Rawstory.com has a piece today that hightlights how desperate some people are to continue to spin the climate change story. The piece titled, “Free Market advocate says fight effects, not global warming,” quotes Sterling Burnett, a Senior Fellow with the National Centre for Policy Analysis (NCPA), as saying:
“People assume that the science is sound and leap to the conclusion they must do something, and they know what select something to do, when it’s not so clear what we should be doing,” he said.
Unfortunately for Burnett’s argument, the scientific consensus is clear on what we should be doing: burning less fossil fuel.
Tim Lambert at his ever-interesting blogsite, Deltoid, is reporting that the new environmental reporter for The Australian is Matthew Warren, who as early as June 5th of this year was Director of External Affairs for the New South Wales Mineral Council - an association heavily invested in the promotion of coal-fired electricity.
On many occasions I have heard PR pros exclaim “PR would be so much easier if I only had my own newspaper!” Seems that Mr. Warren is getting just that, his own newspaper to sell the public on the benefits of “clean coal” technology and the like. Mr. Warren will fit in well with the folks at The Australian who have been touting the climate change denial message for quite some time now.
ABC news is reporting that a popular YouTube.com video mocking Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, first purported to be created by a 29-year old, was actually created by the PR firm, DCI Group. ABC also rightly reports that the infamous climate change “skeptic” funder ExxonMobil is a DCI client. Coincidently, the DCI group is responsible for the creation of “Tech Central Station,” a forum for climate change deniers that just so happens to have received funding directly from Exxon for so-called “climate change support.”
Exxon denies they had anyting to do with the video and ABC reports a DCI representative as stating:
“We do not disclose the names of our clients, nor do we discuss the work we do on behalf of our clients.”
This is yet another in a long list of examples of underhanded PR spin being used to attack the scientific consensus on climate change - it is also an extremely amateurish and immature example of PR in general. DCI's unwillingness to disclose the client footing the bill for this sad little video means they're probably raring up for some damage control on this one. This is a bad PR move on the part of DCI, by covering up their client they are only drawing more attention to the story and making themselves and Exxon look all that more guilty.
Of course, questionable PR tactics by DCI are not surprising, when you consider that DCI's current CEO, Doug Goodyear, was also heavily involved as a PR consultant in RJ Reynold's efforts to manufacture a grassroots campaign against tougher tobacco laws.
I guess when it comes to PR and climate change, we just have to keep “smoking” these guys out of their holes. Sorry, bad pun, had to be done.
The Institute for Public Policy Research, a UK-based think tank, issued areport yesterday warning environmentalists and communicaters to stay away from alarmist language that may be causing more harm than good when it comes to getting the message across about global warming.
The IPPR report is just another in a series of reports and research urging envrionmentalists and those who want real action on climate change to re-think the way we communicate the issue to the public. In any public relations campaign, there is always a real danger of creating an unwanted or opposite effect from what is intended. If the PR program you design is not grounded in thorough research, usually in the form of such things as polling and focus groups, you will always be in the dark about what the actual effects are of your program are.
In the case of the IPPR report, the authors, a linguist and a textual analyst, make the sound argument that alarmist language can elicit an effect more akin to “climate porn,” than a call to arms by the citizenry to tackle global warming. In other words, many public interest groups assume that melting glaciers and heat waves will scare people to action, when in fact it has the opposite effect of people tuning out the message they are trying to get across. PR professionals have known this for years, but much like smoking, we all know that alarmism is bad for us, but many of us continue to do it anyways.
The National Post, Canada's second national newspaper, ran a column today written by Steve “the Junkman” Milloy. The guest editorial attacks the State of California's request for General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and the Association of Automobile Manufacturers to disclose financial payments made to many of the more notorious climate change “skeptic.”
Milloy, a climate change “skeptic” himself, is appalled that such documents should be exposed, and it sounds like GM et al. will be this fighting this one tooth and nail.
While Milloy is trying to spin this as an attempt to “silence the skeptics,” reporting of funding sources by scientists is also a matter of full disclosure and allows a fuller context to the information the public uses to make decisions on important issues like climate change.
The State of California and the United Kingdom agreed to a pact yesterday to create a carbon trading market as a means of pushing the development of new green technologies and battling global warming. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and Califonia's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will also look to enhance the sharing of knowledge in the areas of economic and scientific research as it relates to climate change. As reported widely, neither US President George Bush or his top enviro-advisor, James Connaughton, were able to attend due to “scheduling conflicts.”
Climate change skeptic and former Kansas police chief, Paul Ibbetson, has been outed for spreading misinformation, by the American Geophysical Union, whose research he used in a recent opinion piece he penned.
The article, Behind the Curtain: revisiting global warming and the war on terror, which appeared on several websites yesterday, stated that:
Science History Professor Naomi Oreskes has written a blistering piece in the LA Times today. Her motivation is the barrage of criticism she has been taking lately from an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal as well the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Normally, we would advise against scientists responding to this public misinformation because it only adds to the appearance of a debate, which is exactly what the skeptics aim to do. However, Oreskes piece is very well written and clearly reinforces the message that the debate on climate change has been over for a long time.