You may notice that Gristmill has just now joined Grist proper in being graced with advertisements. If you have any thoughts on the matter -- umbrage, kudos, thumbs up or down -- this is the place to express them.

We're having a long meeting today to discuss editorial strategy, so there will be no more blogging. (Horrors!) To keep yourselves occupied, check out two pieces in the Atlantic Monthly. First and most importantly, Benjamin Wittes argues persuasively that the biggest danger posed by the possibility of a majority-conservative Supreme Court is not to abortion or civil rights, but to environmental protections. It's a thoughtful, nuanced piece with some interesting details I wasn't aware of. You should stop reading this and go read that instead. While you're over there, read Joshua Green's Lakoff-bashing. Green obviously has a pretty shallow understanding …

Smirky columnist Jonah Goldberg's latest column in National Review Online is virtually worthless as a source of information, but it does provide good insight into the relationship of the modern conservative punditariat to the environment and the environmental movement. In the end, they feel obliged to say they care about the environment, but it doesn't particularly interest them, and as long as someone, anyone will reassure them that everything is peachy, that's enough. And of course, if there's one thing modern conservatives have in spades, it is an embarrassment of media sources devoted to telling them what they want to …

It's not hard to understand why framing has taken on such totemic significance among progressives. Where the modern right sees itself involved in a knife fight -- the goal is winning -- progressives tend to be enamored of process and analysis and reasoned argument. They want to persuade. This is, perhaps more than any other single reason, why they keep getting their asses kicked. Framing has taken particular hold of the progressive blogosphere, which is chock full of logophiles, people who love, above all else, words. They love massaging words and constructing arguments and, well, framing issues. The notion that …

I keep thinking I'm done talking about framing (done framing framing?), but like the man said, just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. More below the fold, for those who are not sick of the subject.I've read a number of people now saying that I've "dismissed framing altogether," or something of the sort. But that was not my intention. So, once more, for the record: The theory of which "frames" and "framing" are a part is not primarily a theory about political speech. It is much broader and deeper than that. It is a theory …

It's April Fools Day, as Daily Grist readers are no doubt discovering right about now. Other examples of the grand tradition of April Fooling can be found on RealClimate and Energy Priorities. Readers: you have any other good examples? Leave them in comments. (Oh, this is funny too, though not April Foolsy -- I meant to blog about it a long time ago and forgot -- thanks to Jeff for reminding me.)

Roger Pielke Jr. has an important post up that I would encourage each and every enviro to read. He references this letter (PDF, registration required) in the current issue of Nature. It's from reps of several green organizations. An excerpt: The science of climate change is under attack; an attack that is coordinated, well-funded and given constant play in the media. The stronger the scientific consensus on climate change becomes, the more the media suggest that the science is uncertain... The impression created in the public mind is that climate scientists are deeply divided, and action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions …

Don't miss Joel Makower's long and informative post on recent developments around ecosystem services: ...the $33 trillion worth of "free" deliverables provided to us by a healthy planet, including fertile soil, fresh water, breathable air, pollination, habitat, soil formation, pest control, a livable climate, and a bunch of other things we generally take for granted. He touches on the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment and a number of emerging attempts to assign economic value to ecosystem services, thereby making "externalities" into market "internalities." A great read.

It occurs to me that the two points in the post below -- that framing is deeper and more important than just tweaking terminology, and that the green pursuit of Lakoff is a waste of time -- might be seen to be in conflict, so a quick clarification. Of course greens need to be cognizant of framing. Everyone does; even in a one-on-one conversation, it is helpful to be aware of the basic frames your interlocutor is bringing to bear, so that you can actually communicate instead of passing like ships in the night. That's the thing: Lakoff has not …

Amanda's article on Lakoff reminded me of two things I've been meaning to say about framing. In being popularized, the concept of framing has basically been reduced to the search for magical words. It's become synonymous with spin. Molly Ivins sums it up this way: Now, here's the Catch-22 we get with this administration: It is using the exact language of the [energy] bill's critics -- stealing it wholesale and using it to promote its bill. It's our friend Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster who specializes in "framing" issues (framing means the same thing as spinning, and in the non-political …