Realists: Is this what we're up against?

Question

From a confidential PR Strategy document to oppose wind power:


- "Most of this could be done by volunteers without having a formal national organization. Discuss how this would work and who would have what responsibilities".

- "Consider joining forces with some already established organizations where there is substantial commonality and commitment (e.g. ATI, Heartland, IER, CEI, Marshall, Brookings, Cato, Manhattan, AfP, FW, CFACT, ALEC, NA-PAW, etc.)."

- "Social Media Outreach director/create coordination for message on web and in Twitter-type outreach, Youtube, etc."

- "Public opinion must begin to change in what should appear as a 'groundswell' among grass roots."

- "Setup a dummy business that will go into communities considering wind development, proposing to build 400 foot billboards."

- "The director will make use of scientific research which is designed to gauge the response to the message and allow for the adjustment of the message from time to time. The same research is also to determine the weaknesses in opposition messages for the purpose of exploiting them to the end goal of the campaign."

- "The science committee will be responsible for assembling a directorate of scientists with the proper credentials to be accepted by the main stream media. Those credentials are also important in making the scientific material harder to target and more difficult to tear down by the opposition. This committee will coordinate with the directorate to develop a highly respectable collection of scientific white papers and reports that are consistent in their approach to supporting the message chosen as most likely to succeed."

- "The networking committee will be responsible for coordinating the response of networked groups with like-mind on our message. These will include the tea party, anti-tax leagues and utility rate groups as well as government watch-dog, anti-waste groups. This committee will help spread our message to the network groups and then gather feed-back as to their interests and needs for further information from the organization."


Doesn't this all sound very familiar? Don't you ever have the sensation that, when dealing with deniers, there appears to be some organized effort behind them pushing their 'collection of scientific white papers and reports that are consistent in their approach to supporting the message'?

Aren't we coming across the same organizations and individuals? CFACT, Heartland, CATO, Americans for Prosperity, tea partiers, etc.?

Aren't we supposed to believe that there is some sort of genuine ground swell among grass roots in opposition to AGW?

Are we dealing with individuals or up against an organization with a Social Media Outreach Director which coordinates and cherry-picks the science which supports their message and ultimate PR campaign goals?

Just wondering...

Read the whole 9 page document here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2012/may/09/wind-power-memo

Answer 1

This sounds familiar indeed. The story is from last May, but that does not make the there described BS shoveling tactics out of date.



After thousands of conspiracy-theory crap fake questions from Ottawa, now he wants to fly off the handle to attribute that to others?! It is only January, but this is a candidate for Hypocrisy of the Year.

Answer 2

Gringo,



When the science fails to support the denial industries' claims then it must employ newer methods of attack. "Organization" is the newest method of attack being used now. While I have no direct evidence of such and I am only using "past practice" to lead me to any conclusions here, but I would believe that the Koch Brothers are the brains of this outfit and that the Heartland Institute is their organizing team leader. Their heavy scent is very noticeable in the air that surrounds this organized plot to maintain the status quo in our use of fossil fuels.



We have faced an escalation in their tactics before. The denial industry puppets have always defeated themselves when they cannot bring the science that supports their baseless claims. Now they wish to become better organized and more vocal in their claims. They will again be defeated when enough people learn enough basic science to know the smell of the bovine excrement that they leave behind. What is more on the side of science than the actual learning of science by the masses is the extreme weather events are becoming more apparent and public opinion will come into line with what the scientists have warned what is coming all along. The sad reality is that the denial industry puppets do not have to win over the populace to claim their "victories". They only have to frame the thoughts of the voters for long enough to keep their politicians in place until the denial industry can claim that they were wrong, but now it is too late to change. So why change now will be their message then. The denial industry does not need to "win the war". They only need to win enough battles to later concede to defeat on their terms.

Answer 3

They have clearly underestimated the stupidity and weak-mindedness of their "grass roots." What an incredible waste of time, effort, and money. They'd be just as successful if put their talking points on rolls of toilet paper and called them "scientific white papers." It's not like Deniers would know the difference.

Answer 4

I'm not sure what you see here (you accuse me of seeing gremlins under the bed quite often). I see a long time anti-wind activist, John Droz Jr., drafting his own vision of launching an anti-wind power PR campaign. I also see a confidential memo with no indication of how it was obtained and by omission no real care either.



Besides being old news and last year's minor talking point among the more ardent AGW believers, there's not much else here.



Actually, it sounds a lot like the core climate gang from the Climategate emails with their own PR campaign to push AGW. Except we have evidence of that being implemented while in your case you have the ramblings of one person.



If one man is your idea of a conspiracy, well I don't know what to say. Why don't you read his opinions about wind power and attack them instead of promoting weak conspiracy theories? http://www.masterresource.org/2012/10/20-bad-things-wind-3-reasons-why/



Edit: I notice again that you keep your Q&A private. Interesting behavior from a conspiracy theorist. However, I did find this: https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20120314193325AAAEly7



I'm not even sure what this has to do with climate science. BTW, without AGW, wind power would be years away from being a good idea. Did you know that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is actually allowing an exception to a wind turbine project to kill bald eagles? All for a good cause I suppose.

Answer 5

Regarding any question as to whether we are to believe that there is some sort of ground swell among grass roots in opposition to AGW, yes, that is what the money behind denialism would like us to believe.



But regarding that campaign, let's just hope that people are smart enough not to fall for the propaganda.

Answer 6

Sure, some of the fossil fuel companies have tried to kill off any thing that may compete with them or reduce their profit. Below is a description of Robert Bryce's articles trying to kill green energy projects and another about trying to kill the electric car.

Answer 7

Sadly yes, but they are so badly organized they can't even keep their plots secret

Answer 8

This is the Guardian story that was attached to the document.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/08/conservative-thinktanks-obama-energy-plans?newsfeed=true

Answer 9

No you are up against the truth. You obviously must know it to come up with such a lame argument.