17 of 17
17
Leaked E-mails Reveal How Heated Global Warming Debate Is
Posted: 10 January 2010 09:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 241 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
citizenschallenge - 09 January 2010 08:23 PM
psikeyhackr - 09 January 2010 07:34 PM

I am just saying they should point out an obvious contributer to the problem they say we have and need to do something about.
It would be like my telling you that your house is on fire but not mentioning that somebody is throwing buckets of gasoline on it.
psik

I think they have and it’s called releasing Greenhouse gases that are the geologic sequestered remnants of our sun’s energy, collected over millions of years… not that other factors haven’t joined that papa-dog.

JIVE TALKING!

I just searched that site for “planned obsolescence” and it is not there at all.

We have this suggested sollution of a carbon tax which would benefit governments since they have to administer it but they don’t do simple things like talk about planned obsolescence and the depreciation of all of the consumer garbage and suggest mandatory accounting in the schools.  Double-entry accounting is 700 years old.  How hard can it be when $400 netbooks are more powerful than mainframes that cost $3,000,000 in 1980.

Talk around the issue instead of striking to the heart of it.

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28529

http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2010 09:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 242 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
fotobits - 10 January 2010 08:54 PM

What amazes me is no one is debating the ethics of hacking into a server and stealing e-mails. This was a deliberate act of sabotage, a crime that should result in a prison sentence, yet here we are arguing about scientists letting their frustrations with the AGW denial FUD machine show in their private e-mails.

Good point, but I think you forgot about the “Golden Rule.”

The man with the Gold makes the rules.

It is pretty depressing though, ain’t it.

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2010 09:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 243 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
psikeyhackr - 10 January 2010 09:19 PM

JIVE TALKING!
I just searched that site for “planned obsolescence” and it is not there at all.

say what?  you lost me here

psikeyhackr - 10 January 2010 09:19 PM

We have this suggested solution of a carbon tax which would benefit governments since they have to administer it but they don’t do simple things like talk about planned obsolescence and the depreciation of all of the consumer garbage and suggest mandatory accounting in the schools.

I don’t have any argument with what you’re saying here or what those two sites were talking about (yes I looked at them).

Forgive me for just not jumping on that band wagon.  The affairs of men have me absolutely disillusioned - Our politician are corrupt puppy dogs and our super rich movers & shapers have become loony as the lead soaked Romans a couple millenia ago.

The AGW thing I can jump on because that is our Earth and that entity does still make sense to me and I will do what screaming I can do to defend her, even if it all falls on deaf ears. 

And they really are two different issues…. even if inextricably bound.

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 March 2010 07:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 244 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03
dougsmith - 05 December 2009 07:54 AM
Jackson - 04 December 2009 05:26 PM

Doug this wikipedia article lists a number of professional organizations which are “noncommital”

Right, it does list a small number who are noncommittal. On a quick count, 46 professional scientific organizations believe that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings of human influence on recent climate change. It lists five which it says aren’t sure, although as was pointed out, one of those five is arguably under economic pressure due to its close association with the oil and gas industry. Further, if you read the statement of two of the others, the American Institute of Professional Geologists and the Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences, both have statements that come very close to accepting it. (They assert that global warming is happening and that humans should do things to stop it). So really we are talking about only a couple (the American Association of State Climatologists and the American Geological Institute) who seem strictly noncommittal and who are not under obvious economic pressure to do so. And at any rate, there are none who believe that the evidence is against the findings of human influence on recent climate change.

Yet if you read the FUD commonly distributed in the media by well funded political astroturf organizations like the one I cited before in this thread, you will get quite a different impression.

Doug I hadn’t paid much attention to the term “astroturf” until it came up with the Mooney-Mann interview.  Now I look back and see it mentioned more than once.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
Which ‘astroturf’ organization are you pointing to—something that pretends to be a “grassroots” organization but isn’t (?)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 March 2010 07:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 245 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  258
Joined  2010-02-28

“Astroturfing” is a very common tactic used by the denial industry. See this classic, and recent example http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2247933/greenpeace-uncovers-astroturf

Greenpeace uncovers “astroturf” campaign to challenge US climate bill

Leaked email reveals that American Petroleum Institute is planning a series of rallies to protest against Waxman-Markey bill

The scale of the challenge faced by the Obama administration as it seeks to secure support for the Waxman-Markey Climate Change bill was again underlined late last week. It emerged oil and gas industry lobbyists are planning a nationwide campaign designed to create the impression of widespread grassroots opposition to the legislation.

A leaked email obtained by Greenpeace USA reveals that the American Petroleum Institute (API) is preparing a series of “Energy Citizen” rallies over the next few weeks, intended to heap pressure on key senators ahead of the crucial Senate vote in late September.

Greenpeace accused the API of engaging in “astroturfing” – the controversial tactic of creating the illusion of a largely spontaneous grassroots protest that has in fact been organised by corporate-backed groups. The practice has been widely accused of undermining President Obama’s efforts to pass universal healthcare legislation and environmentalists are increasingly concerned that his climate change programme could face a similar fate….”

Simply put, these are propaganda exercises intended to try and fabricate a “grass roots” movement against climate change mitigation.

Check out the emal here: http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/GP API letter August 2009-1.pdf

While the media has made much of the CRU emails, here is a direct link to between climate change denial and the energy industry. I quote:

The objective of these rallies is to put a human face on the impacts of unsound energy policy and to aim a loud message at those states’ U.S. Senators to avoid the mistakes embodied in the House climate bill and the Obama Administration’s tax increases on our industry. Senate Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid reportedly has pushed back consideration of climate legislation to late September to allow Senators time to get their constituents’ views during the August recess. It’s important that our views be heard. At the rallies, we will focus our message on two points: the adverse impacts of unsound energy policy (e.g., Waxman- Markey-like legislation, tax increases, and access limitations) on jobs and on consumers’ energy costs. And we will call on the Senate to oppose unsound energy policy and “get it right….


Please provide us with the name of one central coordinator for your company’s involvement in the rallies. (We will look to this person as your representative to assist the overall effort.) If you will let me know ASAP, we can be in touch quickly and provide that person with additional details about the project. Please indicate to your company leadership your strong support for employee participation in the rallies. (Unfortunately, we are already experiencing some delay from your regional people since they are not yet aware that headquarters supports the effort.) I believe that expression of support to your company leadership is a fundamental predicate to organizing quickly and achieving success in this endeavor.

The other common tactic is to flood discussion boards such as this with denial propaganda in an attempt to derail conversation and confuse the issue.

[ Edited: 01 March 2010 07:46 PM by Mike from Oz ]
 Signature 

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 March 2010 11:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 246 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09

Will the AGW Climate Change Contrarians who so brilliantly trumpeted the stolen UEA-CRU emails be as critical of their own dirty laundry?


4 March 10
Evidence Provided In UK Parliamentary Inquiry Into Climate Scientists Was Prepared By Oil and Gas Industry Consultant

The Guardian just broke the news that a consultant to Shell and other oil and gas interests was the source of ‘evidence’ provided by the Institute of Physics in the current UK parliamentary review of the controversy in England over climate scientists’ emails stolen from servers at the University of East Anglia.

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 March 2010 02:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 247 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  441
Joined  2009-12-17

Your religious zeal is having a wonderful affect on your fellow believers I am sure. It’s like having our own televangelist. It is, however, the kind of thing that is turning off people around the world in their millions - and if you don’t believe me you need to check out the growing numbers of sceptics on AGW in almost every single country. All scientists of any repute in the world have worked for some large corporation at some time and it is quite possible this guy is biased. However the truth is that most if not all of the AW scientists are receiving millions for research from the world wide Green Movement and it’s supporters. A huge pot of money only available to believers.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 March 2010 03:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 248 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
scepticeye - 09 March 2010 02:53 PM

Your religious zeal .........bla bla bla…

more poetry se…

Show Us Some Real World Facts ! angry
================================
Hey did you even read the article?


4 March 10
Evidence Provided In UK Parliamentary Inquiry Into Climate Scientists Was Prepared By Oil and Gas Industry Consultant

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{god i luv these smileys.
thanks again to all you unheralded cfi blog cyber masters}

[ Edited: 09 March 2010 03:44 PM by citizenschallenge ]
 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2011 08:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 249 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20

So Climategate was just a ruse, no credible basis to it at all.  Merely journalism poking holes, not science at its basis.  But where did it really come from, what is the real source?  Where do they, the deniers, get this stuff? 

Science historian Naomi Oreskes researches the sources in her book Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, co-authored with Erik Conway.  She traces the tactic and decades long strategy of denial of science all the way back to the tobacco industry and three scientists who consulted for them.  She lectures on the book on Climate Science Watch.

[ Edited: 27 March 2011 11:44 AM by jump_in_the_pit ]
 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2011 10:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 250 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05

It seems that policy can be determined on the basis of the confusion of the majority. 

Truth is irrelevant.

The media helps serve to create the confusion by hyping distorted bullshit so those with the most control can do what they please in the atmosphere of confusion.  So we all get dragged in that direction no matter what.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2011 11:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 251 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4298
Joined  2010-08-15
psikeyhackr - 27 March 2011 10:10 AM

Truth is irrelevant.

The media helps serve to create the confusion by hyping distorted bullshit so those with the most control can do what they please in the atmosphere of confusion.  So we all get dragged in that direction no matter what.

Good point. 
You inspired me to do some quick web search:

“We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective.”

When Michael Eisner wrote these candid words (in what he thought would remain an internal memo), he was CEO of the Walt Disney Co. The quote appears in the documentary “Mickey Mouse Monopoly — Disney, Childhood & Corporate Power.” The Disney Co. is the second-largest media giant but brings in the largest revenue of any media conglomerate in the world.

At the end of World War II, 80 percent of the daily newspapers in the U.S. were independently owned. Today, only five giant companies — Time Warner (CNN, AOL), Disney (ABC), Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation (FOX), Bertelsmann of Germany (the world’s biggest publisher of English-language books), and Viacom (formerly CBS) — control most of the television, radio, magazines, newspapers, books, movies, videos, music, photo agencies and wire services people in this country rely on. General Electric’s NBC is a close sixth.

http://www.workers.org/2010/world/gaza_1118/
Media monopoly and Big Oil
Published Nov 14, 2010 9:47 PM

{But dear me the site has a big red star so they must be commies, still some interesting information we’ll certainly never see the Big Six reporting on.}

=========

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm
This six thousand word article is number of years old but it’s history lesson is pretty interesting just the same.  Just a couple quotes

The Media Monopoly

Easily the most famous book on media trends in the last 15 years is Ben Bagdikian’s 1983 book, The Media Monopoly. In it, he predicted that deregulation under President Reagan would allow media ownership to concentrate in fewer and fewer corporate hands. This, in turn, would result in a more pro-corporate media.

Ridiculed as “alarmist” when it first came out, it has since been praised as a classic for the accuracy of its predictions. “I derive no pleasure from having been correct,” writes the former dean of American journalism in his most recent edition. (Technically, the term “monopoly” is incorrect when describing today’s media—what we actually have is a shrinking media oligopoly.)

These incentives were articulated in 1986 by Christopher Shaw, a Wall Street expert who has handled over 120 media mergers. Shaw told investors that media buy-outs would give them two things: “profitability” and “influence.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The potential for abuse by corporate owners is obvious. Just one example was General Electric’s earlier buyout of NBC News. General Electric is the 10th largest company in the United States. It is a major Defense contractor and an international player on the world market. It is sensitive to the needs of its clients, who come from all sectors of the economy. It is also a fact that GE has suffered many a scandal throughout its history. During the Great Depression, it cut the life of its light bulbs by one-third to drive up profits. It was convicted of an illegal agreement with a German arms company during World War II. It has been convicted of fraud, fixing bids, conspiracy and tax evasion.

In 1989, researcher John Tasini studied ABC, NBC and CBS for a year to see how much coverage was devoted to workers’ issues, including the minimum wage, workplace safety and child care. He found it amounted to a dismal 2.3 percent of all coverage. In fact, all three networks carried only 13 minutes of coverage on workplace safety for the entire year! The worst offender was NBC Nightly News, who devoted a total of 40 seconds to worker safety. This is not surprising, since its parent corporation, GE, has an appalling work safety record.


There’s plenty more but enough, eh.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
   
17 of 17
17