Donald Trump has called for Al Gore to be stripped of the Nobel Peace prize he was awarded for campaigning on climate change. The billionaire tycoon said record-breaking snow storms proved that the former US Vice-President was wrong on global warming, and that policies aimed at tackling carbon emissions were harming America's economy.
| 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
"This week the unit's former head Professor Phil Jones, performed a major u-turn and admitted there had been no 'statistically significant' global warming in the last 15 years."
When in fact, The Mail chose to run only part of his response. What Professor Jones actually said, when asked by the BBC, "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming"
His FULL answer was....
"Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
The two critical problems here are both the egregious selection of only partial quotes by media to make their stories more sensational, flaunting their bias and stunning lack of factual reporting coupled with the fact that the general public are completely unfamiliar with the scientific process and hence likely to get their information from exactly what they read.
Luckily, because of the nature of my job - I dig a little a bit when I see something that looks off. Unfortunately, and through no fault of their own, the general public reading an article rife with misquotes and inaccuracies, do not have the time or inclination to do so, trusting that what they read is true.
This is grossly irresponsible journalism without conscience, without integrity and with high, high stakes. I recently heard somebody say that "science is now an opinion". I couldn't agree more....nor could I be more frightened.
Amen to that. Speaking of irresponsible journalism, Margaret Wente also repeats the Phil Jones story without understanding it today.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-science-isnt-settled-now-what/article1469050/
Realclimate deals with that here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/
Tamino explains why 15 years is not long enough:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/#more-2124
This blogger has several links:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/02/journalism.html
And Deltoid:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/daily_mail_caught_in_another_l.php
As a non-statistician, I would explain it to other people who do not understand statistics by saying Jones was speaking in Statistic, not in English.
The Daily mail is one of the most vicious anti science propaganda rags around..
Daily Mangle
— group @ 15 February 2010
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/
And again the Fox spins the same nonsense, the same day..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYwX0KCIm-8
Coincidence? i find that hard to belief..
On a positive note,
ABC had one of the best climate change interviews i have seen on US main stream television..
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/tipping-point-climate-change-9847648?tab=9482931§ion=1206840&playlist=4806546
I read a science fiction story written decades ago which dealt with the use of 'science' to disprove something that was manifestly true, merely because the 'scientists' didn't want to admit they were wrong. I use quotes because they were missing one of the biggest qualities of real scientists - they were unwilling to admit they were wrong, and used PR campaigns to 'prove' it.
How does this apply to the global climate change 'controversy' going on today? Simply, I believe that many of the people arguing against it are not doing so because they understand the science, but because they are unwilling to accept the related consequences if global climate change is demonstrated to be true. As a result, they are treating this like an extended PR or political campaign and attacking the people who are actually trying to take positive steps, accusing them of fraud or worse, and trying to claim the evidence is either made up or has been tampered with.
My personal feeling on this is that people need to consider which side will have the worse consequences if it is wrong. If the GCC proponents are wrong, I believe the worst that can happen are economic consequences, which are hardly trivial but can be worked around with American ingenuity. Whereas if the GCC critics are wrong, we may very well end up with economic consequences that are just as bad if not worse, not to mention all the human consequences as weather becomes more and more unstable.
Hi, I know you're regulating comment posts currently, but on learning about Trumps comments, I created this comic;
http://mothincarnate.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/a-warm-fuzzy-forecast-8a-disproof/
feel free to use it if you like it.
:-)