7
Ad campaign softens image of climate scientists
Biologist David Inouye is depicted as a curious rosy-cheeked boy in this ad campaign meant to soften the image of climate scientists.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
Bill Radke: Remember the headlines a few months ago about so-called "ClimateGate"? Leaked e-mails between some climate scientists led to accusations that data were being fudged. Since then, a slew of investigations have cleared the scientists of any academic misconduct. Still, the affair got climate experts thinking, maybe they need a little work on their "brand". Marketplace's Krissy Clark has the story.
Krissy Clark: Maybe you've seen the ad campaign: a round-cheeked little boy in a baseball uniform peers through a magnifying glass at a cluster of daisies. It's supposed to be a younger version of biologist David Inouye.
David Inouye: people will look twice at that little boy in a little league uniform whereas they might not look twice at a picture of the real me, 60-year-old scientist.
Inouye says the idea is to put a human face -- an adorable one -- on climate scientists like him. The ads point you to a website where you can read more about their work.
Kevin Knobloch runs the Union of Concerned Scientists, the group behind the campaign. He says many of his members have been under attack lately.
Kevin Knobloch: Some climate scientists have received death threats, a drum beat of really disturbing e-mails from people who are often anonymous.
Knobloch wants that to change, once people understand who these scientists are, and what motivates them. While science needs to stick to the cold facts, he hopes to shift public opinion with a warm feeling.
I'm Krissy Clark for Marketplace.
I don't care if global warming is real or not. But if the pundits on the side of global warming wins, we have a win, win, win situation. Let me explain. the supply of CHEAP oil is running out. We import 60 percent of our oil, supporting rouge nations, and in turn extremist that want to destroy us. In addition, that money is leaving the country, leaving us with a huge deficit. in addition, our men and women are in harm's way, and money spent having at least one if not two aircraft carriers in the middle east, along with tons of other military equipment invested. yet we do not tax gasoline and diesel fuel to reflect these costs. Stop and think about that, fighting over a dwindling oil supply is like fighting in a burning building. Additional cost are incurred with the use of any fossil fuel in terms of health care and pollution concerns, especially with coal. The thing is we have to start now, and the GW movement will help, because it takes decades to replace the current automobiles with green ones that plugs in at night. It takes decades to make green power plants, and it takes decades to build a power grid to carry these loads. If you wait for the next oil shock, it will be too late, and it may be your job you lose or your retirement, because we will be in a worst recession yet because of the oil prices. Your choice, grasshopper.
The president has asked for a clean air policy. He asked congress and they (using a SWAG Facture) came up with the CAP and Trade solution. What a bunch of hog wash this is.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative of the far East fostered this plan. But the coal ash is still coming down. China, India,Brazil , and other countries want a solution to this problem. They look to the USA for solutions. They get nothing. I have more to say on this problem and will feel honored to express my views.
How do you deal with a problem if you do not have all the evidence to "make sure" if it really is a problem at hand?!
Skeptics, please note: Maybe it is global warming, maybe not : There is some evidence convincing to some, while not convincing to others. At this point, I see dealing with the issue of global warming a 'risk management' issue -- i.e. it does not hurt (and it is really wise) to be on the safe side by doing something about it and putting safeguards in place. We may not have the opportunity to do so 20 years from now -- it may just be too late.
IT is all about money and power? I am amazed at how these people believe that the scientists who don't make THAT much money or have any power, are all about money and power. Making the masive oil and utility companies the victims. It seems simple if we use enough of anythng we will eventually pollute ourselves one way or another.
The people who are foisting the fraud of anthropogenic climate change on us will do anything. I invite people to look at the many absurd predictions of catastrophy that various scare mongers have stated. The weather is not following their script and we have had global cooling for the past ten years. Here in Australia we were told that over the past four years we would experience less rain fall and hotter conditions. The opposite has happened. This hoax is all about power and money and nothing to do with real science.
Yup I read them. In fact, none of them were independent, one was by the British government, the others were by the institutions themselves. The Penn State investigation was a typical case. While they interviewed other scientists, they specifically did not talk to independent scientists about the science involved. When they did talk to scientists, they talked to 'climate scientists' who where already on the 'it's happening and its a big deal' side in the whole global warming debate.
It was kind of like interviewing my best friends about how good of guy I am. Talking to my friends may give the appearance of a real investigation, but it definitely isn't going to give an unbiased result.
If you want valid results, you have to interview people who don't have their minds made up already.
