The most dangerous thing is a skeptic that can be heard.
If only climate activists had evidence, they wouldn’t need to use social censure, instead of reasoned arguments. But it was never about the science, and always about PR. If skeptical arguments weren’t so powerful, the fans of Climate Change TM wouldn’t be going out of their way to try to silence skeptics.
This article itself is spun. They frame the message to avoid saying that only 28% of PR Firms agreed climate change was a threat or that 60% of PR firms ignored them completely. They only name five PR groups, and at least one (WPP) is a conglomerate of 150 firms which “will all make their own decisions”. So much for that.
The Guardian,of course, gullibly soaks up the meme. Suzanne Goldenberg and Nishad Karim asks no hard questions.
World’s top PR companies rule out working with climate deniers
Ten firms say they will not represent clients that deny man-made climate change or seek to block emisson-reducing regulations
Since no one actually denies the climate changes, this is a bit like refusing to work with Klingons. Though fans of Climate Change TM speak in Spin-English and in that language “climate change” means man-made-catastrophic-weather. In that sense, these firms are boycotting up to 60% of their potential clients. It may not be the best business strategy in a world shifting away from big-spending green projects.
What is most telling, is that even after being repeatedly harrassed by an activist by phone, mail and email from the Climate Investigations Centre, fully 60% of PR companies ignored them completely:
Only 10 of the 25 firms responded to multiple emails, phone calls and certified letters from the CIC, either directly or through a parent company.
And watch the pea, 40% of companies responded, but not all of them ruled out working with “deniers”. Only seven agreed “climate change” was a threat. The number that would boycott “deniers” was described as “smaller” — too small to actually put a number on?
Seven of the firms told the researchers their companies saw climate change as a threat. But a smaller number would rule out taking on clients that deny climate change is occurring, or work on campaigns that seek to block policies to deal with climate change.
Looks like the mass of companies run by skeptical CEO’s will only have 70% of the world’s largest PR firms to work with. Shucks. They can work with any company not called “WPP, Waggener Edstrom (WE) Worldwide, Weber Shandwick, Text100, and Finn Partners.”
As for The Climate Investigations Centre — it is a 2014 start up, has 64 “likes” and is directed by a self-described climate activist who specializes in ad hominem attacks against scientists.
“Kert Davies, a well-known researcher, media spokesperson and climate activist who has been conducting corporate accountability research and campaigns for more than 20 years. Davies was the chief architect of the Greenpeace web project ExxonSecrets…”
His first blog post tries to associate skeptics with asbestos, tobacco, and lead. In other words, a science-free site where the aim is to blacken and smear anyone who dares question the religion.
Things are getting heated in the lead up to Paris 2015. The real action is probably early next year. Paris may be the grand theatre, but the groundwork and possible success of Paris probably depends on what happens early in 2015.
By the first quarter of 2015, countries must come forward with their “contributions” to global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, that will come into force from 2020.
Fiona Harvey, environmental correspondent at The Guardian, candidly admits that timing was chosen to avoid putting “climate change” on the agenda in the US before an election (where the voters might make a choice the bureaucrats don’t want) so the issue of new targets will fly under the radar til after November 2014.
Publishing targets in the first quarter of 2015 do (sic) not leave long for the assessment process to take place. However, that timetable has been drawn up chiefly to take account of the realities of the US electoral timetable. The US government announced earlier this year that it would set its post-2020 targets in the first quarter of 2015. That is necessary to ensure that the decision does not get tangled up in the US congressional elections in autumn 2014 – they are likely to be touchy enough, without introducing the incendiary subject of climate change.
US voters need to know that climate change is very much an election issue. Don’t let the activists hide it.
*Edited just after publication to correct authorship of first Guardian article.