The Coyote blog picks on ‘The Pattern’ here. He calls it “the Global Warming Hype Process’:
Indeed, the pattern—of ‘linking’ natural disasters and ‘extreme events’ to climate change— has simply reached a point, where its proponents now speak openly about it and actively advocate for its perpetuation. You find John Beddington, chief scientist of the UK advocating linking natural disasters to global warming and activist former US president Gore readying to link ‘extreme weather’ to global warming.
This is exactly as per advice offered by marketing and public relations campaigners.
It would be sheer coincidence otherwise, that Gore’s ‘Climate Reality’ project is being directed by one Alex Bogusky, a public relations and marketing professional who’s Crispin Porter+Bogusky was behind such ad campaigns as Domino’s Pizza, Windows 7 and Burger King. Bogusky who suffered a corporate mid-life crisis is a part of the Gore effort to link ‘global warming’ to climate change, as is evident from this post on his blog
The Bogusky-founded fearlessrevolution.com, a blog farm,hosts marketing and other professionals’ writings about ‘sustainability’ and such things. One such post, I found, was titled ‘Wanted: PR for Science’ and featured the omnipresent fake polar bear picture (Urus bogus) that Science magazine popularized.
Coincidentally, New York journalist Keith Kloor attempted a few days back to paint a positive portrait of Edward Maibach, a social sciences researcher working on climate communication. As reported here, Maibach was listed a willing participant at the Stonehouse Standing Circle conference where public relations professionals pre-decided to carry out active linking between ‘global warming’ and natural disasters.
It is always very interesting to note at what juncture blog owners decide to cross the line and start censoring posts. In my case, Kloor decided to stop discussion when it turned adverse to his post’s mission.
More interestingly, we learn from Bishop Hill that the University of East Anglia had employed the services of a public relations firm Outside Organization, in managing its public image after the Climategate debacle. From the details, it only follows that the skeptics have been spending their time fighting the ghostly shadow-punches thrown by marketeers in the wake of Climategate. From its website (emphasis mine):
‘The Climategate scandal does not affect the science’, ‘scientists have been harassed by a deluge of FOI requests’, ‘scientists have come under death threats’, ‘we have clear evidence that there was a hack, and not a leak at the CRU’, ‘all the old temperature records from the 1980s have been lost’… — how is one now to know which of these were concerns voiced by geniune scientists and which, red herrings spun by public relation professionals to garner sympathy and protect the University of East Anglia’s ’image’?
If you remember, Climategate revealed CRU scientists in posessesion of advocacy documents from UK public relations firm: Futerra.
Going back a bit in time, one recalls researcher Simon Lewis of Amazongate fame who acted on the advice of his friends who were in marketing, to go into media activism mode.
A crisis in any scientific issue has very specific, fairly limited options as solutions. These may, or may not be effective, but they are the only legitimate approaches. Scientists, as opposed to celebrities, are not free to try ‘dirty tricks’ and ’communication strategies’ to work around a problem. The extensive involvement of public relations professionals in the climate change debate—entities that are completely extraneous to this process—explains, at least partly , why the public image of climate science continues to go down.Shub Niggurath Climate, 15 July 2011