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

for the uninformed

[Naikrovek]

equal weight is the only way to get people to listen.

if people sense bias (this sense is dulled in some folks) they won't believe a word they hear.

people know when they're being lied to. they might not let on that they know, and they might vote for the liars, but they know when they're being lied to. they just choose to ignore the lies, and see things their way. if people choose to ignore evidence, they get what's coming to them.

the environmentalists of the world just have to take caution and present a believeable case with as little embellishment as possible. environmentalists should paint the true picture, not the doomsday picture. i'm an environmentalist (born on Earth day, no less) and we've been saying that the world is ending for a while now, but we're all still here.

i dunno... i'm filled with nyquil. i won't even remember this post in an hour. moderate to your hearts content.

Missing validation.

[A beautiful mind]

Where is the base for michael's claims? Sure, common sense or something, but no matter how strongly i believe in the pro-global warming science, i still find it questionable that this slashticle was posted. If michael wants to write an article about the pr efforts, and links it, fine, but as this story stands now, its 0% newsworthy as it's stuffed with bias from the editor. Mod me down for it, i want to post this as not an AC.

Fake scientists?

[mc6809e]

Where? Maybe misguided, but not fake.

How about you, Michael? Just what sort of scientist are you?

Maybe you're just using your position as a slashdot editor to manipulate us.

Don't waste your time. Most of us can think for ourselves. We don't need your help deciding who is a fake and who is real.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

"There's no actual consensus on 'global warming' is in fact happening, and if it is, whether or not human activity has anything to do with it."

There is some very compelling evidence that there are environmental changes going on around us. Consensus? No probably not, but then for the longest time there were enough holdouts to prevent a consensus between a causal link between smoking and cancer. The other part of your statement on the question of human involvement is an interesting one... but I would dare say an academic one. If it is happening then the why is only relevant as it pertains to understanding and solving the problem. A massive asteroid on a collision course would be an entirely natural event and yet we would want to study and stop it (even if this solution cost jobs and hurt the economy).

"Insteead, there seems to be largely a grab for grant money and political power"

Ahh yes the powerful science lobby that dominates modern society... sorry not trying to make fun of you but I couldn't resist on that point :)

"This is far too important an issue to rush to judgment on, IMHO."

I totally agree, unfortunately it is also too important an issue to delay action on, so we are left in one of those positions that while philosophically interesting to debate, is rather difficult to formulate policy on.

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

[Lars T.]

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

Actually, 25 years ago "these same folks" realized what was wrong with the global cooling idea. Namely that it a) only looked at the northern hemisphere, and b) that it likely was caused by all kinds of dirt that was released into the air by industry, and has since been reduced because it killed people even faster than global warming. The Discovery of Global Warming

Tracking the world's average temperature from the late 19th century, people in the 1930s realized there had been a pronounced warming trend. During the 1960s, scientists found that over the past couple of decades the trend had shifted to cooling. Many scientists predicted a continued and prolonged cooling, perhaps a phase of a long natural cycle or perhaps caused by human activities. Others insisted that humanity's emission of gases would bring warming over the long run. In the late 1970s, this group's views became predominant. By the late 1980s, it was plain that the cooling spell, whose cause remained mysterious, had been a temporary distraction. For whatever reason, unprecedented global warming was underway.