Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Poor Use Of PR? 

Even though this is written from a liberal bent, it is hard not to question the use of PR against this man's point of view. Admittedly, we didn't quite know then what we know now, and it was open to debate, but how much science was done by the opposition contradicting him?

There are still those who question the direct connection between CO2 and global warming. They ask how we know this isn't a periodic warming trend as has happened for millions of years. As far as I know, we don't know absolutely that it isn't, but after years of librating on the issue, it seems settled that CO2 enhances warming, if it isn't the sole cause of it.

So, how should PR treat issues such as this? With respect for evidence. The preponderance of evidence and effects in nature clearly show warming. The next question, however, is still unknown and open to debate: Is warming bad? The earth has been as warm or warmer before. Warming will dislocate hundreds of millions of people away from seashores and land masses that go dry over the next century, but will it open new lands for dwelling and growing? Greenland got its name because Vikings settled there and had farms in the early Medieval era before cold and ice returned.

Whatever the outcome, the debate should be turning now to the effects of warming rather than the question of it. Perhaps, PR can help do a better job of debating this issue.


Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?