Slashdot Mirror
The Software Big Oil's PR Firm Uses To "Convert Average Citizens"
merbs writes The CEO of the world's largest PR firm has a policy when it comes to campaigns that focus on the environment. "We do not work with astroturf groups and we have never created a website for a client with the intent to deny climate change," Richard Edelman wrote in a blog post in August. That may actually turn out to be true. Technically. Edelman may not work with astroturf groups. Instead, it appears to prefer to build them itself, from the ground up, using sophisticated proprietary software platform designed to "convert" advocates and then "track" their behavior.
Ah yes, and the conspiracy theorists come out to play. Last week it was evil scientists trying to hurt poor ol' Big Tobacco. The week before it was evil scientists trying to kill God with evolution and old EArth geology. The week before that it was evil old scientists trying to move the Earth from its lauded position at the center of the Universe.
Evil scientists one and all! We should fucking kill all of them, and promote views that square exactly with your ideological leanings. Science is evil and must be destroyed!
Does that sum up your position?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is the same thing that every company big enough to do public relations at all does, except it's being described using inflammatory terminology.
Does the same. They hire the same sort of people, pay the same sort of money, and use the same tactics (and many worse ones).
Except they're getting all whiny because it's not working for them on the Keystone XL thing, so they're trying the old "those evil, mind-controlling oil companies" story on a different class of public relations targets.
While it is technically true that both sides have some non-zero amount of money, one side has enough of it to afford the worlds biggest PR firm along with 4 companies in the Fortune 10 (that would be 4 of the top 10 US companies by revenue...guess how many renewable energy companies are on that list). The other side does a lot of it's work with token research budgets. There is absolutely an underdog in this fight.
I think you'll fined it's technology A (dirty fossil fuels that seriously kill people) versus technology B (only slightly more expensive clean, healthy renewables that kill far fewer), not technology versus no technology.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Um, since when was skepticism the foundation of science? Repeatability of observations and utility of prediction are the foundations of science. Skepticism has its place, but only if it is informed. What Forbes publishes is hardly informed skepticism, and even its toy climatologists like Roy Spencer are notable for the fact that their bought-and-paid for skepticism never actually enters the published literature. Guys like Spencer are playing the same game with their discipline that Intelligent Design-advocate Michael Behe plays with his (microbiology). They make a very loud skeptical sound in the press, but when it comes to actually doing science, oddly their published record is in the mainstream.
Maybe the problem here is that you're too bloody infantile to accept that the universe doesn't give a fuck about your political and economic ideology.
And before you accuse me of being some commie greenie, well let me educate you. I'm a socially liberal fiscal conservative. What I'm not is a pathetic man-child who stomps his feet and declares "that science makes things difficult, it must be wrong!!!!!"
Grow the fuck up.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Um, since when was skepticism the foundation of science? Repeatability of observations and utility of prediction are the foundations of science.
Hmmm... Why do we repeat and VERIFY findings by others? Why don't we just take the word of anyone who claims anything? It's called "skepticism". The whole core of the scientific method is to not simply take a person's word at face value, but to see if you can repeat what they claim independently before accepting the claim. That's scientific skepticism and is really expected of anyone in any research/scientific/engineering role. Show your work, show your data, allow others the opportunity to examine and repeat as needed to quell their own skepticism.
Grow the fuck up.
Given the nature and non-sequitur nature of the rest of your screed, I might suggest you try it yourself...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!