brought to you by www.energyboom.com
 
“An imperative read for a successful future.”
~LEONARDO DICAPRIO  
 
Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science

Desmog Video

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.


 



wall street journal

wall street journal

The OMB-EPA Kerfuffle That Wasn't

Is the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) deliberately trying to sabotage the EPA’s efforts to regulate carbon dioxide emissions? Is Peter Orszag, the agency’s brainy and genial director, secretly in cahoots with Republican opponents of President Obama’s climate policies?

Not quite – though that may have been your first impression upon reading the raft of articles published yesterday that breathlessly reported that an OMB memo had strongly criticized the EPA’s proposal to regulate greenhouse gases.


Read more: The OMB-EPA Kerfuffle That Wasn't

What's next?

Polluters Beware

I've often wondered if EPA actually stands for Environmental Pillaging Act, so contrary to environmental protection are the policies and recommendations that often come from this government organization.

However, in a victory for environmentalists, the US Appeals Court ruled against not allowing states to tighten up air quality standards.


Read more: Polluters Beware

What's next?

Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens' Sick Souled Neurosis

"Global warming is a sick-souled religion."

Really?

Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens thinks so in his article, Global Warming as Mass Neurosis.

Unfortunately for Stephens' and the rest of the planet, his evidence for such an inflammatory claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


Read more: Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens' Sick Souled Neurosis

What's next?

Wall Street Journal: Still Promoting Debate

Despite having been proved, again and again, to be out of step with the science, the Wall Street Journal is still promoting a phony "balanced" view on global warming - still trying to argue that there is a legitimate argument about climate change.

In a short feature today, the WSJ juxtaposes three decades of warnings, from sources of integrity and obvious expertise (eg., the U.S. Department of Energy), with 30 years of denial, from paid apologists for industry (eg., former tobacco and energy industry shill Dr. Fred Seitz).

The effect is to elevate the status of the deniers and to suggest that debate endures.

It's a sham that should be embarrassing to any journalist of conscience.


Read more: Wall Street Journal: Still Promoting Debate

What's next?

Denial-a-Palooza is a Media Hit

... But Not What Organizers Wanted

Mainstream media seem to have caught up with climate change denial (caught up with reality, really), just in time to humiliate the assembled "sceptics" at the Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.

While Heartland wants to position the conference as a "smashing success," the New York Times, CNN - even that raving left-wing apology sheet the Wall Street Journal - have all lifted their delicate hands and snickered. CNN, in a spot that left the cool dudes at Newsbusters apoplectic, went so far as to call the assembled skeptics "flat earthers." (click on the seventh item here for Miles O'Brien's actual video.)


Read more: Denial-a-Palooza is a Media Hit

What's next?

Nicely Balanced Look at Hurricane Influence

Here's a short Wired piece adding some balance to an earlier Wall Street Journal article that dismisses climate change as an influencer of hurricane intensity.

The WSJ piece is also worth the read. It's interesting to see Bill (if-I-haven't-observed-it-with-my-own-eyes, -it's-not-happening) Gray tie himself up in knots, predicting more hurricanes of higher intensity but denying that climate change could be a contributing factor.


Read more: Nicely Balanced Look at Hurricane Influence

What's next?
Syndicate content

About the climate cover-up

About the climate cover-up

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.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

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!



DeSmog Tip Jar

DeSmog Tip Jar

Flickr Photos

Flickr Photos
James Hoggan - Black and WhiteRichard LittlemoreJames Hoggan - ColourClimate Cover-Up Book Cover

Member of the Progressive Bloggers Network

MEMBER OF THE PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS NETWORK

Progressive Bloggers