- Twitter to lose its reputation as a free speech platform?
- IIPM worried about Google Suggest, why is it so?
- Reputation Management Tip for 2012: Brands need to tap into social media search!
- Facebook Timeline and Reputation Management
- Apple Siri gender bias or glitch?
- Google+ vs Facebook – its not over yet!
- The Ethics of Self Promotion Through Charitable Causes (A Case Study)
- Google scraps sidewiki – will you miss it?
- Facebook, the trust factor
- BlackBerry Blackout- RIM’s Reputation Takes another Hit
Posts Tagged ‘Global warming’
Greenpeace, iPad and Global Warming
April 8, 2010 | 
Author Greenpeace, in its effort to “ensure the earth’s ability to nurture life in all its diversity” is now pinning on its efforts for some very important issues. By gunning for Nestle’s palm oil source and naming their popular product as Killer (Kitkat), Greenpeace has raised its voice for literally anything it feels is just non-earth-friendly.
Greenpeace is now aiming to highlight Apple’s ipad mobile devices which according to them rely on cloud computing and may contribute to global warming. It has also taken on other IT giants like Google, Facebook, MSN to be contributing their share towards critical climate-change. As of now it seems that Greenpeace has drawn a dotted line between the Apple’s ipad and global warming.
Greenpeace acknowledges the fact that if both the data centers and the telecommunication networks that are the two key components of the cloud continue to grow at current alarming rates, then by 2020 the electricity consumption would be half the current in the United States or more than France, Germany, Canada and Brazil combined. So with the growing cloud-computing needs in preparation for the iPad and with Apple purchasing a data center in South Carolina which is much larger than its existing facilities, Greenpeace feels that it needs to ask some important questions.
“Apple is the master of promotion, and while we marvel at the sleek unpolluted design of the iPad, we need to think about where this is all leading and how like all good surfers we can make sure our environment stays clean and green.”
Greenpeace seems to be going for a double-dip by either picking the largest brands when they are getting an exposure in the market and thereby earning another green money or is it that as an original green company it is focusing on the world issues like global warming that raises environmental issues to public knowledge? From a reputation management point of view, we feel that Greenpeace need to come out clearly on social platform that it’s not after “Apple” or “iPad,” but want to debate something very important; Global Warming.
Posted in 
Tags: 
Global Environment Issue’s Reputation and the Climategate!
That the earth is going through alarming changes is obvious, and as we grapple with dire consequences comes the Climategate as it is now being called. Leaked e-mails from CRU(Climate Research Unit) in East Anglia prove that top researches resorted to tricks to splice together different sets of research to hide the decrease in the 20th century’s temperature.
The lines are drawn, global warming skeptics on one side and researchers on the other side. The rest of us, exasperated knowing from a practical point of view that something is wrong and wondering what the hell is happening. The scientists meanwhile keep their research facts closely-guarded and take their time to make analysis while the leaked e-mails ire the skeptics yet again.
The global environment issue has been losing its reputation as THE most important global issue of our times. Alarming? Yes, and here we are again on the brink of another controversy while glaciers recede, lakes disappear, Greenland starts farming and industries on thawed lands and animals go extinct. Let’s not forget the Himalayas and the water problem it will bring to millions of people in the Indian sub-continent.
Hackers got into the e-mails of serious scientists, now who got a hacker to do this and will it be a blessing in disguise, will the world’s citizens get to know how bad or good things are? Environmentalists need to re-instate their good reputation and dish out some hard facts and analysis on the double!
Drip, Drip… Global Warming’s Water Torture Reputation Problem
Global warming/climate change has a reputation problem! 6 months ago critics of climate change were on the defensive: they were seen as crackpots, right-wingers, heads in the sands denying the “science” of climate change. If you denied climate change you were categorised as misinformed and politically misaligned.
In the past 6 months the debate has changed as the quality and accuracy of climate change research has been questioned and exposed. First it was the leaked emails from a university research centre that implied that research was being either massaged or being positioned to advocate climate change. Notwithstanding the interesting timing of the leaks before the Copenhagen Summit and the conspiracy theories that suggested it was Russian hackers operating at the behest of an unnamed state, it exposed the political nature of climate change research. In short, it reminded us that scientists are human. Hopefully, it reminded them of the same.
This weeks exposure of the inadequacy of data surrounding the melting of the Himalayan Glaciers is a more of an issue as it calls into question all the “reported” research into the impact of global warming and suggests that there is a cavalier approach among the scientific community towards the publishing of research as well as a grasping at any evidence that will support the thesis/hypothesis of climate change.
Climate Change scientists have a reputation problem now as more of the media grow increasingly sceptical of the science. In part it is the sanctimonious attitude of scientists who seem impervious to criticism. Their argument that “yes, this is wrong… but there is tons of other evidence” looks increasingly unconvincing. In part the problem lies with the positioning of the science: no, the case is not proven, but then it never is. We have many of the necessary preconditions for climate change but we do not have sufficient evidence to “prove” the thesis. Critics reverse this statement by emphasising the insufficiency of the evidence. 10 years ago we talked about human impact upon our environment. The debate then focused on climate change and temperature variation and the likely impact of these changes.
Scientists need to revert to a more general question of the impact of human society on our environment and how to manage this. Discussions of the impact of carbon on ocean acidification, deforestation and the use of resources seem more salient compared to measuring the ozone hole whose implications remain uncertain. The scientific community should investigate the ideologisation of climate change research and clarify the remit and potential of science to inform debate. In those terms, science should not drive the debate.