PR Stunts – The Maldives underwater meeting

The 'science' of global warming

The 'science' of global warming

Maldivian officials said the idea to hold the attention-grabbing underwater cabinet meeting came from President Mohamed Nasheed when he was asked by an activist group to support its “environmental day” action on October 24.

“The group asked if the Maldives can hold an underwater banner supporting environmental day,” an official from the president’s office said.

“The president thought for a while and then came up with the idea to have an underwater cabinet meeting.” (via Maldives cabinet rehearses underwater meeting).

Its been done before

From the early 1950’s to the late eighties, the Western world created hysteria regarding ‘population explosion’  in India and China. Enormous pressures were brought onto the Chinese and Indian Governments to ‘control’ their populations.

The West succeeded in China – and failed in India, thanks to the healthy disrespect that desi Indians had for ‘phoren’ ideas. This entire theory on population explosion was based on wrong ethical, economic and political bases. Above all, it was based on a fear that China and India could raise an army bigger than the entire population of the West put together. Much like the climate control campaign, the population explosion campaign was sustained over the years – and called for great ‘foresight’ from the West.

The Maldives trojan

Propping up Maldives as ‘fifth’ column was similarly done over the last more than 20 years. Based on excellent PR and media management skills, the Maldives was the Trojan horse that India was blind-sided on.

The hallmark of the Maldives’ climate  change campaign has been it slick PR. Dramatic statements, intriguing sound bites, the Maldives’ campaign was beyond the common bureaucratic ‘creature’ – much less a Maldives’ bureaucrat. This is consistent and in line with Al Gore’s media and public relations management – which won the PR agency, the campaign of the year award. And Al Gore the Nobel Prize. is rather well armed on the PR front – with a specific agency for South Asia itself. The PR agency for the Maldives Travel and Tourism Authority McCluskey International does  seem to either bask in reflected glory – or is hinting at the authorship of this stunt. The Maldives climate change campaign seems to be headquarted in Britain also.

Maldives is now tied up with a the ‘Vulnerable 14’ to actively create pressure on (especially) China and India.

If it was not such a delicious fraud, I could have even admired this operation.

  1. December 18, 2009 at 12:01 pm

    Thank you for the link. Just wanted to clarify that although I would love to do PR for, the posts on my blogsite are personal support rather than in any professional capacity. You’ll see other environmental organisations and campaigns mentioned on the site.

    (I have two young children and care passionately about what the future holds for them, hence the interest.)

    Climate science is tested, proven, in as much as it is possible to prove, and even with variables thrown in, pretty compelling.

    Instead of throwing stones at, why not try and engage them in a reasoned sensible debate? The challenge of climate is a challenge for humanity, and by talking we may be able to find the right balance. They’re talking about a hopeful future for people, so are you. You already have a common goal.

    If climate change science holds up, the people you want to help are the people most endangered by what’s in store. But also the people who can help find better ways as they aren’t tied to western bad habits.

    I’ll happily try and find contacts for you to allow that conversation to happen.

    Claire Thompson, Waves PR

  2. GR
    December 18, 2009 at 4:48 pm

    >> They’re talking about a hopeful future for people…so are you.

    Hmmm… why does this sound so familiar? where have I heard this before?

    Ah ! The christian missionaries.

    >>I’ll happily try and find contacts for you to allow that conversation to happen.

    The “specialists” to “convert” people.

    Welcome to the “new” Science of God… a new mission… new missionaries – the same zeal… trying to “save” the people 🙂

  3. December 18, 2009 at 5:22 pm

    That’s a bit harsh. It was just a suggestion to talk.

  4. GR
    December 18, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    If the CC folks were interested in talking – they would not be bullying the skeptics… in fact – every attempt for a reasonable debate has been crushed with mockery and name calling… “deniers” is what we are labeled.

    Meanwhile – not a single paper has been published – that has empirical data to link any change in climate to CO2. Not one. Zero.

    However – I am not trying to reason with missionaries – whose faith far surpasses any sense of logic. Also, many missionaries as I know – are good hearted people – who are simply trying to do their jobs. It is those who manipulate them are a threat to freedom.

  5. December 18, 2009 at 8:21 pm

    I’m trying to talk to you….

  6. GR
    December 20, 2009 at 2:02 am

    >>I’m trying to talk to you…

    OK – let’s try this. Let’s start with talking about the “science.”

    >>Climate science is tested, proven, in as much as it is possible to prove, and even with variables thrown in, pretty compelling.

    Please locate one paper for me that provides empirical evidence to link Carbon Dioxide emission with increased temperatures. One.

  7. December 22, 2009 at 9:43 am

    I’ve asked a couple of people for original research papers and when I have the links and/or references I’ll pass them on.

  8. December 28, 2009 at 5:49 pm

    The scientific links, as promised:

    Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?

    IPCC stats

    taken from:
    (Lots of research papers here, and plenty of referenced sources.

    NASA stats

    Pew Centre

    I hope these will help allay some of your concerns, and I look forward to more positive conversations in the New Year.

  9. GR
    January 4, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    I have briefly looked at the first paper. It discusses the “climate sensitivity of CO2” and other GHGs. Figures a,b,c in 2.1 show the strong correlation between the CO2, CH4 and Sea Levels with global temperatures. When you overlay the temperature on the CO2/CH4 levels (which the author has chosen not to do), you can see that the rising tempuratures – in several cases – PREDATE the rising CO2.

    This observation follows a rather simple logic. That if the global temperatures increased (for whatever reason) – the oceans would warm up. These warming oceans would support more vegetation – thus generating more CO2.

    Unfortunately – I don’t see anyone funding research to investigate this phenomenon – because the outcome of this research would be contrary to the present day “fatwa.”

    I will look through the other papers as well – time permitting.

    Meanwhile – I hope that you keep an open mind as well – and have a look at the arguments that have been presented by several skeptics 🙂

  10. January 5, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    I don’t know, but I’ll take a look around – I know Southampton have been doing some research (saw it in my Alumni newsletter)

    I’m keeping an open mind, of course – I think that most ‘green’ stufff that we’re doing as a family just makes sense anyway – waste goes to landfill – land costs money – up go prices of everything! And so on.

    Let me know how you get on witrh those papers,

  11. GR
    January 6, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    As an Indian – greenness is integrated into the culture. In fact – the entire notion that the west can “teach” the rest of the world about being “green” is ridiculous… the basis for negotiations of the carbon credits – is a complex scheme to create extra judicial monitoring bodies – that will enable “green” corruption… where the citizen watchdogs – will be under the illusion that these monitoring bodies are benevolent entities – allowing otherwise small budget projects to become huge burdens on the “third world”… the money that is “promised” where does it go? to buy the contracts.

    The issue is nothing to do with “greenness” it is the politics and the economics which provides the massive incentives for the fear mongering. This is a dirty BUSINESS – where naive people become the unwitting cheerleaders.

    So my opposition to this CC or GW is not in the same context as the western right wing. In fact – western “scientists” have a history of fear mongering – whether it was Malthus in the 1700s or “hole in the ozone” layer scare of the early 90s evolving into this.

  12. January 7, 2010 at 9:40 am

    Unfortunately the politicians who represent us in the West do not have an inate sense of looking after the environment – money is, unfortunately, our measurement of success for so many things.

    I agree that Carbon Credits imply that pollution is OK and you can buy your right to pollute. Fundamentally that’s wrong.

    Many developing countries have adopted far higher standards, looking at CO2-e (inc. other ‘greenhouse gases), so you are absolutely right that the west teaching the rest of the world is ludicrous. Unfortunately,the money thing means that Western standards are becoming pervasive and desirable to other cultures.

    I don’t, however, believe that this is all some big conspiracy theory. We cannot continue to consume and destroy our beautiful natural world without finding a way to either put something back or accepting that life is going to get really, really tough for future generations.

    Western political systems are far less able to cope with long term tommorows than embedded belief systems.

  13. GR
    January 7, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    >>I agree that Carbon Credits imply that pollution is OK and you can buy your right to pollute. Fundamentally that’s wrong.

    So what is the inspired green activist doing about it?

    >>I don’t, however, believe that this is all some big conspiracy theory

    There is no need for any conspiracy theory to explain logical behavior. Whether it was the world bank – who was “helping” poor countries – or the IMF – which “bails” out countries – the money flow essentially entrenches inelastic spending habits – through – purchased loyalty (corruption). Carbon credits – and the promised $30b of promised money – is essentially the same carrot to purchase loyalty and create a culture of corrupt-green projects. An oxymoron for the idealist green minded person – who – unfortunately has become the cheerleader for these schemes.

    >> We cannot continue to consume and destroy our beautiful natural world…

    agreed – yet, there is *nothing* in any mandate today – that has anything to do with altering consumption. The governments have funded this “science” – and to expect that lobbies had nothing to do with this is being blind to history.

    If you are English – take a closer look at the Bugging Act of 1749, the Worsted Act of 1777 and the Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800… to see how the parliament was lobbied to create laws that would severely curtail the freedom the average briton… all under the guise of “progress.”

    … to believe that a government (any) represents the interest of the planet or people – is the quintissential progressivist trap – and no I am NOT a conservative 🙂

  14. January 8, 2010 at 11:30 am

    “So what is the inspired green activist doing about it?”
    Getting off my butt and supporting the people who are lobbying for change and organising themselves.
    Oh and setting up a new project to encourage those who are genuinely ‘green’…

    Not getting wghy you’re so angry with me. I am not a cheerleader for carbon credits – I am a cheerleader for getting PEOPLE to commit to lowering their carbon – and eco-damage – footprints.

    What happened in 1700 may have an impact on us now, but bears no relation to the world we live in now. Slavery’s gone for starters.

    If you step down from that pedestal for a moment, we can find common ground and a way forwards and find solutions. I am not an idealist at all, except perhaps in thinking that maybe this conversataion might do some good. You want to keep railing at the world, go ahead.

    I go back to the beginning: “So what is the inspired green activist doing about it?”

    Turn it around – you are being very vocal about how wrong I am – what are you doing about it? Because if we do nothing – whether it be about carbon, other gasses, waste and destruction – we are saving up for some huge, huge problems.

  15. January 8, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    Claire – I think a couple of things need to be re-iterated.

    1. The Global Warming-Carbon di Oxide thesis is based on false data, manipulation, and propaganda /PR. You will see enough data on that if you want to see it for yourself. I have linked some of that in my posts.

    2. You will also note that Global Warming very neatly sidesteps the pollution problem – which is real and present problem. Here and now. The number of people affected by that is for more easier to measure.

    3. The Global Warming-Climate Change debate is about politics – and nothing about ‘greenery’, environment and especially about poor people.

    Above all it is a fraud.

  16. January 8, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Thanks for the chat but I’m butting out here – I don’t think this is a valuable conversation – I’ve provided you with links to genuine research which you haven’t looked at, and all I’ve seen in return are accusations of idealism.

    The UK Met office has released all it’s raw data. Global warming is very real and threat to the most vulnerable amongst us.

    Being green is about that AND the waste issue, I’m afraid – and I don’t see what you gain by trying to stop the clean up: wouldn’t it be dreadful if we changed our taxation systems to reflect rewards for good habits and penalties for bad ones (polluter pays) – businesses would soon clean up their act; wouldn’t it be dreadful idf we all had clean air to breathe? Wouldn’t it be dreadful if our seas were stocked with plentiful fish to admire – and to eat in reasonable quantities? Wouldn’t it be dreadful if the food on our table wasn’t stuffed full of naxious chemicals?

    True idealism is in not seeing just about everything we do is political – even taking a pee, because the political system we have determines where it goes, where we’re allowed to do it, and where it goes to once it’s been done.

    I’m not sure who you think is going to benefit from change: it’s certainly not the big bad polluters, as far as I can see.

    Instead of screaming from the rooftops how much you hate me and people like me, and branding us as idealistic, why not tell us what you think the solutions are, and do something that will create positive change?

    As far as I can see, that’s what organisations like 350 and 10:10 are doing, and without the support of Governments or tax money – ground up!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: