here it is a sample.
15 June 09
Slamming the Climate Skeptic Scam
Tags: Canada, climate change denial, climate cover up, General, global warming denial, James Hoggan, james hoggan, jim hoggan, manifesto, UK, US
Updated: June 15, 2009
There is a line between public relations and propaganda - or there should be. And there is a difference between using your skills, in good faith, to
help rescue a battered reputation and using them to twist the truth - to sow confusion and doubt on an issue that is critical to human survival.
And it is infuriating - as a public relations professional - to watch my colleagues use their skills, their training and their considerable intellect
to poison the international debate on climate change.
That's what is happening today, and I think it's a disgrace. On one hand, you have the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
– as well as the science academies of every developed nation in the world – confirming that:
* climate change is real;
* it is caused by human activity; and
* it is threatening the planet in ways we can only begin to imagine.
On the other hand, you have an ongoing public debate - not about how to respond, but about whether we should bother, about whether climate change is
even a scientific certainty. While those who stand in denial of climate change have failed in the last 15 years to produce a single, peer-reviewed
scientific journal article that challenges the theory and evidence of human-induced climate change, mainstream media was, until very recently,
covering the story (in more than half the cases, according to the academic researchers Boykoff and Boykoff) by quoting one scientist talking about the
risks and one purported expert saying that climate change was not happening – or might actually be a good thing.
Few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as this attack on the science of climate change. It has been a triumph of
disinformation – one of the boldest and most extensive PR campaigns in history, primarily financed by the energy industry and executed by some of
the best PR talent in the world. As a public relations practitioner, it is a marvel – and a deep humiliation – and I want to see it stop.
Here’s how it works: Public relations is not a process of telling people what to think; people are too smart for that, and North Americans are way
too stubborn. Tell a bunch of North Americans what they are supposed to think and you’re likely to wind up the only person at the party enjoying
your can of New Coke.
No, the trick to executing a good PR campaign is twofold: you figure out what people are thinking already; and then you nudge them gently from that
position to one that is closer to where you want them to be. The first step is research: you find out what they know and understand; you identify the
specific gaps in their knowledge. Then you fill those gaps with a purpose-built campaign. You educate. If people are afraid to take Tylenol (as they
were after someone poisoned some pills), you explain the extensive safety precautions now typical in the pharmaceutical industry. If people think
Martha Stewart is arrogant and uncaring, you create opportunities for her to show a more human side.
In the best cases – the cases that are most personally rewarding – your advice actually guides corporate behavior. That is, if a client wants to
protect or revive their reputation, if they want to convince the public that they’re running a responsible company and doing the right thing, the
most obvious public relations advice is that they should do the right thing.
It's the kind of advice that, historically, has been a hard sell in the tobacco industry, in the asbestos industry - and too often in the automotive
industry. Those sectors have provided some of the most famous examples of PR disinformation: "smoking isn't necessarily bad for you;" "