Guest post by Thomas Fuller
Over the past week we have looked at several very potent symbols that were misused by major media campaigns that pushed a political agenda to promote vigorous action to combat global warming. We saw that they had to ignore basic arithmetic to paint polar bears as threatened, hyperventilate over GRACE findings that less than 0.5% of East Antarctic ice may have disappeared, and ignore IPCC scientists so they could insist that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.
It would be very easy to write exactly the same type of story about the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and floods, the Amazon rainforest and African agriculture. In all cases, grey literature, a lack of perspective and some dubious research were packaged together to paint a widely disseminated but inaccurate portrait of danger posed by global warming.
But in this guest post I would like to talk about the media campaigns themselves. I have a bit of experience in this, as I have been advising companies on media strategies for almost 20 years now.
An organisation like Greenpeace, with a budget of $213 million for 2007, doesn’t say how much it spent on advertising, although they report spending over $3 million on media and communications. However, a source has told me that their combined media spend (and including that of their 27 country offices) comes to a bit over $50 million. The German branch of Greenpeace spent $2.5 million on advertising just by itself.
Greenpeace International spends its money on ‘campaigns’ such as Oceans, Forests and Trees. And of course, Climate and Energy, on which Greenpeace International spent $4.3 million. And much of the money spent on their campaigns is on advertising. (And of course, a lot is spent on fundraising, staff and things like maintaining the Rainbow Warrior.)
But I don’t want to pick on Greenpeace. Wikipedia has a list of about 500 environmental organisations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_organizations
So let’s talk about what I think actually happens. Let’s say that the WWF commissions a scientific research project about, for example, the Amazonian rain forest. They identify a scientist who has demonstrated his commitment to ecological principles by working to save the Amazon for over 20 years–someone like Daniel Nepstad. They structure his research in line with his previous output, guaranteeing that the results will be in line with what they already know. The report comes out saying not just that rain forests like rain, but that even a slight decrease in precipitation can have disastrous effects on the rain forest.
WWF puts out a press release and targets some advertising to show the Amazon turned into a desert, or savannah. Another organisation pipes up with their own analysis of satellite photography of the Amazon that may lend support. Other environmental organisations piggy-back on the WWF’s work with their own press releases, advertising, op-ed contributions, letters to the editor and to politicians (Greenpeace alone has 2.8 million members), and it becomes big news. The fact that it is becoming big news stimulates a second round of media targeting, going after the mainstream media, getting columnists and broadcasters to cover the story–because the story now is the media campaign, not just the Amazon (which by itself is too remote to touch the flinty hearts of editors).
It gives the appearance of a well-coordinated campaign, thought up in the boardrooms of people that readers here have already indicated they distrust, like George Soros or Maurice Strong. But the odds are very good that it is not. It is quick reaction by sympathetic organisations taking advantage of an opportunity to reinforce messages that they have supported since they came into existence.
So I’m not suggesting a plot, or a worldwide conspiracy. As these organisations have grown, they have gotten rich enough to employ savvy media professionals, who do communicate with each other and are quick to spot the main chance. (Sort of like me being willing to help Anthony with a few guest posts, no matter how much I rile up the regulars.)
These people have calenders of relevant upcoming events, from local elections to Earth Day. They have rolodexes with each others’ names as well as all the journalists and politicians they can grab–and they share. They have a forward publishing schedule, so they often know what sister organisations are going to come out with, so they can coordinate similar releases.
It’s like the blogosphere, in a way–only with money. Lots of it. They have a lot of political and economic clout and they are determined to use it. If some mistakes are made along the way, they are willing to ride it out and persevere. The skeptics have nothing like this at their disposal, despite protestations from people like Naomi Oreskes. The think tanks are mostly marginally concerned about climate change, and there is nothing like a calendar or publishing schedule. Opposition to climate activisim is completely ad hoc, which is why it is so surprising that they have had some tactical successes.
This is a really tough time for these people. They staked a lot on getting a global agreement in Copenhagen, and it’s a real blow to them (and their egos) that it didn’t happen. Losing the US cap and trade battle was equally damaging to them. But taken as a very large group, they have money, organisation and a lot of professional skill.
It will take more than Climategate or the Hockey Stick to beat them. Readers of Watt’s Up With That should be aware of that.
But you should also put away the idea that this is some centrally directed conspiracy with an aim of global government. There is no need of a conspiracy theory to explain events of the past two decades.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfulleThe Media Campaigns That Promote Dubious Science Thomas Fuller
Over the past week we have looked at several very potent symbols that were misused by major media campaigns that pushed a political agenda to promote vigorous action to combat global warming. We saw that they had to ignore basic arithmetic to paint polar bears as threatened, hyperventilate over GRACE findings that less than 0.5% of East Antarctic ice may have disappeared, and ignore IPCC scientists so they could insist that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.
It would be very easy to write exactly the same type of story about the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and floods, the Amazon rainforest and African agriculture. In all cases, grey literature, a lack of perspective and some dubious research were packaged together to paint a widely disseminated but inaccurate portrait of danger posed by global warming.
But in this guest post I would like to talk about the media campaigns themselves. I have a bit of experience in this, as I have been advising companies on media strategies for almost 20 years now.
An organisation like Greenpeace, with a budget of $213 million for 2007, doesn’t say how much it spent on advertising, although they report spending over $3 million on media and communications. However, a source has told me that their combined media spend (and including that of their 27 country offices) comes to a bit over $50 million. The German branch of Greenpeace spent $2.5 million on advertising just by itself.
Greenpeace International spends its money on ‘campaigns’ such as Oceans, Forests and Trees. And of course, Climate and Energy, on which Greenpeace International spent $4.3 million. And much of the money spent on their campaigns is on advertising. (And of course, a lot is spent on fundraising, staff and things like maintaining the Rainbow Warrior.)
But I don’t want to pick on Greenpeace. Wikipedia has a list of about 500 environmental organisations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_organizations
So let’s talk about what I think actually happens. Let’s say that the WWF commissions a scientific research project about, for example, the Amazonian rain forest. They identify a scientist who has demonstrated his commitment to ecological principles by working to save the Amazon for over 20 years–someone like Daniel Nepstad. They structure his research in line with his previous output, guaranteeing that the results will be in line with what they already know. The report comes out saying not just that rain forests like rain, but that even a slight decrease in precipitation can have disastrous effects on the rain forest.
WWF puts out a press release and targets some advertising to show the Amazon turned into a desert, or savannah. Another organisation pipes up with their own analysis of satellite photography of the Amazon that may lend support. Other environmental organisations piggy-back on the WWF’s work with their own press releases, advertising, op-ed contributions, letters to the editor and to politicians (Greenpeace alone has 2.8 million members), and it becomes big news. The fact that it is becoming big news stimulates a second round of media targeting, going after the mainstream media, getting columnists and broadcasters to cover the story–because the story now is the media campaign, not just the Amazon (which by itself is too remote to touch the flinty hearts of editors).
It gives the appearance of a well-coordinated campaign, thought up in the boardrooms of people that readers here have already indicated they distrust, like George Soros or Maurice Strong. But the odds are very good that it is not. It is quick reaction by sympathetic organisations taking advantage of an opportunity to reinforce messages that they have supported since they came into existence.
So I’m not suggesting a plot, or a worldwide conspiracy. As these organisations have grown, they have gotten rich enough to employ savvy media professionals, who do communicate with each other and are quick to spot the main chance. (Sort of like me being willing to help Anthony with a few guest posts, no matter how much I rile up the regulars.)
These people have calenders of relevant upcoming events, from local elections to Earth Day. They have rolodexes with each others’ names as well as all the journalists and politicians they can grab–and they share. They have a forward publishing schedule, so they often know what sister organisations are going to come out with, so they can coordinate similar releases.
It’s like the blogosphere, in a way–only with money. Lots of it. They have a lot of political and economic clout and they are determined to use it. If some mistakes are made along the way, they are willing to ride it out and persevere. The skeptics have nothing like this at their disposal, despite protestations from people like Naomi Oreskes. The think tanks are mostly marginally concerned about climate change, and there is nothing like a calendar or publishing schedule. Opposition to climate activisim is completely ad hoc, which is why it is so surprising that they have had some tactical successes.
This is a really tough time for these people. They staked a lot on getting a global agreement in Copenhagen, and it’s a real blow to them (and their egos) that it didn’t happen. Losing the US cap and trade battle was equally damaging to them. But taken as a very large group, they have money, organisation and a lot of professional skill.
It will take more than Climategate or the Hockey Stick to beat them. Readers of Watt’s Up With That should be aware of that. But you should also put away the idea that this is some centrally directed conspiracy with an aim of global government. There is no need of a conspiracy theory to explain events of the past two decades.
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfullerr
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It seems. Tom, that everyone, pro or con to the issue, hates your opinion. I think you may be on the right track!
All the best…. Jeff
I saw a report today that stated fake antivirus a little over 1 billion new malware variants were discovered in the first half of this year. The main motivation for malware today is money, such as by fake antivirus scams, to send out spam, to steal your identity or personal information, or to hold a person or company hostage. Indeed, malware and virus creators are known to pay a bounty for every computer infected. The point of this is simple: When quick easy money is to be had, there are many who want that money and they will not give it up without a difficult fight.
Environmental groups have quick easy money. All they have to do is peddle some scare story and they will get donations from suckers and government handouts. How hard is it to scare people? Indeed, Wikpedia lists around 500 of such organizations according to this article. Do you really think so many environmental groups would have started if it wasn’t profitable? Where do such groups get their money? Do they sell something? They might sell T-shirts or the like, but they certainly don’t sell lots of goods or services. There is money to be had. And how do you loosen a person’s wallet? If you preach sunshine and lollipops, people will think everything is fine and therefore we will hold on to our money. If you preach doom and gloom, people will open up their wallets because something has to be done. That is all it takes. Anybody can do it. You just have to follow the model of those who are already successful and you’ll quickly have enough money to live on easy street for a long time.
Now I’m sure several of these environmental groups started off with the best of intentions, especially the earlier ones. But money corrupts as much as power. And the result is what you see by the modern day Greenpeace, WWF, Sierra Club, and others. I would love to see how much money is spent saving the earth versus how much money is spent getting more money, advertising, and salaries. The Sierra Club and 3 other environmental groups ran a commercial in my state against the incumbent Republican senator who is not in their pocket. How much money did that cost? Why wasn’t that money put to better use, such as buying some land and preventing development on it?
(Footnote: I’m not comparing environmental groups with virus writers. Virus writers are much worse. What I am saying is that when easy money is to be had, there are many people who will exploit it even if it is not moral or ethical. These are just two examples of easy money and there are many others.)
Hmm, so if the environmental extremists think they are lacking money to save the climate, the obvious thing to do would be to slash the amount of organizations in half to free up an unseemly amount of cash.
Andreas says:
September 13, 2010 at 4:47 am
… this scandalous trade and criminal business from these so called NGO:s.
Please don’t let these shysters off the hook… let it go… keep on ranting… keep in cursing!
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 13, 2010 at 5:08 am
The Mafia does not exist.
Just like the Spanish Inquisition doesn’t exist… and black ops don’t exist… and spooks don’t exist… and money doesn’t talk…. So lets all keep happy and sing along: High Hopes – Whoops there goes another accidented rubber tree plant…
Keith Battye says:
September 13, 2010 at 5:33 am
Thirty years into this global catastrophe and none of the predictions are true.
Not that the Main Stream Media has a memory… or the electorate… or the politicians…
Roger Carr says:
September 13, 2010 at 5:34 am
but my money is mainly on boredom.
My money is mainly on MONEY… it is the economy that counts… and at the moment it is counting backwards…
the governments are funding the NGO’s in Aus..
and Agenda 21 or whatever pseudoname that various councils etc label it, millenium 21 is another..are sure ALL tied into the UN IMF and WHO agendas to gain an awful lot of control over people and resources.
Gates and a lot of other big money sources are on the bandwagon and it is NOT Philanthropy, its self interest and greed, all good PR and makes the gullible buy their items, cos theyre sooo nice. his 800k? shares in BP make him a thorough charlatan, his support of vaccination and now GM foods for the poor. disgust me!
scuse me while I Puke!
Maybe Greenpeace could actually USE the money to do something? rather than keep hitting the public for more? seeing as so many are volunteers, they sure are ripping the world off..slave labour by any other name?
Adam Smith developed “economics” based on the hypothesis that individuals and nations are motivated by “enlighted” self interest. In the last half-century that motivator has evolved into “what’s in it for me now?”. In the process, truths that enlighten appear to have little or even negative value. Watch closely who is sponsoring political issue ads regarding energy and environmental legislation (supporting incumbants that voted for “cap-and-trade”). How will you vote?
While I agree that there is a media machine behind numerous environmental groups, many of which share similar goals (Greenpeace, WWF, Sierra Club, etc.), there is another aspect as to why these organizations are now gaining so much traction, when a mere 25 years ago they were far fewer and more ‘fringe’. I am speaking of the amount of money these groups spend on education.
It’s no real surprise that we’re seeing a surge in environmental activism. We’re now seeing the product of 25 years of educational spending, from elementary school through high school, that is producing people who have an indoctrinated belief in how mankind is affecting the world. We now have teachers in schools who have been raised in this particular indoctrination, and they pass these misguided beliefs onto the children because they don’t know any better (and their education has been less about critical thinking and more about group thinking).
I’m a college professor (I teach chemistry), and I see this particular kind of “conclusion without evidence” or “incorrect conclusion from data presented”. The clear problem shows up in laboratories, where students cannot make any reasoned conclusions because they have been ill-equipped for critical thinking. However, these students are the same ones who have numerous activism buttons on their bags, eat “organic”, and are convinced mankind is destroying the planet.
It’s not the 10 letter c-word that ends with -icy (don’t want the spam filter picking it up), but it’s more of a reflection of the shifting goals in higher/secondary/elementary education, and a lack of counter-argument. As Thomas states, the opposition is more “ad hoc”, which stems from proper scientific argument when some people have disagreements about the conclusions of another. Unfortunately, the reasoned responses are attributed to “Right-Wing Anti-Science” types or “Deniers”, a meme that is taking over the reason-based discussions that permeated the literature 30 years ago.
If there’s one thing Climategate has taught us, it’s that critical thinking isn’t necessary for scientific analysis any more.
So are you saying that the Website RealClimate is part of a media campaign promoting dubious science? Do you have any proof of this? I mean, *any*?
And how about your wild conjecture “They structure his research in line with his previous output, guaranteeing that the results will be in line with what they already know.” Can you provide any examples where this is the case? If the conspiracy is as widespread as you say there should be dozens of examples you can come up with.
It seems to me this is a great cross between a wild-eyed conspiracy piece and a smear article. You offer no proof that any nefarious activities are going on, in fact you even say outright that you don’t, it’s ‘here’s what I think happens’. As someone who considers himself a reporter this is an example of terrible, horrible reporting. No facts, all conjecture, all opinion.
Thomas, you may be right in that a sort of ‘old boys network’ actually co-ordinates the scare stories in a sort of Madison Avenue fashion. Maybe there is no mafia-like over-arching organisation behind the AGW network of advocacy groups, their publicists and their scientists, but I am convinced that most of the world’s universities and state school systems are staffed and run by people who are unaware of how deeply they and the education infrastructure has been contaminated by Marxism, which provides an endless supply of ‘willing idiots’ who perpetuate the scare story du jour, including the sillier aspects of CAGW. There are enough examples of unacceptable, or, at best, inappropriate, teaching materials being fed into schools at all levels and not just in the various national science curricula, for any parent to at least be aware of what is being taught in his or her children’s classroom. While the Marxist thrust may not be centrally organised, it has gathered enough momentum to be defining what is taught in the supposedly ‘free world’.
mikelorrey says:
September 13, 2010 at 6:06 am
“…gives the UN the ability to operate independently of the will of its donor states and to borrow large amounts of capital with which to finance things like, say, large military forces under UN control…”
Fortunately, the UN et al seem incapable of budgeting in a fiscally prudent manner. Note the world financial crisis. That is why Copenhagen failed. They ran out of other peoples money before they could finish the deal. They wont mess up the next time though.
“Promotion of con****acy theories are generally not condoned on this blog”
Then an article like this really shouldn’t be either. If you want to declare con****acy off limits to discussion, then you don’t discuss it yourself. Allowing the author of a post to take one side of an issue and rejecting any contrary opinions is what the Warmists do.
I’ll agree with the author that there is no single Grand Con****acy to which every Warmist is a party. Instead there are a few smaller con***acies (such as the CRU scandal has revealed) in collusion with one another. That latter word is sufficiently broad as to include a situation where the colluding parties have no shared secret plans to coordinate their activities, but do have interests that would be furthered by certain events taking place. The various parties, knowing these others share some tactical goals, will cooperate without overt coordination, almost as if an “invisible hand” had guided them.
*bangs head on desk*
Conspiracy theorizing is good clean fun, but let’s be realistic.
There’s no way a conspiracy lasts very long if it consists of more than a few people. The media campaigns Tom describes aren’t the product of conspiracies – they are the product of a social movement. That’s why so many of the people involved in promoting it seem to have similar worldviews and interlacing solutions.
One could think of AGW alarmism like the civil rights movement, but deriving authority from climate scientists instead of baptist ministers. Or one could think of it as a movement like the Vietnam War protests, or prohibition, or women’s suffrage.
Except that it’s broader than the examples I’m coming up with; AGW alarmism is a pan-European movement, even more than a North American movement.
By the way, my “Is the right wing anti science” link above, from The Atlantic quotes Anthony:
Good luck with that Anthony.
#
#
The Monster says:
September 13, 2010 at 7:01 am (Edit)
It’s not the discussion of a plot, scheme, plan, intrigue, connivance, machination, ploy, subterfuge etc. etc. that is the issue in this case . . . it just appears that the spam filter traps responses with the c word so they get slowed down a bit.
That’s my take on this anyway.
Philip Thomas says:
September 13, 2010 at 6:09 am
“[Major media campaigns] ignore IPCC scientists so they could insist that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.”
I was under the impression that this claim was made by the scientists in the IPCC report
======================================================
Philip, it’s obvious, after reading “Tom” for a while, that Tom is also very selective with what he reads, and also selective of what “truths” he writes about.
Either that, or he is well read on the subject, and he’s twisting it too.
docattheautopsy:
Was that a scientific observation, doc? 😉
I think people will wake up one day to realise that the UN is not really their friend. That it’s only ever been interested in identifying problems that it is the solution for. ‘Climate Change’ will eventually be seen for what it really is – a means to that end. There is a bigger picture though and it’s not particularily difficult to comprehend – rich and powerful people will always seek ways to be richer and more powerful. There, no “c’ word required and more importantly no “t” word either !
(UN) papers for the meeting obtained by Fox News indicate that the topics included:
“– how to continue to try to make global redistribution of wealth the real basis of that climate agenda”
“novel ways to bypass its member nation states and deal directly with constituencies that support U.N. agendas.”
“Is the global governance structure, still dominated by national sovereignty, capable of responding with the coherence and speed needed?” it asks. “Or do we need to push the ‘reset’ button and rethink global governance to meet the 50-50-50 Challenge?”
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/09/08/years-setbacks-looks-world-leader/
Tom Fuller,
Thank you for posting this topic and creating the opportunity to philosophize, again.
Before I begin on this rather controversial topic, I must stress that I do not see any doomsday/apocalytic collusion situation. I only see need for continued vigilance. No alarmism here, yawn, if you want that then move along.
Prima Fascia, your logic looks sound about environmental groups and news media not fermenting konspiracies (purposely misspelled to dupe the spam filter, I hope).
However, even if I were to accept your post entirely, to me clearly it is quite reasonable to conclude the probable existence of other groups (non-media and non-environmental groups) of people who see an opportunity in the idea of AGW for manipulation of some environmental groups, some news media and some educational institutions for ulterior purposes.
Why do I consider it quite reasonable to conclude the probable existence of other groups (non-media and non-environmental) who have the goals of manipulating some media, some environmental groups and some educational institutions? It is because I know that most of the very large number people are still around who supported intellectually, politically and morally all that 20th century stuff involving socialism’s/communism’s global dominance plan and triumphant calls to eliminate what America stood for (private freedom & capitalism). The widespread failure of socialism/communism in the late 20th century does not mean that those people abandoned their philosophies/ideals. Au contraire, mon ami . . . . they are angry the capitalists prevailed so far. So far. Do those people individually see an opportunity for their goals in the AGW theory? Of course. Duh. Do those people know each other’s cellphone numbers, website and email addresses? Betcha.
Does the above scenario painted by me make a konspiracy probable? No, not if those people have become virtually all dog-eat-dog (an old term of theirs) capitalists. Do any of the commenters here think most of them became devoted capitalists?
Finally, ahhh, remind me again what that UN thing is all about. Is it private freedom & capitalism?
Again, no alarmism/doomsday/apocalyptic stuff . . . yawn . . . just constant vigilance.
John
it’s just a small incestuous ‘climate change’ world…
watch the connections, Anybody remember my link to Futerra..
Rules of The Game – a Climategate doc, released with all the emails.
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/RulesOfTheGame.pdf
“Futerra and The UK Department for Environment published the Rules of the Game on 7 March 2005. The game is communicating climate change; the Rules will help us win it. The document was created as part of the UK Climate Change Communications Strategy.”
also other docs:
http://www.futerra.co.uk/revolution/leading_thinking
New Rules;New Game
Sell The Sizzle, etc…
Ever wondered where ‘Carbon Footprint’ came from (Futerra focus grouped it…)
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Words-That-Sell.pdf
They also advice the UN Environment Program:
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/WebEN21.pdf
Futerra, in partnership with the UN Environment Programme, published Communicating Sustainability: How to produce effective public campaigns in September 2005.
Well the co founder Ed Gillspie, also writes for…
wait for it….
The Guardian…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ed-gillespie
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/17/climate-change-advertising-standards-authority
Also, ED Gillspie is part of a group ( a director) called Sandbag, promoting Carbon Offsets (and selling tonnes of CO2) They are campaigning for carbon emmisions trading, and the set up of EU emmisions trading
http://www.sandbag.org.uk/whoweare
A co director – of Sand Bag. is Mike Mason – co founder of Climate Care. (and still MD).
This is where Prince Charles and Al Gore can by their carbon offsets, for all their airmiles, and cars, and expensive homes.
http://www.jpmorganclimatecare.com/about/our-organisation/
Climate Care being bought by JP MORGAN CHASE Bank in 2008 (no doubt as a nice earner, post causing a financial crash)
Also Ed Gillspie
Mike Mason, on the losing side of that Oxford Climate debate, where all he could do was abuse Lord Monckton…
Ed Gillspie, is also a commissionar for the London Sustainability Commision.
What a small incestuous world, ‘the climate change’ industry is
Haven’t started on the other directors of Futerra yet……
The skeptics have nothing like this at their disposal
Hey! We get our round and shining pal up there in the sky. That skeptic it’s a WUWT regular!
I rather agree with the author, there isn’t a central conspiracy, but science is asked to decide about issues too quickly.
It is also asked to answer impossible questions – I mean, given a quantity like average global temperature, that is subject to a range of cyclical variations, plus some noise, it is obviously not possible to determine if CO2 is making a difference until data has been recorded over a much longer time period. Politicians want an answer to a simplistic question, and use our money to get an answer – be it right or wrong.
I also suspect a lot of science has evolved in unfortunate ways. Computer models are easy to construct, tweakable to get the expected answers, and basically function to hide the assumptions that were used to create them, and create output that looks misleadingly like real data. The peer review system was always imperfect, and it is hardly surprising that some scientists have learned to subvert it. Research of this sort provides a good living for scientists who don’t really care if their answers are right, so long as they are politically right.
I actually feel very sorry for organisations like Green Peace and WWF, because I feel they used to campaign about real issues. Who, for example, can argue with their campaigns against the transport of plutonium nuclear fuel by sea, or those opposing the destruction of the rain forests. Somewhere they got mislead, perhaps deliberately, into concentrating on a worthless issue that is certainly less significant than a host of other concerns.
Some more media/pr ‘climate change’ people.
Fiona Fox / Bob Ward are extremly pro CAGW…
Bob Ward – on the board – Science and Media Centre
Fiona Fox – Director of the Science and Media Centre.
Fiona, who infamously on BBC Newswatch (23/04/2010) said:
“it is unnecessary….misleading…inaccurate… to always have a sceptic to balance the views of the climate scientist” Fiona Fox – Director, Science Media Centre
“Fight the good fight for accuracy, in fact. On Climate change there has been a real change.. People like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin BBC Environment, journalist/analysts) , fighting internally to say we DON’T have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate story.”
Bob Ward attacks ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion ‘ in the Guardain.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/8/19/me-and-bob.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/8/25/message-from-the-guardian.html
After the Guardain were forced to make a number of changes to the original article.
Bishop Hill, Andrew Montford got to write a response in The Guardain.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/9/10/my-response-to-bob-ward.html
(Bob Ward is also comms director – Grantham Institue for Climate Change)
Yet EXXONMobil help fund the salaries of the Science and Media Centre…
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/about/funding.htm
Yes Bob and Fiona, get funded by EXXONmobil!!!!!!!!!
Wonder if they tell their ‘climate change’ activist chums…
Fiona Fox – Director – Science and Media Centre
Bob Ward on the board.
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/about/smc_board.htm
YEP, the big oil denial machine supposed leader, climate change activists (and Sir John houghton.s) favourite love to hate, fossil fuel climate change denying, oil company…
EXXON Mobil
Have to laugh really..
Shell
BP
as are:
Met Office
Department of Energy and Climate Change
and many more…(News International, Times, etc)
All contributing to Fiona’s salary….Bob’s as well (renumeration for board members or just expenses?)
No need for conspiracy, just to fuel a few self bragging nuts about their self importance and superior intelligence…they will set on fire a whole prairy of their ilk
Thanks, Thomas for bringing a timely marketing perspective to the scientific community. Pure facts and truths are unfortunately not enough in a marketplace that AGW – promoting NGO’s and their PR/advertising companies understand and manipulate so well – with the advantage of huge budgets. I’ve been in the industry myself and know that emotion sells products and ideas: (“Oh, what a feeling” wins over “Oh, what a power to weight ratio” every time.) Science and logical argument have been proven less important than well-researched emotional spin when it comes to the average consumer. Serious comparison gives way to simplistic sound-bytes and quick-grab headlines. Some serious money needs to be allocated to counteract this appalling imbalance.
As for the conspiracy ‘theory’, you would need to examine just who has the most to gain from the ultimate benefits. I think you should do some serious research on that.