ClimateGate: PR and Truth
Obviously, this kind of charge is profound for many reasons, not the least of which involves an international meeting in Copenhagen discussing carbon limits for each country, set to start this week. Critics of climate change immediately used this as evidence to dismiss the notion as a whole and audit scientists more carefully.
Whether you want to sympathize with hackers who exposed an inner-dialogue to the public, or you want to sympathize with conservatives that believe nothing is wrong and nothing should be done, it is moot. The public now has an opinion on the matter and, unfortunately, it can’t be changed easily.
There has been speculation that this hacker attack was commissioned by oil companies, namely Exxon/Mobil, but clearly the damage has been done. Yes, it was clearly underhanded and awful for criminals to attack a private server. Yes, more and more evidence suggests that the emails were mostly harmless and show a conversation between professionals. But the news has already created a new slogan: ClimateGate.
Go ahead: Google it. I’ll wait. Surprised at how many articles already emerged in two weeks? Is this a PR disaster?
The basic principles of public relations are often confused with legal systems, that is, PR is a tool used to cover up and forget. In fact, PR is a tool to help educate and dispel rumors. The best policy, especially in crisis communications, is honesty. I learned this from a guest lecturer, Lynn Kettleson, who helped manage crisis communication in many infamous corporate blunders, including a turkey recall days before Thanksgiving. How did he handle it?
“There are always unique situation somewhere, and people are always looking for assistance in getting out of it,” Kettleson says. But his most important lesson? “Its like when you were a kid, and a baseball would go through a neighbor’s window. Someone had to eventually fess up to the crime, or things would only get worse. It’s the same with crisis communication: the sooner you tell the truth, the sooner you can start working on how to solve the problem.”
So the ironic part in all of this? Most of us agree that science is a public forum that doesn’t have secret motivations or agendas. We see scientific acts as a noble and pioneering duties that help humanity. The research unit that was hacked could have easily avoided this issue altogether if they had publicly disclosed their concerns, both positive and negative, at every step along the way. Exposing a secret dialogue creates a distrust within the public; the same public that has helped to create this green movement.
What do you believe? Should these scientists be worried about their data? Did these hackers really expose ClimateGate? Where do we go from here? Sound off below!