The New York Times carried an article by John M. Broder, "Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus", that describes how the environmental movement is being coached to "sell" their story of "climate change" more effectively. Broder says:
"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."
The article then gets to strategies for fooling the public: "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.' "
The article points out why the public isn't buying what the environmentalists are selling: "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.' " (... especially when the President used to say "global warming before he learned to say 'climate change'.")
But, Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, an expert on environmental communications, said the PR campaign was both cynical and ineffective. “The right uses it, the left uses it, but it doesn’t engage people in a face-to-face manner,” he said, “and that’s the only way to achieve real, lasting social change.”
As we used to say when I was in sales, "If you can't fascinate them with facts, baffle them with B.S." Look for more B.S. coming from an environmentalist near you.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 16
We/they are not going to stop or change natural evolution. Using their thesaurus just to steal more of our money to go to their corporatist buddies - that's the bottom line.
Here's an interesting video (related) I just got this a.m. from a friend on Digg:
http://digg.com/d1q7Mj?OTC-em-sh2
I notice how the rhetoric has swung from "global warming" to "climate change" in the last couple of years. This twist of a term solves the nasty problem of record high level of sea ice in the Antarctic and fully recovered sea ice extent in the Arctic. It also not only covers the record high temperatures around the country, but the record "all time low" temperatures, like what we witnessed this winter.
They had shift the rhetoric, but the climate is shifting in an unfavorable direction for climate hysterics. The Atlantic Decadal Oscillation and associated Arctic Oscillation is switching into its "low" phase so we will soon be seeing record cold temperatures and growing sea ice for the next 20-30 years.
Something really tough to explain as "warming".
I have never bought into the 'global warming theory' not because of a political aspect, but because scientists have shown a pattern in nature where this is natural, They've been talking about global warming as 'climate change' since I was in high school, and the effect that planes have on the ozone etc etc etc.
Now when Al Gore talks his hypothesis and his theory whatever you want to call it, that won him a Nobel Peace Prize, I tune him out, change the channel and ignore what he has to say... point blank and simple..
Pollution, saving the water ways, etc is important, but I don't equate that to global warming
Leveling the Field
Today's NY Times front-page article "Saving the Planet, with a Thesaurus" reports on new work we’ve done on talking to Americans about one of the most important choices our country faces: a future of clean and safe energy that doesn’t run out, or continued dependence on dirty 19th century fuel and an indefinite reliance on dangerous foreign oil.
We found what others who are doing similar research are finding – Americans overwhelmingly want our government to do what it takes to revive American leadership in technologies that will create jobs that can’t be shipped overseas and that build a healthy, prosperous future for my kids and yours.
This is front page news because the battle for public opinion is so fierce and so important. The coal and oil companies spend 99% of their energy development budgets on the dirty and dangerous energy of the past. But it seems like they're spending about 99% of their advertising budgets trying to convince Americans otherwise.
At ecoAmerica we’re fighting back. We and our partners work hard to talk to Americans in ways that are more clear, less wonky, and that better convey the values underlying our policies.
-Lee Bodner, Executive Director
I have heard thart Bull about how bad and dirty Coal is for generating electricity for years. I tend to agree that it stinks up the air but who has come up with an alternative that is as cheap or available?
I have heard about how there is an exhaustable oil supply and the world in going to run out of it. Yeah sure maybe in a few thousand years. There are new oil fields discovered nearly every day. A lot of them are never developed because the idiot environmentalists raise hell that it would disturb some plant or animal. Agin I have never heard of anyone developing an alternative sourse of the thousands of products gotten from oil.
Global Warming or Climate Change are nice catch words but are transparently fake. Anyone with half a brain should be able to see through that retoric and political BS.
They once believed Alaska and the Asian continent were connected.
So, I'll use my thesaurus and call it natural evolution of man and the earth.
Do you think the mass production of alcohol was stopped by prohibition because of people "drinking" it? That was the propaganda and, ultimately, that's all that happened after it was lifted.
Engines running on water were discovered over 40 yrs. ago, every time someone tried to bring it to the sunlight, they were murdered. Can you imagine how much "man made" pollution could have been avoided?
Same with cures for cancer - buried at the expense of millions of lives and the benefits of big pharma.
I'm old enough to remember the Carter Administration's expenditures to free our country from dependence on foreign oil after the Arab oil embargo in the 70's. Billions were spent by the then new Department of Energy to "develop" new technologies like solar and wind power, and the money was wasted.
We all know how the effort to "free our country from dependence on foreign oil" turned out - an abject failure. But, Washington is still promoting the fiction that the government bureaucrats can identify emerging technologies and develop them into industries that will produce millions of "jobs that can’t be shipped overseas and that build a healthy, prosperous future for my kids and yours."
The environmental-governmental B.S. machine is running full speed on the jobs issue, and I hope the American public is smarter this time around. I'm not buying what they're selling.
That warming thing is so 90's, so Al Gore!
But, when the enviro-wackos start inventing pollutants to ban in order to expand government control over us at a ridiculous cost, we ought to oppose them. Any politician who supports them is a threat to our jobs and our economy.
If one was to use that in the context of making America 'safe" it'd be militaristic and nationalistic. However in such a good cause as environmentalism, anything is ok. I'll admit my evidence against his words are conjectural being non scientific and local but the environment beyond the simple basics is far less important than many other things. That the enviros need to change the wording of their argument to hide its effects is not surprising, what was surprising was the public admission its necessary.
I'm all for conserving energy and doing whatever we can to keep our planet clean. I just don't respond well to people using this b.s. theory to try to shove global socialism down my throat.