I've just had a piece published by Online Opinion about graziers and environmentalists in a symbiotic parasitic relationship in the Macquarie Marshes, click here to read the story.
And Christian Kerr from Crikey.com.au recently pointed out the advantages for some of Australia's biggest companies in claiming concern over global warming:
Visy ... has been an active promoter of recycling because it makes good business sense. It is also good business for Visy to protect and enhance its environmental credentials [by claiming concern over global warming].
Swiss Re and IAG are insurers. They have been talking up the impacts of climate change for the past five years so they can justify increased premiums against increased risk of damage from the effects of climate change. Cute, hey?
Origin is in the gas business. The gas suppliers are keen to promote climate change so that state governments come under pressure to switch from coal to gas fired electricity. It has about half the greenhouse emissions per GWh – but is a lot more expensive. So, PR.
Just filing this comment here, it from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=296 :
"Thirdly, though we are trying to do something about it here, most journalists are not experienced enough in scientific topics to be able to place new results in context without outside help. Often they have a small number of preconceived frames into which they will place the story - common ones involve forecasts of possible disasters, conflict within the community (the more personal the better), plucky Galileos fighting the establishment, and of course anything that interacts directly with politics, or political interference with science. This can be helpful if the scientific story fits neatly into one the boxes, but can cause big problems if the story is either more complex or orthogonal to the obvious frames. Scientists are aware of this, but often are not pro-active enough in preventing obvious mis-framing. This implies that even if a press release is 100% scientifically accurate refection of the original paper, the press coverage can still be terrible."
Perhaps the problem with my maquarie marsh story is that it doesn't fit a 'frame' that most people can understand/relate to.
rog commented garbage
"Absolute garbage"
Jen - I am not sure that I am OK with your treatment of Phil - some of the abuse myself and Phil and Thinksi have taken from the likes of rog and Louis and particularly joe merit your comments far more that Phil. Joe had not contributed anything to this blog other that smartass jibes. His posts are a desert of information or science and deserves censor much more that Phil.
I would agree an apology or retraction is in order.
Gee glad we clarified that and now we're back to my real identity and Jen is pushing intolerance as usual.
Jennifer you owe Phil an apology. It was typically bigoted of you to delete another recent remark that was inoffensive and made under a normal name, yet its only offence was to challenge your IPA ally Mr Castles. You have a track record of getting trigger happy with the delete button, even when people write under real names, when Mr Castles is coming under fire.
Jennifer you should try to engage in the science yourself, less politically charged and mindlessly repeated spin. You have zero track record of engaging in the climate science yourself yet you made a childish jab that Phil knows bugger all about AGW. Petty and immature - next you try to take the high moral tone. Standing for truth and liberty indeed!
If it wasn't for commenters such as Phil making such a valuable and selfless contribution to balance your blog then it wouldn't be thriving like it is, and you wouldn't be getting unwarranted credit for being impartial as you wouldn't be getting handfed tidbits to post. Yuo rely on people like Phil to do your research for you, ie to give your blog the credibility it lacks in your sloppy writing. You're always keen to promote yourself as interested in science, as fair and impartial - those claims warrant a sincere apology to Phil and a retraction.
Awaiting your apology and retraction to Phil. Chance to redeem yourself slightly.