Public Relations Firm Shapes Opinion with Fake Science

Ironsides submitted this BBC link about a conference on climate change and global warming. When you read it, you'll note that there's a real conference with real scientists being held a few days later. So what is this, if it's not the real conference? This is a fake, public relations "conference", organized by a corporate lobbying group, specifically to create doubt about an issue of considerable public importance. So the real scientists doing real work meet on Feb 1-3, the fake ones being paid for their opinions schedule a press opportunity for Jan 27, and the press covers them as if both their opinions should be given equal weight. Jon Stewart's media criticism applies: You're hurting [the world].

Comments

That's right

[Profane MuthaFucka]

What's new? Equal time in today's media is presenting the views of someone who is right, presenting the views who is completely wrong, and letting the public decide.

A slight spin on it would be to present the views of 99.9% of all scientists, give equal time to the 0.1% of scientists who disagree, but not to explain that the 0.1% who disagree are complete raving loons. Instead the impression is made that there is an actual controversy in the field, when there is actually none. Evolution vs. creationism is a good example. There's no controversy, except in the minds of the supremely ignorant.

Science or PR?

[Engineer-Poet]

If a scientist is making statements based on what they're paid to say rather than what is supported by the evidence, are they doing science or public relations/propaganda?

Whether or not they are corporate schills is irrelevant. If they're truly fake, it shouldn't be hard to disprove what they're saying, and you shouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies to discredit them. Ad hominem attacks have no place in science.

You seem to think that selling out for a paycheck is irrelevant to the public interest. Quite the opposite; scientists holding varied views based on the incompleteness of the available evidence is quite normal and something that the scientific method is built to resolve, but personal financial interest has no standing.

A "scientist" shilling for a corporate client without first shedding the mantle of science is not only of great public interest (so we can be certain whose claims to disregard as corrupt), but attracts the justified anger and ire of real scientists for dirtying the public view of science.

Re:What makes you think the -scientists- are hones

[Pentagram]

Remember, 25 years ago these same folks were howling about 'global cooling', that should tell you something.

Yeah, it's really terrible that scientists should change their predictions when new evidence is found, rather than sticking to their ideas no matter what, like a priest or a politician.

And despite that:

1) You're wrong anyway

2) Even if you weren't, after 25 years the top climatologists are not the "same folks"

3) If the original evidence did point to global cooling, then the current rise in global temperatures is even more indicative of human influence.

Carrying on:

There's no actual consensus on 'global warming' is in fact happening,

Wrong! Absolutely no one with any credibility suggests that global warming is not occuring.

whether or not human activity has anything to do with it.

Any fringe theory will find a handful of scientists to support it.

Re:What makes you think the -scientists- are hones

[iwadasn]

Be a little careful what you say, you are treading dangerously close to the bounds of being outright wrong.

First of all, in the past global cooling would have been more of an issue, as engines were more prone to release particulates, which tend to cool the earth. Now that devices of all sorts produce much less particulate pollution (but about the same quanitity of CO2), it seems reasonable that the problem will shift.

True there is no absolute consensus, but the general trend looks highly anomalous (look at a graph of temperatures, it's hard to deny what's happening), the mechanism is reasonably well understood, and the whole scenario is far beyond plausible. It is highly likely that CO2 is heating our planet. Nobody has really proven very well exactly what this means, or even whether or not it'g a good thing, but it is certainly dangerous to tread into unknown territory so quickly with so little understanding. The primary reason for restraint is not that we know what will happen, but rather that we don't know, but we strongly suspect that something is going to happen, and it is not likely to be good.

You fall into all the same fallacies. Just because people were wrong before, doesn't mean they're wrong now. Furthermore, you didn't even show that they were wrong, as far as I know, if we had continued to use 1960s era technology to the present day, perhaps global cooling would still be the more likely scenario.

It is true that a few anecdotes don't make data, but wake up. It is hard to deny that the weather has been unusually harsh lately. The global temperatures are rising (easily enough verified by satelites and simple record keeping). In Idaho (where I grew up) it is undeniable that the weather was shifting, and this was 10 years ago, it's even more clear now.

Even if the odds of global warming are only 50-50 (and evidence indicates that it's at least 90-10 in favor, most scientists claim more certainty than that), the cost to reduce it is not so great, and the possible consequences are huge. We should at least attempt to mitigate the situation, whether we truly believe or not.

Personal financial interest drives science? WTF?

[Engineer-Poet]

Personal financial interest drives most science these days.

Oh, really? I'd like you to tell me how personal financial interest drives today's science in these fields:

• Anthropology
• Chemistry
• Physics (high-energy, solid state, plasma, etc.)
• Planetary geology (Spirit/Opportunity, Cassini/Huygens)
• Cosmology
• Biology
• Paleontology

I'd be very interested in any facts you might have regarding matters such as the financial payoff from finding extrasolar planets, or pre-Clovis human artifacts in the Americas. And while you're at it, how about the fee schedule for different "correct" results from paleoclimate research?

Scientists who perform research on behalf of corporations are not necessarily any less honest than scientists performing research for the government or other 'unbiased' source of funding.

If their ability to publish depends on their results agreeing with the corporate interest, would you still say that? (You aren't going to hear the full story even from the honest people, and the honest people will tend to leave.)

It's bad enough that you put scientific research on a pedestal and expect every scientist to be some sort of altruistic super-human...

You have no idea how science works, do you? Research scientists live and die based on the accuracy and usefulness of their results. If their results cannot be replicated (or worse, show signs of being fraudulent) then their careers grind to a halt. Scientists may be sloppy, but the system works to get rid of sloppiness and incorrect results.

In the case of climate research, there is one hell of a lot of prestige which would come with a correct debunking of the global-climate models which all predict warming. There might even be a Nobel in it. But note that I did say correct debunking; anyone withoute the facts on their side need not apply. Have you noticed where the huge majority of the climate scientists (who have the facts such as they are) stand today?

do you have to hold this public relations ploy to try to convince people that your views are right despite evidence and in the face of so many examples of bad scientists?

You're implying that "all scientists are self-interested, therefore nothing they say can be trusted". I suppose that you disregard everything you're told about the safety of the water supply, the recommendations for nutrients in your diet, the effectiveness and hazards of drugs, and everything else that was researched and published by a scientist. Because, y'know, "there are bad scientists and they're all just out for their personal interests"?

Regarding climate science, I refer you to this entry:

The main reason for concern about anthropogenic climate change is not that we can already see it (although we can). The main reason is twofold.
(1) Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly in the atmosphere due to human activity. This is a measured fact not even disputed by staunch "climate skeptics".
(2) Any increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will change the radiation balance of the Earth and increase surface temperatures. This is basic and undisputed physics that has been known for over a hundred years.

It takes some gall to deny something which can be measured by infrared absorption in a test cell, or the Keeling curve. And it's certainly not honest, far less honest than anything I've seen from the "self-interested" scientists. Calling someone an "industry shill" is one of the most flattering things you could do.