Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
questionmark

PR companies: no working with climate deniers

81 posts in this topic

Some of the world’s top PR companies have for the first time publicly ruled out working with climate change deniers, marking a fundamental shift in the multi-billion dollar industry that has grown up around the issue of global warming.

Public relations firms have played a critical role over the years in framing the debate on climate change and its solutions – as well as the extensive disinformation campaigns launched to block those initiatives.

Now a number of the top 25 global PR firms have told the Guardian they will not represent clients who deny man-made climate change, or take campaigns seeking to block regulations limiting carbon pollution. Companies include WPP, Waggener Edstrom (WE) Worldwide, Weber Shandwick, Text100, and Finn Partners.

Read more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I'd like to think this is a good sign that people are starting to wake up, but my pessimistic side won't allow those good thoughts to last long. Somewhere I saw a world map with projected warming and North America was projected to be cooler than most places, so I think many 'Muricans will keep walking outside when it's cool and laughing about the very idea of global warming. When the Polar Vortex shoots cool air their way they'll say GW is a joke, but when someone says a severe storm was possibly made worse by GW they'll say you can't read anything into one weather event. It's maddening.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Deniers is strong word. Why not use word "sceptics"? Im sceptic about climate change.

Edited by Ichihara
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deniers is strong word. Why not use word "sceptics"? Im sceptic about climate change.

Because they deny the evidence - that is not sceptism in it is denial plain and simple.

People think that there is some significant body of evidence that refutes AGW on which to base skeptism, but the reality is there is nothing but denial of the evidence.

Br Cornelius

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Because they deny the evidence - that is not sceptism in it is denial plain and simple.

People think that there is some significant body of evidence that refutes AGW on which to base skeptism, but the reality is there is nothing but denial of the evidence.

Br Cornelius

On what time scale temperature is rising?

gisp-last-10000-new.png

Edited by Ichihara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deniers is strong word. Why not use word "sceptics"? Im sceptic about climate change.

Because they deny the evidence - that is not sceptism in it is denial plain and simple.

People think that there is some significant body of evidence that refutes AGW on which to base skeptism, but the reality is there is nothing but denial of the evidence.

Br Cornelius

.

i think the point you're both missing here folks is the terms "PR" and "company"

.

these people are, by their very definition, leeches.

.

trust their "opinon" at your peril.....

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(and welcome to UM Ichihara!)

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks on welcome.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On what time scale temperature is rising?

gisp-last-10000-new.png

That is called cherry picking.

Pick one place where there is a counter trend and imply that it refutes the whole body of evidence.

Very poor reasoning and a classic example of denial tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That is called cherry picking.

Pick one place where there is a counter trend and imply that it refutes the whole body of evidence.

Very poor reasoning and a classic example of denial tactics.

I dont understand. Question is plain and simple. And you should be able to answer it, if you understand AGW issue. Im not expert on it. I just say Im sceptic. Many contradictions, affairs, hidden data, articles with headlines "hottest year ever" (which is not true) or "hurricanes are increasing" (which is not true) "polar bears extinction" (which is not true) etc.

We dont even have consensus of scientists on global warming.

Edited by Ichihara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand. Question is plain and simple. And you should be able to answer it if you understand AGW issue. Im not expert on it. I just say Im sceptic. Many contradictions, affairs, hidden data, articles with headlines "hottest year ever" (which is not true) or "hurricanes are increasing" (which is not true) "polar bears extinction" (which is not true) etc.

We dont even have consensus of scientists on global warming.

None of those statements are in any way true other than in the denial blogosphere. broaden your horizons and try reading some actual accredited science.

Here is a simple question for you - can you show me a single scientific paper which refutes a significant element of AGW theory and stood up to subsequent analysis ?

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of those statements are in any way true other than in the denial blogosphere. broaden your horizons and try reading some actual accredited science.

Here is a simple question for you - can you show me a single scientific paper which refutes a significant element of AGW theory and stood up to subsequent analysis ?

Br Cornelius

So polar bears are dying? huricannes are increasing? which is hottest year ever? we have consensus of scientists?

And please stop calling for peer review works. We are just chating here. At least I hope so...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So polar bears are dying? huricannes are increasing? which is hottest year ever? we have consensus of scientists?

And please stop calling for peer review works. We are just chating here. At least I hope so...

I asked you a simple question - please do not try to divert us away from evidence into rhetoric.

Hollow rhetorical statements serve only to bolster ego's and weak arguments and only appeal to the gullable.

I am not inclined to pleasant chatting about serious issues.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I asked you a simple question - please do not try to divert us away from evidence into rhetoric.

Br Cornelius

Same as I did in post 5.

Edited by Ichihara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

.

i think the point you're both missing here folks is the terms "PR" and "company"

.

these people are, by their very definition, leeches.

.

trust their "opinon" at your peril.....

.

What I think most people is missing is that climate is weather. And that clouds are heating our globe more then we are.

Edited by Ichihara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are just chating here. At least I hope so...

I am not inclined to pleasant chatting about serious issues.

Br Cornelius

.

c'mon guys- play nicely.....

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I think most people is missing is that climate is weather. And that clouds are heating our globe more then we are.

which is all part of AGW theory. There's no massive revelation there - but clouds do not simply trap heat for no reason otherwise we would be on a constantly upward trend till we ended up like venus. Cloud feedbacks are forced by greenhouse gases which amplify their effects.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks for explaination. I wish you answered others questions. And in my opinion there is no AGW theory. Just AGW hypothesis.

Point of my post was that climate is weather. Even when is hot outside too.

Edited by Ichihara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Cornelius what is your argument for AGW?

Edited by Ichihara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate and weather are slightly different things. Weather is a specific moment, counted in minutes to weeks at most. Climate is averages over the course of years, with climate normals being aggregates of weather over 30 year periods. Both weather and climate pertain to the specific area.

So, for example, Seattle Washington can be considered an oceanic climate, and experience periods of sunny weather. Or Tucson Arizona has a desert climate but can experience rainy weather.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Climate and weather are slightly different things. Weather is a specific moment, counted in minutes to weeks at most. Climate is averages over the course of years, with climate normals being aggregates of weather over 30 year periods. Both weather and climate pertain to the specific area.

So, for example, Seattle Washington can be considered an oceanic climate, and experience periods of sunny weather. Or Tucson Arizona has a desert climate but can experience rainy weather.

And on what time scale "AGW theory" works?

Edited by Ichihara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on what time scale "AGW theory" works?

Shrug, dunno. I would imagine over decades at least, or at least I would hope so. I was just pointing out the difference between climate and weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks for explaination. I wish you answered others questions. And in my opinion there is no AGW theory. Just AGW hypothesis.

Point of my post was that climate is weather. Even when is hot outside too.

Climate is not weather. Climate is a minimum 30 year trend in weather. All trends whether up or down are forced by some external or internal influence. Nothing happens without a reason - the reason is the massive amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere through our extraction and burning of fossilized carbon. We have released millions of years worth of sequestered carbon in less than a 100years - fundamentally shifting the balance of the atmosphere and changing the energy balance of the planet.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shrug, dunno. I would imagine over decades at least, or at least I would hope so. I was just pointing out the difference between climate and weather.

Im thankfull on that. But point is no one has answer on my question. Even IPCC which has many young unexpirienced people on board. Did you see my graph? Answer is on none level. Do you know that polars bears reached their historic highs numbers. That sea level is rising 7 inches per century? That NASA and NOAA altered the temperature record to make recent years warmer? That there is no consensus of scientists. IPCC stated that 97% scientists agree on AGW. BTW 97% of 77 scientists in an unscientific online poll. Hurricanes are not increasing at all. They are least active in 30 years...then we have climategate scandal....etc. Im mean who wouldnt be sceptical?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The time scales of AGW are from trends of at least 30years out to thousands of years. The changes we are currently making will have effects for at least the next thousand years.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.