who have not made up their minds.  This is a lot different from trying to change the minds of people who dislike or are unhappy with the company.

In addition, the biggest successes in social media marketing come from inspiring happy customers to say positive things, i.e. give testimonials.  People see such comments as highly authentic and believable, more so than what the company says.

In politics, such as the upcoming presidential election, this is why negative campaigning works so well, and is particularly rife in social media:

Negative claims about the opponent 

validate those who already support you and 

influence those who have not made up their minds.

This is why Donald Trump, for example, uses the recurring pattern of 1) posting an incendiary statement on Twitter and 2) a day or so later walking it back.

The initial Tweet does its job of validation and influence, but the later walk-back changes the "record" of what he intended to say.

The news media has been VERY slow to pick up on this strategy, dutifully reporting the over-the-top post and the later modification or fact checking.  By then the post has accomplished its goal of validation and influence, and to those people, the walk-back gains little attention.