What is the Lunz Memo?

[**In The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America, Franz Lunz knows Words that Work. Here is the outline of a PR strategy: **]


Please keep in mind the following communication recommendations as you address global warming in general, particularly as Democrats and opinion leaders attack President Bush over Kyoto.

The scientific debate remains open.  Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.
Americans want a free and open discussion.  Even though Democrats savaged President Bush for formally withdrawing from the Kyoto accord, the truth is that none of them would have actually voted to ratify the treaty, and they were all glad to see it die. Emphasise the importance of “acting only with all the facts in hand”  and “making the right decision, not the quick decision.”
Technology and innovation are the key in arguments on both sides.  Global warming alarmists use American superiority in technology and innovation quite effectively in responding to accusations that international agreements such as the Kyoto accord could cost the United States billions. Rather than condemning corporate America the way most environmentalists have done in the past, they attack their us for lacking faith in our collective ability to meet any economic challenges presented by environmental changes we make. This should be our argument. We need to emphasise how voluntary innovation and experimentation are preferable to bureaucratic or international intervention and regulation.


The most important principle in any discussion of global warming is your commitment to sound science. Americans unanimously believe all environmental rules and regulations should be based on sound science and common sense. […]

The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science. Americans believe that all the strange weather that was associated with El Niño had something to do with global warming, and there is little you can do to convince them otherwise. However, only a handful of people believes the science of global warming is a closed question. Most Americans want more information so they can make an informed decision. It is our job to provide that information. LANGUAGE THAT WORKS

We must not rush to judgement before all the facts are in. We need to ask more questions. We deserve more answers. And until we learn more, we should not commit America to any international document that handcuffs us either now or into the future.

You need to be even more active in recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view, and much more active in making them part of your message. People are willing to trust scientists, engineers, and other leading research professionals, and less willing to trust politicians. […] WORDS THAT WORK

Scientists can extrapolate all kinds of things from today’s data, but that doesn’t tell us anything about tomorrow’s world. You can’t look back a million years and say that proves that we’re heating the globe now hotter than its ever been. After all, just 20 years ago scientists were worried about a new Ice Age.


CONCLUSION: REDEFINING LABELS […] We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with “global warming” and ending with “environmentalism”. It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.

“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”.  As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.
We should be “conservationists,” not “preservationists” or “environmentalists.”  The term “conservationist” has far more positive connotations than either of the other two terms. [...]

(Source: lightbucket.wordpress.com)

In reading the letter from Roger Cohen, William Happer, and Richard Lindzen (CHL), I have the sense of walking into a barroom brawl.

William Nordhaus, noticing that these sharp shooters are “firing a fusillade of complaints at everyone in sight, including Science editor Donald Kennedy, climate scientists with hacked e-mails, columnist Paul Krugman, biologist Paul Ehrlich, activist Robert Kennedy Jr., economist Nicholas Stern, and even former Vice President Al Gore.”

IPCC and Uncertainty


Taking uncertainties under consideration would certainly be a good strategy. For it to be a strategy, we should be talking about uncertainty. Let’s say we want to say that

The IPCC underplays uncertainty.

This sentence does not talk about uncertainty. It talks about the IPCC. It says something about the way the IPCC is handling uncertainty.

Invoking certainties is a strategy to talk about the IPCC.

(Source: ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com)

It seems to me to be at the albino-sewer-alligator level of urban legend.

PDA, questioning the certainty by which the “yes, but uncertainty” crowd declares that mitigation will lead to the collapse of the global economy.

Roaring Monster

[sharper00 draws the only possible conclusion from a discussion contrarian e-journal club (or is it e-salon?)]

Read More

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.

Charles Darwin, with unusual assurance.

Some Dots

You, Judith, have agreed that, at least, it is only a hypothesis.

It’s not certain. So it’s uncertain. So it contains uncertainties.

Uncertainty. Some dots. Hoax.

What kind of knowledge is only based on certainties, again?

(Source: judithcurry.com)

Unknown Unknown Unknowns


If one mysterious unknown forcing is actually causing the observed warming, there also has to be another mysterious unknown forcing subtracting the known warming effect explained by the change in CO2.

The first forcing is unknown; the second forcing is also unknown; I fail to see where you have an unknown unknown. We suspect that something undefined going on: that we know. If we know that there must be something there, we know at least that. Something is known there. Knowledge is something we know, not something we don’t.

So what is called the “unknown unknown” is actually a known (unknown) unknown. God knows what you can do with unknown unknown unknowns. A known unknown unknown is not very different from a known unknown, unless you come up with a very intriguing epistemic logic. The distinction is interesting if you’re a Secretary of defense indulging in spelling out a Johari window.

Strictly speaking, the only thing you can say about unknown unknown is that we don’t know nothing about that. And even that, we know.

If you prefer, please refer to this:


For a more opiniated opinion:


Source: http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/05/18/why-climate-journalism-is-a-rotting-carcass/comment-page-5/#comment-5341

Uncertainty associated with the environmental and economic effects of greenhouse gas emissions increases the value of emission controls [also known as mitigation policies], assuming some level of risk‐aversion