So, for those of you who may not have public relations or media training, allow me to present a quick crash course in how NOT to make your case.
As most of you know, the debate over human responsibility for climate change has been raging for quite some time now in scientific, political and social circles. It’s a highly-charged debate that is all-too-often overrun with rhetorical flourishes on both sides – polarization doesn’t really begin to describe it.
As part of its self-adopted role as climate change skeptic, the National Post‘s Financial Post section has been running a series of profiles of “climate change deniers” – noted academics who question the science behind things like the latest IPCC report, for example.
It’s a good strategy, really, pitting science against science. Except when the “climate change denier” actually “believes that the warming trend in Earth’s climate is caused by greenhouse gases produced by human activity” and that “he has held these views for several years.”
You know, like this.
I am all-too familiar with the conventions of the newspaper apology but in this case, I hardly thing a blurb buried on A2 does this man justice. The Post entirely misrepresented his stance to serve their own agenda – likely much to the detriment of his professional reputation.
Anyone else think “Incorrect information appeared in a column in the Financial Post on Feb. 2” is understating it, a tad?