World's top PR companies rule out working with climate deniers

The Guardian ^ | August 4, 2014 | By Suzanne Goldenberg and Nishad Karim

[Brad from Tennessee]

Some of the world’s top PR companies have for the first time publicly ruled out working with climate change deniers, marking a fundamental shift in the multi-billion dollar industry that has grown up around the issue of global warming.

Public relations firms have played a critical role over the years in framing the debate on climate change and its solutions – as well as the extensive disinformation campaigns launched to block those initiatives.

Now a number of the top 25 global PR firms have told the Guardian they will not represent clients who deny man-made climate change, or take campaigns seeking to block regulations limiting carbon pollution. Companies include WPP, Waggener Edstrom (WE) Worldwide, Weber Shandwick, Text100, and Finn Partners.

“We would not knowingly partner with a client who denies the existence of climate change,” said Rhian Rotz, spokesman for WE.

Weber Shandwick would also not take any campaign to block regulations cutting carbon emissions or promoting renewable energy. “We would not support a campaign that denies the existence and the threat posed by climate change, or efforts to obstruct regulations cutting greenhouse gas emissions and/or renewable energy standards,” spokeswoman Michelle Selesky said. . .

[Brad from Tennessee]

If all the "climate deniers" were to boycott and complain to the clients of these firms they would turn on a dime.

[Junk Silver]

This is a great opportunity for some upstart company to become one of the world’s future top PR firms.

These people are losing, and once Mark Steyn finally gets Michael Mann under oath that will only accelerate.

[old curmudgeon]

I would bet that this is because the liberal pols threatened to go elsewhere.

This is a great opportunity for a PR man to start is own agency.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Exactly right! It's not as if there are huge barriers-to-entry for propaganda (ahem) PR firms.

[glorgau]

Exact;y what I was thinking... a great opportunity for an upstart to fill a very large niche. Just like Fox News did.

[drypowder]

Soros’ billions have clout

[Pilated]

“F” them. This is why I will not use, purchase, contribute, listen to, watch, wear, eat or participate in many everyday things. And I am very happy and adapt at living my life.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

It's almost like "climate change" is a religious cult or something.

[MarineBrat]

“We would not knowingly partner with a client who denies the existence of climate change,”

Stupid stupid stupid! Climate change has always happened and always will as long as the Earth exists and has a temperature >0K

[bigbob]

Exactly so. What the hell is wrong with these people?

[SMARTY]

As it is, the whole ‘global warming’ thing is bought and paid-for.

What a giant step backwards for science... the same people who whine about how Copernicus, Pasteur, Columbus, etc were challenged in their lives!!

[PATRIOT1876]

“We would not knowingly partner with a client who denies the existence of a flat Earth”

Portuguese Free Press (1492)
(The time that they refused to run an ad for Columbus)

[PATRIOT1876]

TRANSLATION:

We refuse to speak the truth despite what Science says.

[ElkGroveDan]

Public relations firms have played a critical role over the years in framing the debate on climate change and its solutions

"Science" at work.

[Bernard Marx]

Exactly right! It's not as if there are huge barriers-to-entry for propaganda (ahem) PR firms.

Huge barriers exist unless you enjoy the sound of one hand clapping. PR firms wage campaigns in free media to change perceptions on issues, and nearly all media are on the AGW bandwagon. For instance the L.A. Times won't even publish letters to the editor that challenge Al Gore Warming.

If some wildly rich benefactor was willing to finance a paid commercial campaign it might make some inroads. But the giant main stream media, greedy though they are, would likely refuse to print/air such advertising. Fox would air commercials like that but it reaches viewers who generally don't need convincing -- one hand clapping.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Anyone want to wager if Republicans take the senate this will change? All I know is if I was elected Preisent in 2016, I would make it very very expensive for PR firms to operate, to a point where they would have to shut their doors.

Then again, my plan would be to force every newspaper company to close their doors due to the killing of trees which suck up CO2. Of course there would be waivers to the Washington Times and other newspapers who are fair and balanced.(shhhhhhh)

[Haiku Guy]

We have determined,
This is all about PR.
Duly noted, sir...

[PATRIOT1876]

I wonder if these PR companies are somehow connected to the Nazi spin machine that said there are no gas chambers.

They are in league with Government Supremacists and are clearly the children of Goebbels

[Yo-Yo]

I didn’t know that “climate deniers” needed PR firms.

[alloysteel]

Nobody is denying the fact of climate change. Changes over time ever since the Earth was formed. Sometimes it is less benign than it is now, other times it is a world-wide paradise with warm temperatures and ice-free oceans everywhere.

However, the consensus about what constitutes an “ideal” climate has still not been defined. Is it “warm everywhere”, is it “cold everywhere”, and what defines “warm” or “cold”?

And that is only the first part of the controversy, determining what the “right” climate should be. The other part, is what CAUSES climate to change? Some rather energetic types have claimed on the basis of some computer model that may or may not have been properly programmed, that activities of humanity constitute the one and sole source of any changes that cause global climate change/warming/cooling. And yet, this claim is backed up with nothing more than some vague assertion based on shaky “science” that has never been demonstrated to be reproduced in any laboratory in the world.