| Comment: 
| Tools: 
Like what you read here? Get our top five stories in your inbox every week. » here's a preview
Enter your email and subscribe now!
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.
Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.
Help us clear the PR pollution that clouds climate science. Thanks to our dedicated readers, the DeSmog project counters the seeds of climate confusion.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy. The Desmog project is our answer to industry PR spin.
Thank you for all you do. Please donate what you can. Whether its $10 or $100 every bit helps.
Powered by PayPal
It amazes me how long these myths stick around. I'm almost tempted to put out a global cooling bounty. I have yet to see anyone reference a peer review journal that shows an imminent prediction of global cooling. The national academy of sciences sure as hell didn't. The closest they came was saying there was a 'non zero' chance that it could happen because we had an extremely poor understanding of aerosols and other mechanisms at the time. That 'non-zero' chance went to a complete zero in less than 3 years of work. Every journal that even hinted at global cooling said we had no clue because no research has actually been done.
This is a joke. It's like the truth doesn't matter.
She also has good things to say about evolution. [http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2006/10/michele-bachmann-on-evolution.html]
[Note: Tried to use "a" tag, but it kept getting corrupted.]
any clue who the "hundreds and hundres" of nobel prize winners are that believe in ID?
She is refering to the petition put out by the Discovery Institute. It is as bogus as the Oregon petition. I cannot get a link from the DI's website to it so they may have had it removed since it was so embarassing to them.
Ian forrester
I think that the DI was in an ABC piece by Bill Blakemore -- it turned out to be this little wierd office or something... I do remember it being ridiculous. The piece was called " The flight of the Dodos."
Speaking of evolution, this documentary should be interesing:
http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/10/flock-of-dodos-new-documentary-is-out.html