On February 17, 2010, there was an article posted on a Greenpeace sponsored Web site named PolluterWatch.com. The article, “Polluters Charles and David Koch don’t deny it: they fund front groups to deny climate science,” dealt with Greenpeace’s ongoing battle with Koch Industries over the company’s reported financing of various research organizations who, according to Greenpeace, “deny” climate change and “obfuscate the truth about climate science.”

Well, I don’t want to insert myself into the battle over climate change and who or what causes it. I don’t have the scientific background or the technical qualifications to represent myself properly in that fight. But in that fight, I’m of the opinion that Greenpeace, and many other environmental NGOs, don’t have the background or qualifications to make a proper argument. I say that because in my research on these organizations, I’ve noticed that many of them periodically take great liberties with how they present information, and thus represent “truth.” It is into that fight that I want to insert myself because I have the background and the qualifications to represent myself in this “battle for meaning,” and how semantics is used as a weapon in that battle. My qualifications are strong here. In fact, I’ve written a book about that battle.

In my analyses of how various NGOs conduct this battle for meaning, I’ve noticed that Greenpeace, among others, is often “semantically-challenged” and this post on PolluterWatch.com represents at least one example of these challenges with which they deal.