webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Cummings Fdn

peter teague tides boxer

==

http://www.nathancummings.org/sites/default/files/2013_audited_financials.pdf

clean air tf 400K$

itif 300K

LA alliabnce for a new econ

new am fdn 335K

PICO nat netw

ctr for prog leadrship

tides

univ maryland

==

srcwtch

The Nathan Cummings Foundation "owes its existence and inspiration to Nathan Cummings, who rose from impoverished beginnings to become the founder and guiding force of the Sara Lee Corporation." [1]

Contents

  [hide] 

About

NCF "is rooted in the Jewish tradition and committed to democratic values and social justice, including fairness, diversity, and community. We seek to build a socially and economically just society that values nature and protects the ecological balance for future generations; promotes humane health care; and fosters arts and culture that enriches communities."

Entities funded

The NCF funds the Breakthrough Institute, and also American University climate communicator Matthew Nisbet.

In the past, it gave grants out to a number of colleges and organizations, including the Sierra Club, Tides Center, Rockridge Institute, Free Press, and SudanActivism.com (a project of American Anti-Slavery Group).

Personnel

Trustees

Accessed October 2008: [2]

Associates

Accessed October 2008: [3]

Contact Info

The Nathan Cummings Foundation

475 Tenth Ave, 14th Floor

New York, NY 10018

Web: http://www.nathancummings.org/

Resources and articles

Related Sourcewatch articles

References

  1. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ About, Nathan Cummings Foundation, accessed October 22, 2008.
  2. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Trustees, Nathan Cummings Foundation, accessed October 22, 2008.
  3. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Trustees, Nathan Cummings Foundation, accessed October 22, 2008.

Categories: 

==

arnold ?! anti-semitic

Bbs:

http://www.undueinfluence.com/nathan_cummings_foundation.htm

It developed into a major contributor to far-left causes during the 1990s, then went through a total overhaul in 2001 with new headquarters, a new president,Lance E. Lindblom, (salary $285,113, benefits $60,144), and new prescriptive grantmaking strategies to foster far-left groups with the political power to change public policy. Lindblom was an early mentor of the Apollo Alliance, but clashes between Alliance leaders soured the relationship.

Programs included social justice, the environment and a ferocious anti-corporate thrust that saw the foundation itself filing shareholder resolutions.

All this is paid for by Cummings investments in ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Occidental Petroleum. Anadarko Petroleum, Duke Energy (coal, nuclear), El Paso Corp (natural gas), and many more—plus 25,999 shares of database firm Acxiom.

2006

NameTitleCompensation
MR. ANDREW LEETRUSTEE
MR. ANDREW GOLDENTRUSTEE
MS. ARMANDA FAMIGILETTIASSISTANT SECRETARY$103,750
MR. ERNEST TOLLERSONTRUSTEE
MR. ROBERT MAYERTREASURER
MR. STEPHEN DURCHSLAGTRUSTEE
MR. JAMES CUMMINGSSECRETARY
MR. LANCE LINDBLOMPRESIDENT & CEO$285,133
MS. BEATRICE MAYER CUMMINGSTRUSTEE
MS. LEISLE LINASSISTANT TREASURER/VP FINANCE$156,000
MS. RUTH CUMMINGS SORENSENVICE-CHAIR
MS. RACHEL DURCHSLAGTRUSTEE
MS. ROBERTA CUMMINGSTRUSTEE
MS. SONIA CUMMINGSTRUSTEE
MR. DEBRA WEESE-MAYERTRUSTEE
MR. ADAM CUMMINGSCHAIRCHAIR

==

wiki

Nathan Cummings (1896–1985) was a Canadian-born American businessman, investor and philanthropist. He was the founder of Consolidated Foods, which later became known by one of its product lines, Sara Lee Corporation.

Contents

  [hide] 

Early life

Nathan Cummings was born in 1896 in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, the first child of Jewish parents who had immigrated from Lithuania. It was pure chance that he was born Canadian: his parents had disembarked in Saint John, the first port of call, assuming it was their destination, New York City. The family later moved to Waltham, Massachusetts, setting up a small shoe shop. They moved to Manchester, New Hampshire, and eventually relocated their business in Montrealaround the time of World War I. Cummings was not able to finish high school, but was sent to the Dry Goods Economist Training School in New York for a year before returning to work with his father. From the age of fifteen he sold shoes until, at nineteen, he took on the job of traveling salesman for a shoe manufacturer.

Business career

By 1924 Cummings had established a shoe shop and factory of his own by 1924, but the business foundered during theDepression, and he was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1932. He paid off his debts and started anew.

By the mid-1930s he had invested in McCormicks, a biscuit and candy company in Canada. The success of that business, which he sold to Weston in 1939,[1] prompted an invitation to manage the Baltimore-based coffee, tea and sugar chain, C.D. Kenny Company. Cummings acquired the company in 1941. Its continued prosperity allowed him to expand his holdings to found a business empire.

Over the next decade, Cummings invested within company after company. In 1945 he established his corporate headquarters in Chicago and formed the Consolidated Grocers Corporation as a holding company. Time proclaimed him the "Duke of Groceries."[2]

In 1954 the company name was changed to Consolidated Foods Corporation, which Cummings thought was 'less old-fashioned', and in 1985 the name Sara Lee Corporation was adopted. Sara Lee was the name of one of the company's best known brands, which Cummings had acquired in 1956.

Cummings retired from the company in 1968, but remained honorary chairman and active in company affairs until his death in 1985.

Marriage/Family

Cummings' first wife was Ruth Lillian Kellert, whom he married in 1919. She died in 1952. In 1959, he wed Joanne Toor; the marriage ended in divorce in 1976. Upon his death in 1985, Cummings was survived by three children from his first marriage, Mrs. Robert B. Mayer of Chicago, Herbert Cummings of Paradise Valley, Ariz., and Alan H. Cummings of Palm Beach; ; a sister, Mrs. Monroe Abbey, of Montreal; three brothers, Maxwell, Benjamin and Harold, all of Montreal, and nine grandchildren.[3] Cummings was also related by marriage to MGM's legendary studio boss Louis B. Mayer.[4]

In 1992, a history of the Cummings family entitled David and Bessie Komiensky, Jewish Lithuanian Immigrants: A Brief Family History, was commissioned by friends as a surprise gift for Herbert Kellert Cummings, and published by Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.[5]

Art collector

As Cummings became increasingly affluent, he began to collect art. His first significant acquisition was made in Paris in 1945, immediately after World War II, when he purchased Camille Pissarro's Bountiful Harvest 1893, which he noticed in the window of an art dealer. He knew nothing of Pissarro, but he was confident in what he liked.

There was little in Nathan Cummings' background to suggest an affinity with art. Later in his life he liked to tell of his first tentative encounter with art: "An advertising man convinced me that I should have a painting made of the view from my window." Cummings liked it so much that he asked the artist to paint the scene a second time - the view at night. His satisfaction with these works sparked an interest in collecting art that was to develop with the passion of the newly converted.

Cummings' collections were diverse, including French Impressionist paintings, modern sculpture, ancient Peruvian ceramics, and works of living artists such as Henry Moore, Pablo Picasso, Marc Chagall, Georges Braque, Giacomo Manzù and Alberto Giacometti, who became members of his social circle. He enjoyed friendships with other celebrities, including Duke andDuchess of Windsor and Bob Hope, a good friend who emerged from a giant cake at Cummings's eightieth birthday.

As a collector, Cummings did not confine himself to the acquisition of blue-chip impressionist and 20th-century master paintings. He enjoyed contemporary art and delighted in new discoveries. He often acquired whole series of works by artists he liked, later distributing the works to friends or scattering them around the workplace. At one time he owned a fishing fleet and ensured that each of the fifteen boats was equipped with its own work of art. He bought and sold without expecting to keep the works forever, allowing old favorites to be replaced by new enthusiasms. Cummings expected that everyone would share his passion for art: as well as giving away works of art as presents, he displayed parts of his collection in the offices of his companies for the enjoyment of the staff.

Philanthropy

Starting in the 1950s Cummings became a major donor to hospitals, universities, arts organizations, and Jewish causes. His endowment created the Nathan Cummings Arts Center at Stanford University and the Joanne and Nathan Cummings Art Center at Connecticut College in New London. (Joanne Toor Cummings was the second wife of Cummings; she died in 1995.)[6] He made major contributions to the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC, to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and to the Art Institute of Chicago. In 1949 he established the Nathan Cummings Foundation, which received most of his estate (then estimated at $200 million) upon his death. The foundation funds initiatives to build a socially and economically just society.

References

  1. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ J. Ernest Kerr, Imprint of the Maritimes, 1959, Boston: Christopher Publishing, p. 71
  2. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Time, "The Duke of Groceries", February 7, 1944
  3. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Berger, Joseph (21 February 1985). "Nathan Cummings, 88, Dies; Founded Consolidated Foods". The New York Times. Retrieved10 December 2013.
  4. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Mayer, Alice. "Family History". Blog at WordPress.com. Retrieved 13 December 2013.
  5. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "ExLibris Rosetta". ExLibris Ltd. Retrieved 12 December 2013.
  6. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ McQuiston, John T. (20 September 1995). "Joanne Cummings, Art Patron, Collector and Philanthropist, 66". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 December 2013.

External links

Categories: 

==

The Nathan Cummings Foundation was endowed by Nathan Cummings(1896–1985), founder of Consolidated Foods, later renamed Sara Lee. Cummings was also a prominent art collector and supporter of Jewishcauses.

In his lifetime, Cummings made contributions to hospitals, universities, and the arts. His endowment created the Nathan Cummings Arts Center atStanford University and the Joanne and Nathan Cummings Art Center atConnecticut College in New London. He made major contributions to theNational Gallery of Art in Washington DC, to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and to the Art Institute of Chicago. He established the Nathan Cummings Foundation in 1949. The foundation received most of his estate (then estimated at $200 million) upon his death in 1985.

The foundation′s Interim President and CEO is Ernest Tollerson.[1]

Contents

  [hide] 

Areas of funding

The Nathan Cummings Foundation supports innovative organizations that share our vision of a society that measures its success by how it treats those who have the least, and that works to close the gap between America’s promise and its imperfect practice. Specifically, the foundation seeks to make progress on two pressing and interconnected problems that must be resolved if its vision is to be realized: inequality and climate change.[2]

Mission statement

According to the foundation's mission statement, it is "rooted in the Jewish tradition and committed to democratic values and social justice, including fairness, diversity, and community." The foundation "seeks to build a socially and economically just society that values nature and protects the ecological balance for future generations; promotes humane health care; and fosters arts and culture that enriches communities."[3]

The Foundation's approach to grantmaking embodies some basic themes in all of its programs:

References

  1. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ http://ncf.org/about-the-foundation/staff/ernest-tollerson
  2. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ http://ncf.org/what-we-fund
  3. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Nathan Cummings Foundation, Mission Statement

External links

Categories: 

==

Bombshell exclusive: Leading expert withdraws name from Climate Shift report, explains how key conclusion that environmentalists weren’t outspent by opponents of climate bill “is contradicted by Nisbet’s own data”

BY JOE ROMM APR 18, 2011 8:03PM

Nisbet’s data actually shows enviros were far outspent, especially where it mattered most: Lobbying, advertising, and election spending

Brulle’s letter of withdrawal is reposted with permission at the end.

UPDATE:   The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvardjust reposted my entire piece with this headline and lede:

:{Killing a false narrative before it takes hold:(style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

COMMENTARY | April 18, 2011 Busting an embargo, ClimateProgress.com’s Joe Romm blisteringly dismantles an upcoming academic report on climate change advocacy in hopes no reporters will be taken in.

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.”

UPDATE:  Nisbet has replied to this post and Brulle responds at the end.

NISBET’S FINANCIAL MISANALYSIS

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 outspentat least 4-to-1 on advertising and beaten10-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 suggestopponents 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.“ On Tuesday, I’ll publish a detailed debunking and 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.

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 coverageand 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:

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:

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 :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:[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.

UPDATE:  Nisbet has posted a reply to this post at climateshiftproject.org. He doesn’t rebut the central critique, and I’ll respond to it tomorrow.  Brulle has emailed me a reply and his original email asking to have his name removed.

Joe:

I would like to make a couple of points regarding this [Nisbet] commentary for the record.

1. Dr. Nisbet does not respond to the evidence presented that the data in Chapter One of his own report contradicts the conclusions and executive summary regarding the financial differences between supporters and opponents of cap and trade.

2. The conclusions in Chapter 1 were added after I had reviewed the document. Specifically, I never saw the material contained in the third and fourth paragraphs on page 1 (continuing on to page 2), and the conclusion to Chapter 1 that starts on page 23.

3. I never saw or reviewed the Executive Summary. In fact, Dr. Nisbet never has provided me a copy of this document, and I only learned of what was written here from a third party providing me with this document.

4. I requested to be removed from the report because I felt that my role was being used to create a veneer of academic legitimacy that I do not believe the report merits. The specifics of my rationale for resignation are detailed below in the email I sent to Dr. Nisbet.

*Best

Bob Brulle*

*From: Robert Brulle

Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 1:03 AM

To: ‘Matthew C. Nisbet’

Subject: Climateshift Report*

Dear Dr. Nisbet:

Now that I have seen the entire report, I have major disagreements with some of your conclusions, and your characterization of my role in this process. Your description of my role in this effort is misleading at best (and which I had never reviewed or approved). I believe that this report is using my participation in the review process to legitimate its contents, and to try to create the impression that this report meets the criteria of a refereed publication. In my opinion, it does not. I don’t believe that the report as written meets what you call the “highest standards for rigor, evidence and accuracy.”

Accordingly, I am returning the honorarium check and formally request that you remove my name from the report.

Sincerely,

Dr. Brulle

---

Nisbet’s data actually shows enviros were far outspent, especially where it mattered most: Lobbying, advertising, and election spending

Brulle’s letter of withdrawal is reposted with permission at the end.

UPDATE:   The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard just reposted my entire piece with this headline and lede:

Killing a false narrative before it takes hold

COMMENTARY | April 18, 2011 Busting an embargo, ClimateProgress.com’s Joe Romm blisteringly dismantles an upcoming academic report on climate change advocacy in hopes no reporters will be taken in.

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:

The environmental movement outspent opponents during the climate bill debate.

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.”

UPDATE:  Nisbet has replied to this post and Brulle responds at the end.

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.“ On Tuesday, I’ll publish a detailed debunking and 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.

UPDATE:  Nisbet has posted a reply to this post at climateshiftproject.org. He doesn’t rebut the central critique, and I’ll respond to it tomorrow.  Brulle has emailed me a reply and his original email asking to have his name removed.

Joe:

I would like to make a couple of points regarding this [Nisbet] commentary for the record.

1. Dr. Nisbet does not respond to the evidence presented that the data in Chapter One of his own report contradicts the conclusions and executive summary regarding the financial differences between supporters and opponents of cap and trade.

2. The conclusions in Chapter 1 were added after I had reviewed the document. Specifically, I never saw the material contained in the third and fourth paragraphs on page 1 (continuing on to page 2), and the conclusion to Chapter 1 that starts on page 23.

3. I never saw or reviewed the Executive Summary. In fact, Dr. Nisbet never has provided me a copy of this document, and I only learned of what was written here from a third party providing me with this document.

4. I requested to be removed from the report because I felt that my role was being used to create a veneer of academic legitimacy that I do not believe the report merits. The specifics of my rationale for resignation are detailed below in the email I sent to Dr. Nisbet.

Best

Bob Brulle

From: Robert Brulle

Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 1:03 AM

To: ‘Matthew C. Nisbet’

Subject: Climateshift Report

Dear Dr. Nisbet:

Now that I have seen the entire report, I have major disagreements with some of your conclusions, and your characterization of my role in this process. Your description of my role in this effort is misleading at best (and which I had never reviewed or approved). I believe that this report is using my participation in the review process to legitimate its contents, and to try to create the impression that this report meets the criteria of a refereed publication. In my opinion, it does not. I don’t believe that the report as written meets what you call the “highest standards for rigor, evidence and accuracy.”

Accordingly, I am returning the honorarium check and formally request that you remove my name from the report.

Sincerely,

Dr. Brulle

==