Repackaging Global Warming (Surprisingly, Not “Climate Change” This Time)
And speaking of fibbing, someone’s fingers slipped when entering recipient e-mail addresses and a draft memo outlining a … rebranding campaign for global warming got wider distribution than intended. From Friday’s New York Times; h/t Drudge.
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.
“Cap and cash back”. Can we get a time frame on the second part of that phrase?
Other suggestions from the prematurely released memo.
“… remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study.
Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.
“Change the terms of the debate” now that we’ve figured out that cap-and-trade alone will cost every U.S. household $3,100. (We’re still waiting for the other wallet … er, shoe to drop on all of the “green energy” and “green jobs” promised by the administration.) What we haven’t figured out is how placing $366b in the hands of a public body not exactly renown for its fiscal restraint or dependability – i.e., Congress – would stop global warming, even if man is responsible for the phenomenon.
Why is all of this couching and reshaping necessary? Isn’t it clear to everyone that “the planet has a fever” and that cap-and-trade legislation is “the moral significance equivalent to that of the civil rights legislation of the 1960s“?
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.
Even behind moral decline? Yikes. Certainly, then, in their effort to raise consciences, advocates are justified in resorting to pretty lies steroid-juiced euphemisms.
I wonder how much warming will be generated by the linguistic spinning of Al Gore’s disciples.
Interesting piece on Fox News the other night about how Al Gore’s net worth has gone from $2 million when he left office to $100 million since he started hawking global warming.
The real “green jobs” won’t be the kinds of jobs that you and I think of when we hear “jobs.” They’ll be for Gore, lobbyists, spin artists and the rest of the usual gang of rent seekers in Washington, D.C.
For those who don’t believe that AGW is largely based on fraud, here is a very specific case that has documented substance and is hasn’t yet been completely stifled although U. of Albany is trying hard to keep their research grant cash cow (Professor Wang) going.
Never mind the example where Mann’s hockey stick was proven to be a concoction although no fraud case has been brought against him. Perhaps because he hides his publicly funded data and methods from viewing as long as he can.
The fraudulent and/or inept “science” still gets to generate the propaganda machines’ headlines even after they have been proven wrong.
At this point virtually every argument for catastrophic global warming is dead or has been significantly minimized.
Models fail to predict any better than random walks
Anarctic Ice continuing to exceed 1979-200 average
Arctic Ice near the 1979-2000 average.
Earth’s atmosphere cooling for the last 7 years.
….there’s a bunch more…
Here’s the Prof Wang fraud link:
http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/05/allegations-of-fraud-at-albany-wang.html
One small point, Garacka. The former Vice President claims to have “plowed every dollar” his companies have made back into the effort to stop global warming, implying that he is not personally profiting from any of this. (Even then, we have to ask, is he getting salaries from each of his non-profits?) I can’t argue with much else you say.
The problem with plowing money back into a solution is that it presumes a solution is in the hands of man. This is a very difficult case to make when man only contributes 6% of greenhouse gases, with Mother Nature contributing the other 94%. As that is the case, clearly, the only solution is for the entire planet to return to a pre-industrial revolution lifestyle.
And even that assumes that it is man’s paltry 6% and not fluctuations/cycles of the sun which is the tipping point.
Monique,
Gore’s worth 100 Million now. I wonder where that all came from?
Also, man doesn’t contribute 6% of greenhouse gases. The 6% (or so) is the greenhouse contribution of all greenhouse gases (natural and anthropogenic) besides the dominate water vapor at 94%(or so)
Man produces a small portion of that 6%. Looking at CO2, man contributes about 3% of the 380PPM (.038%)that is in the air now. That is only 0.001% of the atmosphere.
“Man produces a small portion of that 6%”
Garacka, you are absolutely correct. The 6% is of greenhouse gases excluding the biggest greenhouse gas of all: water.
If water is factored in, the amount of greenhouse gases that man generates is less than one third of one percent. Truly an absurdity.
I do wish the mainstream media would ask your question about where Gore’s $100m came from a little more often. All power to the man for accumulating wealth. But how much of it comes from his own crusade? And how much of it started as tax dollars? The pro-AGW bias of government research grants and other public dollars spent in this area of … er, science is widely acknowledged.