• The Copywriter

  • Recent Posts



  • Recent Comments

    • Taylor: Couldn’t agree more. I am actually doing a project for my Writing class on how male steriotypes effect...
    • A Random Vegan: Not all vegans associate with PETA. I sure as shit don’t. And while you may think all vegans...
    • Kyle McFarlin: Walter, This is one of those ‘you killed it’ posts I hope everyone including me follows....
    • mark: If this guy really has expertise then shooting questions at him over a recorded phone call will probably start...
    • Walter: Didn’t even come close to making it right, Kyle. Sadly, our favorite coffee company is another...
    • Kyle McFarlin: As a HUGE fan of Starbucks and someone who is considering the very card you speak of, I hope they make...
    • Tom Humes: Nice Site layout for your blog. I am looking forward to reading more from you. Tom Humes
    • henrry134: Great place to clarify our doubts with the internet marketers. It sounds great that they are virtually...
    • Kyle McFarlin: Good luck winning the contest. Once you have Infusion, I think you’ll find out about cousins you...
  • Twitter Connect

  • ROI Tip Jar

    Enjoying the content? Then feel free to drop in a couple of bucks and buy me a Starbucks Grande Americano! Click to donate »

  • « Advertising Going Nuclear On The Greens! | Home | Masticating Political Darlings By Marketing Them - Believer Beware »

    The Lie About Global Warming Is A Big, Fat Lie - Marketing When Facts Are MIA

    Is it true what Al Gore and Newsweek said . . . that global warming deniers are being funded by Big Oil and other industrial special interests? Gore claims, “There has been an organized campaign, financed to the tune of about $10 million a year from some of the largest carbon polluters, to create the impression that there is disagreement in the scientific community.”*

    But is that true? And if it is, how did he get those numbers?

    If there was some ”organized campaign” aimed against his fave cause celebre, then why in the world would they let their version of the anti-Christ (Gore) anywhere near their books?

    When he gives these talks, why isn’t the news media standing up during Q & A and asking, “Mr. Gore, please cite your source for these numbers (so we can independently verify them)?”

    But let’s get back to the issue at hand. Are Gore and Newsweek correct? Do global warming skeptics get more funding than its supporters?

    Well, let’s take a look at the numbers from their source — Senator James Inhofe, the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) — the government organization charged with tracking this.

    When the EPW looked at the funding received by the global-warming-blame-the-humans skeptics and supporters over the last 10 years, this is what the facts show . . . this is what the numbers prove . . .

    skeptics of global warming = $19M

    global warming supporters = $50B(illion)

    Yes, kiddies . . . that’s $50 billion with a “B.”

    Much of that 50 billion dollars went to several universities and paid the operating expenses of several key environmental lobby groups, most notably the Sierra Club.

    $50B . . . that much money could have brought a lot of carbon offsets. At least enough to offset Gore’s and DiCaprio’s private jets and limos for a year or two.

    But here’s the trouble with Newsweek’s reportage . . . it’s factually dishonest.

    The numbers/facts in big letters above? They were MIA in the Newsweek article. When Newsweek reporter Eve Conant interviewed Senator Inhofe, she was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. (A whopping $50 BILLION to a paltry $19 MILLION and some change for the skeptics.)

    But it’s not over yet, because even Newsweek couldn’t stand beside their own article.

    Robert J. Samuelson, a contributing editor of Newsweek chided the magazine for using “discredited” allegations in the issue involving a supposed cash bounty to pay skeptics to dispute global warming science and portraying global warming as a “morality tale.”

    Click the link to read the full story: Newsweek Editor Calls Mag’s Global Warming ‘Deniers’ Article ‘Highly Contrived’ 

    For more background on Newsweek’s controversial article see August 5, 2007 EPW Blog: “Newsweek’s Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism.”

    And do you think it’s a coincidence that Gore and Newsweek in the same week came out with a screed against the ‘global warming deniers’? I don’t. But then I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny either.

     And btw . . . I’ve been reporting on the factual dishonesty of the global-warming-humans-are-to-blame crowd for quite some time.

    * = Doesn’t this sound like the Clinton’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” sleight-of-mouth routine they pulled when the Lewinsky scandal was blowing up in their faces?

    Like what you read? Then click here to buy me a coffee.

    By Walter |

    Topics: Marketing Mishaps, Pro Analysis |


    To Read More Like This, See . . .

    Comments