Global Warming
It’s been something of a talking point in recent years amongst the polluters’ cartel spruikers that this was some sinister plot by proponents of the AGW-hypothesis to cover up flaws in the model. This was and is nonsense of course, because describing what is happeneing to the world’s climate as “climate change” is a good deal more accurate.
Nobody has suggested that AGW means everywhere will warm at the same rate or even all warm at the same time. It is allowed that there may well be periods of regional cooling, and of course, as is well known, what is warming is the lower troposphere even as the very same processes driving this warming are *cooling* the stratosphere. But enough about the science, because oddly, there was some cynical spinning going on in the choice to adopt the term climate change in preference to global warming. Contrary to the contrarians though, it wasn’t our isde that was doing it, but the naysayers.
Frank Luntz, Republican pollster and Newt Gingrich’s 1994 “Contract with America” spinmeister laid it all out. Luntz worried about seriously in a memo during Bush’s first term that the Repugs were exposed because of their stand on the environment: Luntz claimed that “Voters believed that there was no consensus about global warming within the scientific community … [and that] .. should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, he argued “you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate”
Carrying on in this vein he added: “It’s time for us to start talking about ‘climate change’ instead of global warming and ‘conservation’ instead of preservation.
1. ‘Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming;’ As one focus group participant noted, climate change ’sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.’ While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge;”
and then added
“A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth.”
Now doesn’t that sound like our naysaying trolls here?
He is also reputed to have said that the key to survey polling is “to ask a question in the way that you get the right answer”
http://www.ewg.org/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf
So there you have it. The next time someone from the polluters cartel points darkly to this, refer them to Frank Luntz and ask them why they think it’s like a drive to Fort Lauderdale.
Popularity: 59% [?]
