The quote comes from a Wall Street Journal article by Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
The number of anti-science decisions the federal government has made in recent years is staggering: axing the...
There are few parties in the public realm that are more credible than a “grassroots organization” - a group of citizens who rise up with no agenda other than to speak frankly about a public issue. Politicians are inevitably suspect and businesses are clearly self-interested, so reporters are always searching for the “common man” - the “person on the street” - or from impartial experts. No news source wraps up those characteristics more efficiently than the true grass roots organization.
A European research firm has identified Canadian tar sands giant Suncor among the world's top 19 oil and gas companies as the best performer in generating carbon reduction strategies.
Chevron, ExxonMobil and EnCana were identified as the three worst.
It would be nice if we public relations and media types could comment on climate science with the same sense of intelligent self-assurance that climate scientists J.A. Curry, P.J. Webster and G.J. Holland bring to this analysis of the effects of politics and media on public debates about science.
These three scientists were among four authors (including H.R. Chang) of a 2005 Science magazine paper that argued this:
I am still stammering at the offensive, incompetent and hysterical goofiness of Terence Corcoran's diatribe yesterday in the Financial Post.
I have a longish list of complaints and objections, but let me present just two here today.
First, the suggestion that I have an anti-corporate bias is silly. (And the implicit anti-Islamic characterization is, at the very least, racially offensive.) For the past 25 years, I have been running a nicely successful public relations business, which itself is incorporated. I have been doing all those things that corporations do: paying rent, paying taxes, paying employees, participating in the economy in a direct way (rather than as a voyeur) - and giving the best advice I can think of to other corporations.
The excellent UK Institute for Public Policy Research (not to be confused with the right-wingy National Center for Public Policy Research) has released a research paper on climate change communication entitled, Warm Words: How are we telling the climate change story and can we tell it better?
The paper, at 28 pages not counting notes, is a little dense, a little academic - a little full of consultantspeak. But the content is impressive. The IPPR analysis of the climate change conversation in Britain seems intelligent and the authors (linguist Gill Ereaut and writer Nat Segnit) make observations that appear broadly applicable.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Among the ideologues in the climate change denial camp, this quote has several strikes against it. First, it was penned by the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Upton Sinclair, a socialist firebrand whose early investigative journalism led to the passage of the Pure Food and Drugs Act and the Meat Inspection Act, both in 1906.
A journalist, a socialist, an advocate for regulating the free market; actually, that's three strikes right there.
Worse still, the quote warranted a two-page spread in Al Gore's book, An Inconvenient Truth, a fact that is guaranteed to rile those defending America's right to be wrong on climate change.