AGW Smoking Gun? NYT gets AGW marketing strategy memo: Stop using 'global warming'!

Oooops! Seems that the "Global Warming" marketing strategy got sent to the wrong people.

(Watch for some back-pedaling and face saving before they start using new, consumer friendly language.)

The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is "global warming."

The term turns people off according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, an environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

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.”

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives.

A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.

www.nytimes.com...

Since the "science " is so compelling, why do the AGW cabal and their financiers need a marketing strategy?

Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month.

Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”

(A Pew Research Center poll in January found global warming last among voter concerns; trailing issues like moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists.) “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. Perkowitz, a marketer before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals.

(Id.)

So, how best to communicate the 'danger' and the 'threat' of CO2 and AGW? Facts? Science? No, how 'bout a sales pitch!

Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.

Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, an expert on environmental communications, said ... “You want to sell toothpaste, we’ll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we’ll sell that. It’s the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion.”

He said the approach was cynical and, worse, ineffective. “ ...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.”

Frank Luntz prepared a strikingly similar memorandum in 2002, telling his clients that they were losing the environmental debate and advising them to adjust their language. He suggested referring to themselves as “conservationists” rather than “environmentalists,” and emphasizing “common sense” over scientific argument.

And, Mr. Luntz and Mr. Perkowitz agree, “climate change” is an easier sell than “global warming.”

(Id.)

How do you spell 'smoking gun?"

Isn't it time AGW advocates admit their self-interest and conflicts of interest?

The baselessness of their faked 'modeling' and made-up "facts" needs the support of a private, foundation and corporate-financed advertising consultant!

Deny ignorance!

jw

I've said it before and i'll more than likely have to say it again: Environmentalism is nothing but a religion.

This OP says it all.

The problem we face now is that their original marketing worked a bit too well on some. Hopefully a few of them will read this and realize just what a farce the whole thing is. Great thread, i'd give you 50 stars and flags if i could.


TA

That's the same thing Ayn Rand said over 50 years ago in the book "Atlas Shrugged."

Rand foresaw that strategy and marketing would turn "movements" into pseudo-religions by those who were content to be led on "faith" that certain tenets were true and not to be questioned.

'Environmentalism' (now, Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climate Change) was specifically addressed as an evolving "religion" driven by marketers and blind faith.

Too bad we have to pay for their gods.

(I wonder if the Constitution's "Establishment" clause could be used to take this issue out of Congress' hands?)

jw

Michael Chrichton's book State of Fear explored this very thing, actually.
Lots of good points are made in the book and this is coming from a traditional, albeit not practical, conservationist.

Sure, I believe in only taking what you need and recycling when it makes sense etc, but the jury's still out on AGW in my book.

Wiki link

Still, I don't know if I'd call this any kind of smoking gun. It's just a peek behind the curtain obscuring how they go about selling the idea to people because, let's face it, we're consumers and pretty much everything nowadays is a sales pitch as dehumanizing as that sounds.
Boy do we ever need a course-correction in that regard. Ugh.

Or it could just be that people thing warmth is always good. So global warming=good. They think it's like the difference between a 14 and 18 degrees room as opposed to a 39.8 to 43.8 degree body. Which will probably die if it can't ever get back to 39.8.

reply to post by 4N6310


I forgot about "State of Fear." You're right on point. I had been thinking about Ayn Rand as well. They've seen this coming. Why didn't we?

Maybe not a 'smoking gun,' but it surely sheds a little light on the "above the fray" facade that AGW advocates adopt.

The "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" analogy is superb.

If we're their "consumers," I'm not buying any, thanks.

jw

Just shows that they are not really worried about global warming and are using it and the other names they want to call it as a backdrop for there neo-luddite programs.

This has been my view for many years.
The environmentalist have been fighting many small wars againt the corporations for years.
This fight to stop project after project and corporation after corporation has been a slow and expenive battle and many times the enviromentist have lost.

Then they came up with the global warming scam that they could roll all of these battles onto one large program.

And since it is very hard to prove the global warming is real they have got there people in the scientific community to come up with bogus research that is hard to refute.
then they agreed to never debate there research with any non believers.

I am still trying to find when the leaders held there meeting to finalize this program.

If we can prove when they met to plan this global warming scam we might be able to prove that they conspired to plan this global warming scam.

This persons name is just one more to add to the list of conspirators.

When you look at the environmental groups you find a small number of leaders that run interlinking environmental groups that work together on many projects.
And many of there groups are interlinked by memberships.
and there are few of the leadership of these environmental groups that do not set on the boards of other groups or run front groups to make the environmental movement look a lot larger then it really is.

I have seen many time you would have a group of enviromental groups protesting againt a project.
When you started to look at these groups you would find that there was in fact just one group with a large number of front groups that would refuse to give out any membership list and would give out bloated membership numbers.

What you would find was that the front groups would each use the main groups membership list to pad there membership numbers.

Many times this would lead to the lawmakers believing there was a lot more opposition to a project then there really was.

Originally posted by ANNED

... They came up with the global warming scam that they could roll all of these battles onto one large program.

"Large" as in world-wide? Even Greenpeace and PETA are involved.

I am still trying to find when the leaders held there meeting to finalize this program.

If we can prove when they met to plan this global warming scam we might be able to prove that they conspired to plan this global warming scam.

This persons name is just one more to add to the list of conspirators.

James Hansen, formerly of NASA, published a paper many years ago in which he suggested that man-made GHGs would cause an exponential increase in atmosphere and surface temperatures. His original paper and subsequent "findings" were shown to be false and fabricated to support his 'conclusions.'

Al Gore, whose own "findings" were found by a Judge in the UK to be substantively misleading or baseless, was an early advocate for Hansen's theories.

When you look at the environmental groups you find a small number of leaders that run interlinking environmental groups that work together on many projects.
...
What you would find was that the front groups would each use the main groups membership list to pad there membership numbers.

Many times this would lead to the lawmakers believing there was a lot more opposition to a project then there really was.

Exaggeration and a powerful lobby have carried AGW to the forefront of BHO's socialist agenda.

jw

Originally posted by TheAssociate
I've said it before and i'll more than likely have to say it again: Environmentalism is nothing but a religion.

This OP says it all.

The problem we face now is that their original marketing worked a bit too well on some. Hopefully a few of them will read this and realize just what a farce the whole thing is. Great thread, i'd give you 50 stars and flags if i could.


TA

When I was going through the Public School System, everything to do with the environment was focused on Species protection, and simply Reducing Pollution. I have nothing against either of these two concepts, especially given the fact that I happen to live in one of the dirtiest portions of the United States (In terms of Air Pollution). Not to mention the fact that these were, and are, in fact Real World Solutions, to Real World Problems.

AWG on the other hand has completely caused a major distraction in regards to these concepts, and it has served to spur an industry which will very soon outperform, outproduce, and out lobby Oil. If you think that the Oil industry is "corrupt", or "greedy", just wait until more of the so called "Green" sector begins to supercede it.

Oh. Noes. The top secret econazi cabal has been uncovered.

I doubt 'our deteriorating atmosphere' will take off in space of 'global warming' or 'climate change'. Not very catchy.

Frank Luntz prepared a strikingly similar memorandum in 2002, telling his clients that they were losing the environmental debate and advising them to adjust their language. He suggested referring to themselves as “conservationists” rather than “environmentalists,” and emphasizing “common sense” over scientific argument.

And Luntz's clients were?

Yeah, the Bush administration, lol.

Why are you surpised? This has been going on since the tobacco wars. Attempting to frame scientific issues in particular ways to convey whatever message the group/individual/government/industry would like.

Whereas the Luntz memo was suggesting 'common sense' over science, 'climate change' rather than 'global warming' (as it sounds like a holiday in florida), and led to gagging of scientists and alteration of scientific reports in an attempt to obfuscate the science; here we have an environmentalist group who accept the science and are attempting to find the best way to convey a message and gain support for action.

The science is there, and its message is pretty clear and has been for a while.

Smoking gun? Potato gun perhaps.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by TheAssociate
I've said it before and i'll more than likely have to say it again: Environmentalism is nothing but a religion.

This OP says it all.

The problem we face now is that their original marketing worked a bit too well on some. Hopefully a few of them will read this and realize just what a farce the whole thing is. Great thread, i'd give you 50 stars and flags if i could.


TA

the reason they want to change it is because...people think when you say global warming...THAT THE WHOLE WORLD GETS HOTTER!!!...WRONG!!! global warming refers to an increase in temperture because of the amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere, which raises the temperture slightly, but affects the SEVERITY OF WEATHER OVER TIME!!! if people would actually read the reports (obviously not done), it spells it out for you.

if you have no snow on top of mt kiliminjaro in africa, and have inches of snow in florida, that's the result of global warming...if you have the melting of the artic ocean at the north pole while you have more snow at the south pole, that's global warming.

Originally posted by melatonin

And, Luntz's clients were? Yeah, the Bush administration, lol.

Wrong again. Misleading at best. Luntz is a Republican, but his "clients" included many liberal "environmentalists" seeking to improve their image.

The Luntz memo was suggesting 'common sense' over science, 'climate change' rather than 'global warming' and led to gagging of scientists and alteration of scientific reports in an attempt to obfuscate the science.

They "gagged" themselves, because fearmongering wasn't working. Had to abandon science for marketing and economics, no? It was the AGW environmentalists who "altered scientific reports" to obfuscate science.

Great confession! It gets to a point where you finally have to admit the AGW scam. What charlatans! Still doesn't justify falsifying data and models, or fabricating "data" that never existed!

The gig is up. Cap and trade, or "carbon credits" (as their known in the UK) DO NOT WORK!

They are as phony as the junk science supporting them!

China's Xiaoxi dam project displaced thousands, rewarded German developers for a COAL power plant, and proved the failure of "carbon credit" and cap-and-trade programs.

"China Dams Reveal Flaws In Climate-Change Weapon"
...
Xiaoxi dam may do nothing to lower global-warming emissions as advertised. And many of the 7,500 people displaced by the project still seethe over losing their homes and farmland.
...
The Clean Development Mechanism is a market-based tool under the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 agreement to combat climate change. The CDM allows industrial nations, required by Kyoto to reduce emissions of gases blamed for global warming, to comply by paying developing nations to cut their emissions instead.
Companies thousands of miles away, such as Germany's coal-burning, carbon dioxide-spewing RWE electric utility, accomplish this by buying carbon credits the U.N. issues to clean-energy projects like Xiaoxi's. The proceeds are meant to make such projects more financially feasible.

As critics point out, however, if those projects were going to be built anyway, the climate doesn't gain, but loses.

Such projects "allow covered entities" _ such as the German RWE Consortuium_ "to increase their emissions without a corresponding reduction in a developing country," the U.S. GAO said in its review.
...
The bottom line _ some 450,000 tons of global-warming gases each year _ would be added to RWE's permitted emissions at a current annual cost of $8 million. And such calculations will be repeated at 37 other Chinese hydro projects where RWE will buy credits.

All told, the 38 are expected to produce more than 16 million CDM credits by 2012, legitimizing 16 million tons of emissions in Germany, equivalent to more than 1 percent of annual German emissions.

At today's low market prices, those credits would be worth some $300 million, paid to Chinese developers and presumably billed to German electricity customers, who by 2007 were already paying more than double the U.S. average rate per kilowatt-hour.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

A 100% failure of cap and trade!
Cap and trade avocates, have you read this? Do you care? Do you DARE?

Not enough? How about the incredible scam perpetrated by the British Parliament and the CRASH in the value of "carbon credits?"

The Financial Times has been exposing the scam that is carbon credits, exhibiting an honesty which America’s media sorely lack.

FT published an article about this travesty which is also almost guaranteed to be ignored by U.S. press outlets far more concerned with glorifying folks like Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, and Laurie David.

FT exposed how the British government bilked companies interested in offsetting carbon emissions out of huge sums of money by advising them to purchase what turned out to be “worthless” carbon credits.

Britain’s Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has been advising businesses and consumers wishing to offset their emissions to buy carbon credits through the European Union or UN carbon trading scheme. However, phase one of [the scheme was discredited last May for flooding the market with too many permits to achieve any emissions cuts. The result is that many were persuaded to buy environmentally worthless carbon credits.

Reflecting the surplus in ETS permits, the market price has plunged to less than €0.50 (£0.34) per tonne, but offsetting companies are selling permits for more.

The British government recommended that companies buy credits based on phase one of this scheme. One company in question was selling such credits for £6.40 per tonne (1000 kilograms), or about $12.80 at today’s exchange rate.

Yet, these credits are currently trading on the open market for £0.34 per tonne, or about 68 cents. This represents a 95 percent decline in value.

Now, given the media’s focus on solving global warming, and the press’s fascination with Al Gore and Hollywood’s carbon credit scheme, wouldn’t it be newsworthy to report how such strategies are failing miserably across the Atlantic, and how the only people benefitting from this scam are the folks selling worthless pieces of paper?

newsbusters.org...

Wow. How about that? Credit trading didn't work "across the Atlantic," but you don't hear about that over here, and AGW advocates say it's a program "proven to work!"

Yeah, it works for the thieves selling the credits and the program itself.

How about the U.S. program?

From a 2009 Purdue University study:

Last summer carbon had a value of $7 per ton. However, the value of carbon has dropped significantly. Today, carbon offset credits are worth about $2 per ton of carbon.

news.uns.purdue.edu...

How about "Green Business News:"

[Global Warming Solution Known as ‘Carbon Credits’ Collapses

One of the primary solutions for climate change being touted by global warming alarmists is the purchase and sale of carbon credits. Put simply, companies, countries, and individuals could balance their CO2 output by purchasing credits from others that are emitting less greenhouse gases than prescribed maximums.

Unfortunately, there’s a hitch in this scheme that threatens to totally derail it: carbon prices are plummeting due to an excess supply.

The world's two leading carbon trading schemes are failing to deliver the expected benefits due to a collapse in the price of carbon credits - and the situation is likely to get far worse before it gets better.

The scheme requires a price for a ton of carbon emissions of $20, rising to $30, $40 or even $50 to stabilize the level of CO2 in the atmosphere at manageable levels. But there is a good chance that the carbon credits that are meant to provide incentives for reducing emissions will be available for next to nothing.

newsbusters.org...
www.businessgreen.com...

Proven programs?

Proven Fraud!

Deny Ignorance!
jw

Originally posted by jimmyx

the reason they want to change it is because...people think when you say global warming...THAT THE WHOLE WORLD GETS HOTTER!!!.

"WRONG!!!" You do not know why "they want to change ("Global Warming")," unless you've asked and heard so from "them." Show me their response to your inquiry. Show me ANY explanation, other than your own presumption, for the AGW advocates' decision to abandon their own, self-chosen, title for a non-existent phenomenon.

"WRONG!!!" again. You can not speak for what "people think!" You presume too much, with no basis but your own misunderstanding of popular or cultural thought and understanding of a very well-discussed term. You have no basis for such a statement except your own bias.

if you have no snow on top of mt kiliminjaro in africa, and have inches of snow in florida, that's the result of global warming...if you have the melting of the artic ocean at the north pole while you have more snow at the south pole, that's global warming.

"WRONG!!!" again! (Don't you get tired of being wrong?) You have no proof of these assertions either. Posting fears, distortions, and hearsay adds nothing to any discussion.

If you are as aware of the science as you claim, then you know that both of those pseudo-examples represent only one explanation out of many alternatives. Why do you ignore the other explanations?

Posting your own beliefs as facts betrays an inability to substantively respond.

You do not have any facts to back up any one of your several statements.

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 3-5-2009 by jdub297]

[edit on 3-5-2009 by jdub297]

Originally posted by jdub297
Originally posted by melatonin

And, Luntz's clients were? Yeah, the Bush administration, lol.

Wrong again. Misleading at best. Luntz is a Republican, but his "clients" included many liberal "environmentalists" seeking to improve their image.

No, the Luntz memo was a republican document.

The environment, the memo says, "is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general - and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable".

A Republican source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said party strategists agreed with Mr Luntz's conclusion that "many Americans believe Republicans do not care about the environment".

www.guardian.co.uk...

They "gagged" themselves, because fearmongering wasn't working. Had to abandon science for marketing and economics, no? It was the AGW environmentalists who "altered scientific reports" to obfuscate science.

Jeez. Where have you been? I guess that's like all those women who beat themselves.

Is it like opposite day or something? Did I miss the ATS memo?

"During my career I have noticed an increasing politicisation of public affairs at headquarters level, with a notable effect on communication from scientists to the public," Dr Hansen writes in his testimony. "Interference with communication of science to the public has been greater during the current administration than at any time in my career," he says. "In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it has now.

Committee Report: White House Engaged in Systematic Effort to Manipulate Climate Change Science

...

White House officials and agency political appointees also altered congressional testimony regarding the science of climate change. The changes to the recent climate change testimony of Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have received considerable attention. A year earlier, when Dr. Thomas Karl, the Director of National Climatic Data Center, appeared before the House Oversight Committee, his testimony was also heavily edited by both White House officials and political appointees at the Commerce Department. He was not allowed to say in his written testimony that “modern climate change is dominated by human influences,” that “we are venturing into the unknown territory with changes in climate,” or that “it is very likely (>95 percent probability) that humans are largely responsible for many of the observed changes in climate.” His assertion that global warming “is playing” a role in increased hurricane intensity became “may play.”

...

The White House insisted on edits to EPA’s draft Report on the Environment that were so extreme that the EPA Administrator opted to eliminate the climate change section of the report. One such edit was the inclusion of a reference to a discredited, industry-funded paper. In a memo to the Vice President’s office, Mr. Cooney explained: “We plan to begin to refer to this study in Administration communications on the science of global climate change” because it “contradicts a dogmatic view held by many in the climate science community that the past century was the warmest in the past millennium and signals of human induced ‘global warming.’”

In the case of EPA’s Air Trends Report, CEQ went beyond editing and simply vetoed the entire climate change section of the report.


The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming

oversight.house.gov...

The gig is up. Cap and trade, or "carbon credits" (as their known in the UK) DO NOT WORK!

They are as phony as the junk science supporting them!

Heh, is perseveration common across deniers? I answered this rubbish in the other thread. How about saving bandwidth and keeping the trash in one place?

Hansen and his associates have already been proven to falsify and fabricate data.

The IPCC summaries clearly were altered to avoid any "doubt" about AGW.

Congressional reports and testimony are not "science."

jw

reply to post by jdub297


By the small amount of stars you have received by your post, it shows how well their advertising and brainwashing has already worked.

I can't wait until we all get to pay carbon taxes just because the majority of the genral public bit into that piece of poo, they call global warming!

You will get a Star & Flag from me!

Originally posted by melatonin
Heh, is perseveration common across deniers? I answered this rubbish in the other thread. How about saving bandwidth and keeping the trash in one place?

Hi Mel, ( it's been a while)

I am interested to know why you think the Bush adminstration misrepresentations about what certain groups of scientist wanted to tell oversight commitees has become so widely exposed when so many other far larger crimes of the Bush adminstration ( such as invasions&occupations, election fraud and Financial mismanagement) does not get similar traction in the media? Could that just be my bias showing ( we after all are naturally inclined to notice what we wish to) or does it bother you too that other far more longstanding environmental issues have been superceded by this intensely politized issue that has forced action where political inaction ( in terms of preserving the environment by regulating industry) seems to have been and often still is the norm?

Why do you think the CO2 issue have totally stolen, as i believe it has, the proverbial show?

You can hold the sarcasm by the way and spare your worries about my motives for later; there will after all be plenty of time for that later if we choose to start later on.

Thanks

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Hi Mel, ( it's been a while)

True, hope you're well.

I am interested to know why you think the Bush adminstration misrepresentations about what certain groups of scientist wanted to tell oversight commitees has become so widely exposed when so many other far larger crimes of the Bush adminstration ( such as invasions&occupations, election fraud and Financial mismanagement) does not get similar traction in the media?

It was clear that the scientists were shouting pretty loud about the problem.

It's not up to them to whistleblow and highlight other escapades of the Bush government. I think the issues surrounding the Iraq war attracted a lot of attention (weapons of mass distraction? Halliburton?). Similarly, after the 1st election, the escapades got attention (voting machines etc, Florida and the republican dudes banging on windows, I recall). Financial? Not too sure, don't really follow that area.

Why do you think the CO2 issue have totally stolen, as i believe it has, the proverbial show?

Not sure it has. You don't honestly think that the issues surrounding Iraq war got no attention?

You can hold the sarcasm by the way and spare your worries about my motives for later; there will after all be plenty of time for that later if we choose to start later on.

It tends to correlate with other factors.

Heh! They're having trouble convincing people it's true now. HA! I laugh in their faces.

Human caused global warming is a sham! Fakery! A farse of the biggest kind, perpetrated by our government to lead the way to more taxes and profits for the government.

It's just another way to control the population and try to take our focus off the real issues at hand.


Now, natural climate change is something to study and watch with a scientific eye. While we can not stop it, studying it will help us prepare for the future.

Disclaimer!
Global Warming is NOT the same as climate change!

Originally posted by StellarX

Could that just be my bias showing ( we after all are naturally inclined to notice what we wish to) or does it bother you too that other far more longstanding environmental issues have been superceded by this intensely politized issue that has forced action where political inaction ( in terms of preserving the environment by regulating industry) seems to have been and often still is the norm?

Why do you think the CO2 issue have totally stolen, as i believe it has, the proverbial show?

You will not get a straight answer from mel on this topic.

CO2 is where the money is, no?

Money that will come from consumers/citizens.

Isn't that why AU has decided to postpone their own 'carbon trading' or
cap & tade' program? Too costly? Too big a burden on citizens?

From what I've read, economic conditions being what they are, your government decided that the carbon trading program (with its costs naturally passed-through to consumers) is too onerous and too expensive to begin now, as had been scheduled.

So, Australia has postponed the program until 2011 at the earliest, will full ramp-up in 2012. I believe you've also adjusted the price DOWN for carbon tonnage to reflect market realities and INCREASED the number of credits to be allocated at no cost to certain companies/industries that will be at or above the proposed 'limits' when they'll be forced to obtain credits to match their emissions/production.

jw