Message to Jody Clarke: One Day You’ll Be Ashamed of Yourself

I think putting yourself in a position where you don't have to make that decision is better. If your personal view is in line with the professional view, you'll never have a problem. (If I understand your question correctly.)For instance, I'd never take a job with Exxon Mobile. Greedy bastards they are. Why would I try and tout a positive message from such a company that I didn't agree with? And, if I did happen to have a job with Exxon and was charged with promoting a message I think did people wrong or put them at risk, it would be my job to argue with Exxon and propose an alternative. In the end, it is in the company's interest to disagree sometimes.There are good companies out there, with legitimate, positive messages.

Riddle me this PR peeps:How do you separate the personal view from the professional one when people may be at risk?

In honor of your birthday, I'll give you the last word.Have a good one, Ike.

It's my birthday, and I'm going out to enjoy it, but I'll leave you with this:You're still criticizing a PR person for a political opinion. You are so certain of yours that you are crusading: ergo, Jody is either an idiot or a whore.Before you can call her a shameful whore, you have to prove that she's not an idiot or misinformed.If you want to blast people for being idiots, then this becomes a general soapbox and not a PR soapbox.Happy Birthday to me.

Mike:I read the post you referenced. It contains this statement:"a few vocal individuals are quoted 'over and over' again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions"The fact is, there have been over 900 peer-reviewed studies and none has questioned global warming. 900 is more than a few.

Science is debate. The scientific process is a process of debate. To look at the weight of scientific evidence built over many years and then say, "Wait, there's been no debate," is ignorant and/or disingenuous.

For a bit of rebuttal, I offer some $0.02 from the Manufacturer's Bloghttp://tinyurl.com/q29faor http://blog.nam.org/archives/2006/06/global_warming_14.phpFrom that blog, which notes a story in the "Denver Post:""The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place."Just some food for thought.(No, it's not a client.)

Ike,Your problem is that you insist on positioning global warming as a political/PR issue where one opinion is as valid as another -- when this simply isn't the case.Your view that global warming is OK for the environment is no different from someone saying that smoking is OK for your health. It's not about "opinions" at this point; it's about facts.

Ze Frank said it best, "Really, global warming is about a marketing campaign - The Future Looks Brighter!." Thank god the PSBI is on the job.

Before you throw Jody to the lions, you need to address a couple of very important questions, Scott:1) Was Jody already inclined to have a viewpoint sympathetic to the CEI?I'm speaking just from a PR perspective here. If she holds other personal views but whores herself out, then you have a legitimate gripe. Otherwise, this isn't a PR issue but a political/policy issue.2) Is there more subtlety to the CEI viewpoint?Is the CEI arguing that global warming is not happening at all? Is it postulating that the verdict isn't in on mankind's role?Or is its position that the economic results of throwing down all the way with the Kyoto-crowd will dwarf the environmental effects of a degree or two?I know you have strong views on this Scott, as do I. But if you're going to talk about PR issues, let's make sure the issues are PR-related.

"Carbon dioxide. They call it pollution. We call it life." Unbelievable.

That ad is classic "Toxic Sludge is Good for YOu." Un-fing-believable.