Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus

[jbg]

Pollution was a serious problem circa 1970 and there was serious interest in it.

Now it is properly no longer a "mainstream" concern among people who are wondering how they're going to balance their checkbook or meet their mortgage payment.

It is a field properly left for charlatans such as Al Gore and David Suzuki. See below for AGW community's attempted "fix". See below.

==============================================================

May 2, 2009

Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus (link to article)

By JOHN M. BRODER

WASHINGTON — The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”

The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.

Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month, but acknowledged that its wide distribution now made compliance with his request unlikely.

The research directly parallels marketing studies conducted by oil companies, utilities and coal mining concerns that are trying to “green” their images with consumers and sway public policy.

Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists. “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”

**snip**

[noahbody]

“When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument.

Well, it is.

When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”

No doubt he is referring to the prison. Right before a new inmate is introduced to the life of being someone's bitch, he likely is told "the time for debate is over."

[WIP]

Pollution was a serious problem circa 1970 and there was serious interest in it.

Now it is properly no longer a "mainstream" concern among people who are wondering how they're going to balance their checkbook or meet their mortgage payment.

It is a field properly left for charlatans such as Al Gore and David Suzuki. See below for AGW community's attempted "fix". See below.

If Al Gore and David Suzuki are charlatans, what the hell does that make oil and energy company executives who are funding false flag environmental research groups to inform people to ignore rising CO2 levels and rising ocean acidification and melting glaciers? They are following the same strategy that tobacco companies used to slow the efforts to ban 2nd hand smoke, but this time the consequences for their lies are much greater than tobacco company scams of 30 years ago.

The pollution of 40 years ago was too obvious for even the most short-sighted people to ignore. Smog filled the major cities, industrial cities with steel mills and other smelting operations were free to burn low grade high sulphur coal that usually made the air smell like rotten eggs during the warm weather; the rivers and even Lake Erie were beginning to stink from all of the untreated sewage, so all that happened during the last four decades, was that the most obvious sources of pollution were removed. All this proves is that a lot of people have no concern for the environment unless they are choking to death! This is not a good argument for the wisdom of the common man -- he will go on focusing solely on the mortgage and other bills until the next great extinction cycle wipes out the human race.

But, there are some of us who have had this nagging feeling that the weather just doesn't seem to be the same as it was 40 years ago -- weather patterns seem to change on an almost daily basis, radical temperature shifts mean high winds damaging roofs and taking down tree branches and power lines are regular events, and rain comes in torrential floods that flood basements and close roads -- maybe it's just natural climatic change after a prolonged period of what climatologists labelled unusually stable and steady weather patterns, or maybe it does have something to do with the growing consumption of natural resources that a growing population is having on the planet's climate cycles.

The article referred to here contains no surprises about human behaviour. Most people can only think short term, and even most people with children and grandchildren don't seem to give a lot of thought to what sort of world is being left for future generations!

[sharkman]

What's this jbg? leaders of a certain philosophy are trying to manipulate people by changing terms and strategies? That's the problem with cults, when the truth isn't helping they change the truth to get people fired up for the cause. Next thing you know, cats start going missing.

[jbg]

If Al Gore and David Suzuki are charlatans, what the hell does that make oil and energy company executives who are funding false flag environmental research groups to inform people to ignore rising CO2 levels and rising ocean acidification and melting glaciers? They are following the same strategy that tobacco companies used to slow the efforts to ban 2nd hand smoke, but this time the consequences for their lies are much greater than tobacco company scams of 30 years ago.

Yes, it is true that the tobacco companies concealed the consequences of cigarettes with murderous consequences. The existence of natural cycles that warming and cooling cycles that in all likelihood swamp the CO2 impacts (if any) is well known. Thus the two are "apples and oranges" comparisons.

[WIP]

Yes, it is true that the tobacco companies concealed the consequences of cigarettes with murderous consequences. The existence of natural cycles that warming and cooling cycles that in all likelihood swamp the CO2 impacts (if any) is well known. Thus the two are "apples and oranges" comparisons.

Do you have evidence to back up your claim that human environmental impact is not great enough to affect the earth's natural cycles?

The population keeps growing every year; so does the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases we add to the atmosphere; half of that extra CO2 is absorbed by the world's oceans, making the oceans more acidic -- and all this occurs on a planet that cannot grow larger to accomodate growing populations that want to use more of the earth's resources. I have posted a number of articles over the last year or so that show declining populations in mammals, reptiles, amphibians and even insects; and the rapid fall-off in numbers looks like we are already in a mass extinction cycle to many paleontologists.

Now, just the fact that we are a linear progression, going in one direction, and our round earth is a finite resource, common sense tells me that at some point something's got to give! This is where all of the charts and claims of global warming deniers falls flat. At some point, there has to be a limit to how many people can live and exploit the earth's resources, and there has to be a limit to how high atmospheric CO2 levels can go, but the deniers don't address either issue, and instead tell us, so far, so good, and don't trust computer models - as if I'm going to spend my time learning computer modelling and information theory.

But, when it comes to scientific and technical issues that are too complex for everyone to have an expert opinion, I want to hear what the experts in climate and earth sciences have to say. And so far, all of the surveys around the world over the last 20 years show that the majority of scientists who work in these fields of research, are overwhelmingly of the opinion that there is a human impact on climate, it is growing, and it's not going to be good for our longterm prospects if we can't do something to lessen our impact:

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."[79]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op...s_of_scientists

NOw, where the tobacco connection comes in to the picture is that the many of the same public relations firms who designed the strategies of setting up a few dissenting doctors as experts with opposing opinions, were able to slow down the efforts to ban smoking in public places. Today, the PR firms working for oil, gas and coal companies have a small group of their own experts (many who do not actually have credentials in environmental sciences) to quell any actions to reduce carbon emissions and advocate a do-nothing strategy. And that is the connection to the tobacco strategy. Cigarette companies did not want to change the way they did business 30 years ago, just as the energy companies do not want any changes now.

[jbg]

Do you have evidence to back up your claim that human environmental impact is not great enough to affect the earth's natural cycles?

Let's start with the fact that CO2 is only 3% of all GHG's. Let's also add that the Viking period or Medieval Optimum was warmer, and that we are recovering from the Maunder Minimum of the late 1600's (the same one that made winters in Virginia and North Carolina punishingly cold for earlier settlers).

[WIP]

Let's start with the fact that CO2 is only 3% of all GHG's.

Where did you pull that number from? Because these numbers taken from an American Meteorological Society report gives a range for the effect of each greenhouse gas, along with an explanation of why exact numbers are not possible:

* water vapor, which contributes 36–72%

* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%

* methane, which contributes 4–9%

* ozone, which contributes 3–7%

It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the lower ends, for the gas counting overlaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Let's also add that the Viking period or Medieval Optimum was warmer, and that we are recovering from the Maunder Minimum of the late 1600's (the same one that made winters in Virginia and North Carolina punishingly cold for earlier settlers).

So, what does this prove aside from natural events can influence climate! And I should add that many paleoclimate researchers now believe that the warming of the Medieval Optimum has been greatly exaggerated because historical accounts outside of Europe show that the warming was a local phenomena in Northern Europe.

That aside, it has no bearing on the question of whether we are able to interfere with natural cycles today. And even if CO2 can keep going up without adding to the greenhouse effect, that doesn't speak to the damage done be rising CO2 levels on the world's oceans, since seawater absorbes half of the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere. The deniers are trying to narrow the debate to climate modeling and attacks on celebrity environmentalists. They do not want to address issues that are just as important as temperature data, such as the environmental damage of rising ocean CO2 levels, which makes the oceans more acidic and reduces the amount of oxygen absorbed by seawater.

[jbg]

So, what does this prove aside from natural events can influence climate! And I should add that many paleoclimate researchers now believe that the warming of the Medieval Optimum has been greatly exaggerated because historical accounts outside of Europe show that the warming was a local phenomena in Northern Europe.

That aside, it has no bearing on the question of whether we are able to interfere with natural cycles today. And even if CO2 can keep going up without adding to the greenhouse effect, that doesn't speak to the damage done be rising CO2 levels on the world's oceans, since seawater absorbes half of the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere. The deniers are trying to narrow the debate to climate modeling and attacks on celebrity environmentalists. They do not want to address issues that are just as important as temperature data, such as the environmental damage of rising ocean CO2 levels, which makes the oceans more acidic and reduces the amount of oxygen absorbed by seawater.

Arguing with AGW people is a lot like nailing jello to a wall. First we were going to fry. Then we were going to drown. Now the oceans are about to be wrecked.

Which is it?

[bush_cheney2004]

Arguing with AGW people is a lot like nailing jello to a wall. First we were going to fry. Then we were going to drown. Now the oceans are about to be wrecked.

Which is it?

It is odd how they flop about with flavor-of-the-month doom and disaster when any of real or imagined changes that they hope for can only be achieved with politics and economics.

Home fire pit sales have never been higher!

[jbg]

It is odd how they flop about with flavor-of-the-month doom and disaster when any of real or imagined changes that they hope for can only be achieved with politics and economics.

What about those poor polar bears, whose numbers are expanding?

[August1991]

Yes, it is true that the tobacco companies concealed the consequences of cigarettes with murderous consequences.

I dispute that claim.

Starting from the 1950s, there was solid evidence that using tobacco shortened life expectancy and contributed to several diseases. The information was freely available and indeed cigarette consumption took a significant decline. Other people chose to take the risk and continue smoking. Many people today choose to smoke cigarettes, regardless of the stringent health warnings and restrictions. Presumably, these people feel that the joy of smoking outweighs the potential negative health effects.

Did the tobacco companies conceal consequences? Perhaps. But so what? I think perjury and swearing an oath should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.

If Al Gore and David Suzuki are charlatans, what the hell does that make oil and energy company executives who are funding false flag environmental research groups to inform people to ignore rising CO2 levels and rising ocean acidification and melting glaciers?

Well WIP, you may not believe this but Gore and Suzuki have descended to the level of the corporate hacks you despise.

Environmentalists once had teh moral high ground and were credible. When they chose to use scare tactics to spread their message, they became shills, hawking some trinket. Slices, dices, makes cole slaw!

-----

I happen to be someone who has written about the environment for several years. A friend once asked me what I though of the green movement. I answered that at its base, the idea is right. Free markets as they are now constituted will not protect the environment. OTOH, I said, the Left has taken over this issue, removed it of any meaning and utterly destroyed it.

I am saddened when I see what people like Al Gore and David Suzuki have done to this public issue.

For example?

There is no longer lead in gasoline sold in North America. CFCs are no longer used and the size of ozone layer poses less of a problem. Acid rain is now under control.

In the past, we (right wing governments) solved environmental issues without the Leftist histrionics and tendency to re-identify, re-declare or re-invent - or use a thesaurus.

[kimmy]

I dispute that claim.

Starting from the 1950s, there was solid evidence that using tobacco shortened life expectancy and contributed to several diseases. The information was freely available and indeed cigarette consumption took a significant decline. Other people chose to take the risk and continue smoking. Many people today choose to smoke cigarettes, regardless of the stringent health warnings and restrictions. Presumably, these people feel that the joy of smoking outweighs the potential negative health effects.

Did the tobacco companies conceal consequences? Perhaps. But so what? I think perjury and swearing an oath should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.

I believe they also funded an endless number of "scientific" studies designed to "prove" that cigarette smoke was harmless, and used legal action to attempt to silence those whose research put the safety of tobacco under scrutiny. (A current parallel might be the arrival of Tazer International and their team of lawyers at the Dziekanski inquiry...)

People having the right to choose to take a risk requires having adequate information about a risk.

There is no longer lead in gasoline sold in North America. CFCs are no longer used and the size of ozone layer poses less of a problem. Acid rain is now under control.

In the past, we (right wing governments) solved environmental issues without the Leftist histrionics and tendency to re-identify, re-declare or re-invent - or use a thesaurus.

I am too young to recall the public debate over the ozone layer, leaded gas, or acid rain. However, I bet that there were people with vested interests arguing that there was no proof that CFCs were depleting the ozone layer, that industrial emissions cause acid rain (didn't Reagan famously blame acid rain on pine trees?), or that leaded fuel wasn't dangerous and that removing lead from gasoline would impose a terrible burden on those whose cars had older engines.

"If leaded gasoline is banned, think of all the working-class Americans who will have to spend their hard-earned savings on new cars or having their engines modified. This is an unreasonable burden on American families!"

When it comes to public policy, it's a political debate, not a scientific one. It's not just a question of presenting information to the public, it's a question of presenting it persuasively. Surely you're not under the impression that the greenies are the only ones applying spin to make their political position more palatable.

The phrase "global warming" has apparently gained a negative connotation, or become associated with tired rhetoric, so they wish to package their views in a way that doesn't have the negative connotations. Big deal. Happens all the time, on all kinds of issues (find me a feminist who still calls herself a feminist, for example.)

The other side are doing the same, with their own list of talking points. Whether it be fossil fuel industry people talking up imaginary technology like "carbon sequestration" and "clean coal", or Exxon-Mobile running TV ads with pictures of trees and parks bragging about the money they've invested in making gasoline burn cleaner, the fossil fuel industry is absolutely doing the same thing to spruce up their image. Why should the greenies be any different? Why bring a knife to a gunfight?

-k

[Bonam]

Whether it be fossil fuel industry people talking up imaginary technology like "carbon sequestration" and "clean coal"

How is this technology imaginary?

[enviralment]

I don't think that the environmental movement has gone anywhere if anything its grown. Now environmentalists influence energy, transport, even social law and you think that they aren't mainstream. If Al Gore can win a Nobel peace prize how can global warming not be mainstream. If Ontario pays Suzuki to be in commercials, as he rails against nuclear. i don't think its shrunk its ballooned on our eco-guilt.

[Shakeyhands]

I thought this thread was about The Charlatans vs. The Charaltans UK... silly me.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Shakeyhands

[JerrySeinfeld]

I thinkk it's dangerous to put forth an example like the tobacco companies as an example of global warming "deniers" today.

First of all, it's a stielted straw man argument, taking a proven failed propaganda effort by a narrow industry group (tobacco) and applying the same circumstance to a large group of people who are negatively affected by ever more impending government control over how we live our lives in the name of "saving the planet".

Just look at the posts above. One guy even suggested that it is now the "deniers' who must provide evidence that carbon isn't warming up the earth. Wow. Times have changed. Scientific theories used to have to provide evidence, yet in today's eco-cult, you just have to believe and the non-belivers are asked to provide evidence against your religion.

Just as the Iraq war is not Vietnam and the backlash against venomously anti-western muslims is not the civil rights movement, not every eco-lefty cause can be summed up by what some university kid learned while watching forest gump.

Unless of course you'd like to talk about how a scientist like Galileo was in the vast minority in his viewpoint and was called a "denier" by society, placed under house arrest for the rest of his life for not buying into the "consensus".

But that's for another day.

Argue the facts and stop trying to "educate" people with false analogies. Life isn't a 60's scrapbook.