The CCI Priorities

The Advisory Committee identified four priority activities for the National Academies to focus their CCI efforts and resources in order to accomplish both goals.

These are:

**  Priority 1: Development and implementation of a systematic approach to understanding,
anticipating, and rapidly meeting audience needs.

[OCS: Prior proper planning of propaganda is necessary to win the war of hearts and minds.]

**  Priority 2: Development of mechanisms and platforms to ensure content is user-centric—timely, relevant, current, and accessible.

[OCS: Creation of a plan for a rapid response mechanism to push selected and approved content to the audience in the most expeditious fashion.]

** Priority 3: Engagement in proactive collaborations with other vetted organizations to increase the impact and reach of the National Academies’ climate-related work.

[OCS: The key to who is engaged is contained in the word “vetted.” If the past is prologue, one would suspect that those collaborations will be of like-minded individuals and organization – in all probability, progressive environmental individual activists and groups that toe the party line. I seriously doubt that any contact or consideration would be given to any contrarian individual or group, no matter how well-credentialed or how scientifically supported their view point might be.]

**  Priority 4: Establishment of institutional structures and support to advance and sustain other CCI priority activities.

[OCS: Fine tune the bureaucracy to complete the mission.] 

Framework for Making Decisions About Responding

The National Academies should establish a framework to help guide the process for determining when and when not to respond.

For any decision-support tool used, consideration of the following criteria should be incorporated:

**  The moment involves a significant or a direct mischaracterization of a National Academies’ climate consensus study report: This may be considered an almost automatic “yes” decision on whether to make a response, although direct contact with the source of the mischaracterization may be considered more effective, especially as may be the case for a political official.

[OCS: Bureaucracies appear to be overly fond of those “consensus” reports, especially ones that are favorable to the bureaucracy and their special interest constituency. The issue is how to allow contrarians to have their viewpoint, which may be just as scientifically sound as that produced by the fashionable group in power.]

**  The moment is relevant to the National Academies’ core role as an “adviser to the nation” on climate science: For example, if a statement took place in front of a key audience (such as a congressional audience or a federal decision-making body) or the person or group making the comment is likely to influence the views of an important segment of the population.

[OCS: Heaven forbid that someone should question the accuracy of the information and the certitude which is is presented by an “authority” figure that should not be questioned. Shut up: it’s scientific and from the “top people.”]

**  It is appropriate for the National Academies to respond: Responding would not damage the National Academies’ reputation as a non-partisan, objective broker among political, ideological, or scientific factions. No quick response should undermine the National Academies’ brand or their credibility and authority. Would it be more appropriate for others, such as committee members, volunteers, and NAS, NAE, and NAM members to respond to the moment instead?

[OCS: The bulk of the bullpucky churned out by the bureaucracy is targeted at policy makers whom they hope to convince with their scientific footnotes. An objective observer would conclude that these organizations are not non-partisan nor are the objective. They represent the administration in power, the bureaucratic imperative to expand their influence, members, and funding, and the extremely well-paid special interests. When it comes to branded authorities, one might view the National Academies as an appendage of the government and those who keep their members employed.]

**  The National Academies are uniquely positioned to productively address this moment about climate: For example, the National Academies’ expertise and role give it the authority and credibility to address the moment for the audiences who are listening.

**  The moment has climate science, engineering, or medicine at its core, rather than a difference of opinion over policy: The subject of the discussion or debate hinges on the understanding of climate science rather than being mostly influenced by political or other factors.

[OCS: Like the United Nations’ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and all of those college “studies” programs, the cake is already baked and it is up to some group to apply a palatable frosting and feed it quickly to the crowd. The Academies can claim to eschew politics, but the answer is self-evident: they are a political body involved with providing justification for policy decisions.]

**  A timely response to the moment will help quell or prevent false information about climate from spreading without an evidence-based counterpoint: For example, if the information is false or misleading and has the potential to misinform public understanding of a climate-related issue; it is made in a highly public decision-making venue (e.g., Congress) or platform or by a widely influential person or group; or the medium in which it was provided lends itself to going viral (such as a viral social post) in a way that undermines or damages public understanding.

[OCS: Who is the arbiter of “fake news?” Is it the proponents of climate change as a justification for a radical public policy agenda that tends toward decreasing freedom and personal liberties, confiscatory taxes, the usurpation of private property, and eventually some form of totalitarian regime in power?]

**  The moment has engendered widespread discussion and debate about climate: For example, the moment is receiving high levels of public attention.

[OCS: We must move fast in order to preserve our position in the pecking order of “scientific authorities.”]

**  It is a teachable moment for the National Academies to provide scientific facts and one that may encourage people to seek understanding about climate science: For example, people are actively seeking information on the issue and may be open to information that may not agree with preconceived notions.

[OCS: We must capitalize on pushing our viewpoint, especially when people are most receptive and not engaging in the type of critical thinking such a momentous issue required.]

**  The moment has occurred in the context of an election: If the moment occurs in the context of an election, a response may be more or less desirable, depending on the situation. Added attention may provide a teachable moment, but a more charged political climate could pose a risk for the institution to appear partisan. These situations would require additional scrutiny.

[As the night follows the day, one of the most contentious matters to be discussed in the upcoming 2020 election will be the extent to which progressive socialist democrats use the subject of climate change in the context of justifying draconian, expensive, wasteful, and ineffective prescriptives in the name of gaining or maintaining political power. However, the Academies must not appear to be partisan although they may appear to favor the progressive brand of science.]’'

Excerpts from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine as published by the National Academies Press as “Climate Communications Initiative Strategic Plan (2019).”