http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change#comments
Facts: Ian Johnston is not a reporter for MSNBC. He is an editor. On his Twitter page, he admits as such. He writes: "I am an editor for MSNBC.com, and I like to cover stories about [lists topics he likes, one
of which is environment]." He appears to be a British man.
Two: he interviewed Dr Lovelock by telephone at his home in Cornwall, England, from his news desk
in New York.
Three: why did this telephone interview take place TODAY when in fact there was NO NEWS about
LOVELOCK or climate change that would warrant such a big news story?
Answer: Aha, Lovelock's PR people at his publisher in London, or New York, most likely know
Ian and in anticipation of Lovelock's new book coming out in 2013, the PR people asked Ian if he would
like to interview James Lovelock by telephone person to person in the UK? Of course, Ian took the bait and ran with it. Great story too. Interesting. But why NOW? It seems that the PR people wanted to create
a pre-publication BUZZ a good 9 months before publication in order to create a waiting readership for the new book. A great PR move. Ian fell for it. Ian did not report why or how the interview came about and that is both unethical and unprofessional. But the PR team is happy. And Ian got his scoop. And Dr Lovelock doesn't mind, because he is a great man and he's always good for good quotse. Ian's story rocked. But
there's a back story to the MSNBC story we need to know. Now you know it.
It was a PR stunt, a marketing set up, a news gimmick. And MSNBC fell for it.
Still, the news IS interesting and good on Ian for telling it. Just wish he had been more forthcoming about the genesis of the alleged "story." In fact, there was no story here. When the book comes out in 2013, yes, there
is a legit story then. NOT NOW. Now the entire story was pre-marketing pre-publication bullshit to set the the stage for book sales later on.
PS; I am "ames Lovelock's Accidental Student" == google the term and I admire, respect and revere the man. We have been in touch over the years. He has seen my POLAR CITIES website and wrote back to me two years ago, "DANNY, thanks for showing me your polar city images by Deng Cheng-hong. It may very well happen, and soon!" But he did not give a timeline or a timeframe, just soon. Could be 2100, or 22222 or 2323 or 2400 or more likely, as I have always said in my polar cities work, 2500 or so, 30 generations from now.
So Ian, fess up. How and why did this story appear today, now, all of a sudden, out of nowhere. Inquringminds.com wants to know. Me too. DISH!
2 comments:
IAN reported:
''Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared.''
.....However, the professor admitted in a telephone interview with msnbc.com that he now thinks he had been “extrapolating too far."
TITLE OF NEW BOOK?
PUBLISHER?
WHY REPORT THIS NON NEWS TODAY BEFORE THE BOOK IS EVEN OUT?
I SMELL A PR GIMMICK HERE.
FESS UP IAN JOHNSTON!
abby schacter at NY POST blogs
On climate, it's Obama vs. 'Gaia' scientist Lovelock
2012年4月26日, 22:32:41 | Abby W. Schachter
President Obama says climate change is a 2012 campaign issue because not enough has been done about this problem over the past three years. Obama declared that he'd "be very clear in voicing my belief that we're going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way." Obama's declaration of concern comes from the notion that the planet is warming and what is causing the warming is human-made carbon dioxide. Problem for Obama is explaining why he's out in front of famous doomsday climate scientist James Lovelock? The man who predicted that by the end of this century most of us would be fried to death now says that he was wrong . "We don't know what the climate is doing," Lovelock told MSNBC. "We thought we knew 20 years ago," he said. "That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened." So if the scientists are changing their tune because facts have proven them wrong, why would anyone believe that Obama knows better?
Post a Comment