SUBHEAD: Industry front groups and compliant scientists, who are falsely creating the impression that there is a scientific controversy about climate change.
Image above: People dressed as CO2 molecules head toward a demonstration at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin during the Copenhagen meeting on Climate Change. From (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/27444)
Thilo Kunzemann interviews James Hoggan on 22 January 2010 in Allianz - (http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/climate_change/global_warming_basics/climate_cover_up_global_warming_denial.html)
Why write a book about climate skeptics and their strategies?
It has always annoyed me when people are deceitful about important public issues. Climate Change is a very serious problem and we need to be exploring solutions. So when I saw people in the public relations industry—my industry—creating doubt about climate science, I felt I had to tell people.
Who are the people behind the ‘climate cover up’ and what is their agenda?
Industry front groups and compliant scientists, who are creating the impression that there is scientific controversy about climate change. Right wing groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the U.S. or the Cato Institute are some of the biggest players.
You also have public relations companies setting up new organizations like The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). It was seen as strategically smarter to set up groups that look like concerned scientists and use them to hammer away at what they call ‘junk science’.
One of the most recent examples is the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) that tried to convince Americans in electoral swing states that coal is clean. The budget for their campaign was somewhere around 40 million dollars during the last presidential election, and it was very successful.
Why do these organizations fight the idea of climate change?
The answer is very simple: there are hundreds of billions of dollars to be protected in the fossil fuel industry and these people are very interested in protecting their bottom line. Before Copenhagen, many people not connected to spin doctors or lobby groups expressed doubts about global warming. What was motivating them?
Well, industry front groups like Americans for Prosperity start out by paying for protestors: people holding those signs with Barack Obama looking like the devil. I have seen documents showing PR firms charging 1800 dollars per protestor.>Companies can buy protestors, and if you are clever with your framing of the issue these paid protestors attract real protestors. The bulk of people in the U.S. who oppose the idea of anthropogenic global warming don’t like being told what to do by the UN or some foreigners. So framing it as a UN scheme, or a scam by international scientists, appeals to these people. The idea that this is junk science, for example, is built on a deeply religious, anti-science fundamentalism in the United States. But what people really fail to do is distinguish between an opinion and scientific results.But many climate scientists seem overwhelmed by the fierce criticism from skeptics.
Should they sell their point of view better?
It’s not their business. Their job is to do the research and report the findings. A number of climate scientists have become advocates, but they are not necessarily great at
Unfortunately, most of the legitimate climate scientists are staying out of this. They don’t want to get smeared. I know a few climate scientists and they are telling me stories about emails and letters that they get that are just chilling.
What is your professional advice?
I think that we need to avoid these debates because they give credibility to people who don’t have evidence. But climate scientists shouldn’t avoid educating people. Most people know about the scary potential impacts of climate change, but they don’t know how that affects them or how it works.
What other tools for manipulating public opinion are being used?
One of the most powerful communication tools is the focus group. You get people together to learn about their thinking on certain issues. Turn these techniques onto climate change and you find that many people believe that scientists are still debating, so you repeat that message. You create an ‘echo chamber’. Get Dick Cheney and George Bush and Fox News and the Competitive Enterprise Institute to talk and then just keep repeating what they say--‘the science is not settled, the science is not settled, the science is not settled’— until the public starts repeating it back. It’s a frightening phenomenon.
What other rhetoric or verbal devices are being used?
Global cooling is another famous phrase. What you do here is appeal to people’s sense of the unpredictability of weather. So if it is snowing in Florida, global warming has a problem. People are confused about such conter-intuitive things, so you appeal to this confusion and start selling doubt. Climate change is a global phenomenon, but it seems as if the majority of skeptics come from North America. Why is that so? Climate change has become a proxy in the United States for partisanship. So you have this odd thing where the majority of Republicans do not believe that it is happening and the majority of Democrats do believe it is happening. It is very seldom that you run into a senior Republican leader who acknowledges that climate change is a serious problem.
Do you think more education about climate change could make a difference?
If you are a Republican or a Democrat you often have an emotional attachment to values that you believe and understand. Factual information just bounces off. It doesn’t matter what scientists are saying, it’s just another opinion. But the more that Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Mayor Bloomberg speak out about climate change, the better.
You need religious leaders speaking out, you need scientists, and community leaders. Another thing we could do is require these phony grassroots organizations to register like lobbyists. In Canada and the U.S. they can fly under the radar. Many people just don’t know that the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity aren’t normal Americans, they are coal companies.
.
Image above: People dressed as CO2 molecules head toward a demonstration at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin during the Copenhagen meeting on Climate Change. From (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/27444)
Thilo Kunzemann interviews James Hoggan on 22 January 2010 in Allianz - (http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/climate_change/global_warming_basics/climate_cover_up_global_warming_denial.html)
Why write a book about climate skeptics and their strategies?
It has always annoyed me when people are deceitful about important public issues. Climate Change is a very serious problem and we need to be exploring solutions. So when I saw people in the public relations industry—my industry—creating doubt about climate science, I felt I had to tell people.
Who are the people behind the ‘climate cover up’ and what is their agenda?
Industry front groups and compliant scientists, who are creating the impression that there is scientific controversy about climate change. Right wing groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the U.S. or the Cato Institute are some of the biggest players.
You also have public relations companies setting up new organizations like The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). It was seen as strategically smarter to set up groups that look like concerned scientists and use them to hammer away at what they call ‘junk science’.
One of the most recent examples is the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) that tried to convince Americans in electoral swing states that coal is clean. The budget for their campaign was somewhere around 40 million dollars during the last presidential election, and it was very successful.
Why do these organizations fight the idea of climate change?
The answer is very simple: there are hundreds of billions of dollars to be protected in the fossil fuel industry and these people are very interested in protecting their bottom line. Before Copenhagen, many people not connected to spin doctors or lobby groups expressed doubts about global warming. What was motivating them?
Well, industry front groups like Americans for Prosperity start out by paying for protestors: people holding those signs with Barack Obama looking like the devil. I have seen documents showing PR firms charging 1800 dollars per protestor.>Companies can buy protestors, and if you are clever with your framing of the issue these paid protestors attract real protestors. The bulk of people in the U.S. who oppose the idea of anthropogenic global warming don’t like being told what to do by the UN or some foreigners. So framing it as a UN scheme, or a scam by international scientists, appeals to these people. The idea that this is junk science, for example, is built on a deeply religious, anti-science fundamentalism in the United States. But what people really fail to do is distinguish between an opinion and scientific results.But many climate scientists seem overwhelmed by the fierce criticism from skeptics.
Should they sell their point of view better?
It’s not their business. Their job is to do the research and report the findings. A number of climate scientists have become advocates, but they are not necessarily great at
Unfortunately, most of the legitimate climate scientists are staying out of this. They don’t want to get smeared. I know a few climate scientists and they are telling me stories about emails and letters that they get that are just chilling.
What is your professional advice?
I think that we need to avoid these debates because they give credibility to people who don’t have evidence. But climate scientists shouldn’t avoid educating people. Most people know about the scary potential impacts of climate change, but they don’t know how that affects them or how it works.
What other tools for manipulating public opinion are being used?
One of the most powerful communication tools is the focus group. You get people together to learn about their thinking on certain issues. Turn these techniques onto climate change and you find that many people believe that scientists are still debating, so you repeat that message. You create an ‘echo chamber’. Get Dick Cheney and George Bush and Fox News and the Competitive Enterprise Institute to talk and then just keep repeating what they say--‘the science is not settled, the science is not settled, the science is not settled’— until the public starts repeating it back. It’s a frightening phenomenon.
What other rhetoric or verbal devices are being used?
Global cooling is another famous phrase. What you do here is appeal to people’s sense of the unpredictability of weather. So if it is snowing in Florida, global warming has a problem. People are confused about such conter-intuitive things, so you appeal to this confusion and start selling doubt. Climate change is a global phenomenon, but it seems as if the majority of skeptics come from North America. Why is that so? Climate change has become a proxy in the United States for partisanship. So you have this odd thing where the majority of Republicans do not believe that it is happening and the majority of Democrats do believe it is happening. It is very seldom that you run into a senior Republican leader who acknowledges that climate change is a serious problem.
Do you think more education about climate change could make a difference?
If you are a Republican or a Democrat you often have an emotional attachment to values that you believe and understand. Factual information just bounces off. It doesn’t matter what scientists are saying, it’s just another opinion. But the more that Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Mayor Bloomberg speak out about climate change, the better.
You need religious leaders speaking out, you need scientists, and community leaders. Another thing we could do is require these phony grassroots organizations to register like lobbyists. In Canada and the U.S. they can fly under the radar. Many people just don’t know that the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity aren’t normal Americans, they are coal companies.
.
3 comments :
There's no front group. We're frickin' tearin' it down.
Hey, nobody can say we aren't "fair and balanced" here at Island Breath.
BTW, about that picture of, "People dressed as CO2 molecules head toward a demonstration at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin during the Copenhagen meeting on Climate Change"
Bunch of goofy-a$$ed $oB'$. Lotta good those C02 costumes did. Those people in Copenhagen didn't even know how to protest. The Copenhagen Accord rough draft still isn't even finished and a deadline is coming up in about a week.
Poll: Americans cool on climate change
CNN Jan 28, 2010
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Survey of American adults reveals a sharp fall in concern for climate change issues
* Fewer Americans trust scientists and climate leaders as source of information on climate
* In 2008 71 percent of Americans thought climate change real. Figure now is 57 percent.
(CNN) -- Public concern about global warming and trust in climate leaders has dropped sharply in the U.S. according to a survey.
Fifty-seven percent of Americans polled at the end of 2009 and early 2010 believe climate change is happening compared with a figure of 71 percent in October 2008.
The report, "Climate Change in the American Mind" published jointly by Yale University and the George Mason University Wednesday also reveals a picture of falling trust in scientists, politicians and the media concerning climate change.
Anthony Leiserowitz, principal investigator and director of the Yale Project on Climate Change told CNN: "I'm not surprised by the direction of the results but I am surprised at the magnitude of them...
Over 1000 American adults were interviewed for the report. Respondents answered questions on a range of climate change issues including rating their trust of public institutions and climate leaders as a source of information.
Trust in scientists dropped nine percent from 83 to 74 percent, while faith in the mainstream news media slumped from 47 percent in 2008 to 36 percent.
Along with the media, Al Gore experienced the biggest fall in trust according to the survey. In 2008, 58 percent of respondents said they "strongly trust" or "somewhat trust" the former vice president and climate activist. In 2010 that figure has fallen to 47 percent.
Support for President Barack Obama remained largely unchanged at 51 percent compared to 53 percent in October 2008.
Other prominent climate opinion makers faired poorly. 36 percent of people trust the former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin while only 35 percent rate Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger as a reliable source of information on climate change.
Leiserowitz thinks this widespread decline in support is down to two main factors.
"Clearly the economy is dominating all issues right now. People in the U.S. are, frankly, afraid and they're angry at Washington, Wall Street and elected officials who don't seem to be responding. As a result the climate has gone down in public priority," Leiserowitz said.
"But I think also in the past few weeks and months some really troubling stories have been reported around climate science," he added.
Leiserowitz points to the damage caused first by the so-called "Climategate" scandal in November 2009 which was seized upon by climate skeptics who argued scientists have been suppressing data.
And more recently concerns surrounding parts of the Himalayan glacier data published in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"They [climate skeptics] have taken these as opportunities to drive home their particular message, and I think they've been successful."...
Post a Comment