Slashdot Mirror
PR Firm Behind Al Gore YouTube Spoof?
mytrip writes to tell us ABC News is reporting that a supposed amateur video posted to YouTube.com may have actually been designed and posted by a Republican public relations firm called DCI. From the article: "Public relations firms have long used computer technology to create bogus grassroots campaigns, which are called 'Astroturf.' Now these firms are being hired to push illusions on the Internet to create the false impression of real people blogging, e-mailing and making films."
This falls into the category of "duh" for me. Who else would sponsor such a thing? Maybe the oil companies?
Isn't that the Linux penguin? And isn't said penguin trademarked and copyrighted?
Political hacks have been sponsoring spin in books and the "news" media since forever. What's new here is that they now see the blogosphere as important enough to merit attention.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
When I first saw the goofy cartoon, it seemed like no "real" person would've spent the time to make something so dumb. I really hope whoever threw it together got to fleece that PR firm in "production fees" for something so silly- then at least something good would come out of this.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI
And if any PR company produced that, they're seriously over paid.
...yesterday exactly why?
" YouTube Gore spoof has murky origins Sat Aug 05, '06 12:08 AM Rejected"
Yes I know no complaints, yet I dare to anyway, bye, bye karma, nice knowing you.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Are you Gay?
Are you a republican?
Are you tired of the Apple Mac being associated with gay liberals?
If you answered yes to these questions the GRAA (GAY REPUBLICAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) wants to hear from you.
--
(c) copyright 2006 DCI
on behalf of the republican party
Yeah, because only the EVIL Republicans are the political group that lies to people.......
We had paid professional reporters, Dan Rather & co., put forward false stories about Bush last election, and we still have people clinging to the idea that that was real.
That, and this kind of jazz, has to go, no matter what you think of it.
So, he, uh, flew on a plane all by himself?
By the way, maybe you should go see "An Inconvenient Truth." There's a lot of needless Gore biography, but the major point is that we can reduce a lot of CO2 emissions WITHOUT changing our lifestyles. Instead we need to stop being cheap bastards (and stop glad-handing our corrupt and inefficient industries) and pony up for some simple investments and regulations (like matching European and Asian fuel efficiency and investing in something other than coal power).
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
As has been discussed endlessly, poorly written articles generally get rejected. It's probably just because you can't write, don't take it personal ;-).
But you could have gotten the same production value and content from just about any 10 year old kid on your block. For $20.
Which is why I say that any PR company that produced that is seriously over paid.
Amateurs can (and have) produced amazing content (that still looks amateurishly produced) on the Internet in the past. This
This is a continuation of the oil industry and friends' campaign of "we can't argue the science anymore with out looking like morons, so we'll just call people names". It's like the bully in the school yard who knows he's wrong so he'll just kick and scream.
Apart from on slashdot where no astroturfers ever attempt to steer opinion on the Microsoft or DRM/TCPA stories.
You know, I can understand complaints of rejected stories when they were submitted weeks or months before... But 24 hours? Give me a break.
So, the editors (using that term loosly here) probably got 1000 submissions of the story, and picked the one they prefered, instead of just the FIRST ONE, which probably wasn't yours (but somebody else before you) anyhow.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Drat. I can't tell if the parent post is a serious flame or a very subtle joke about astroturfing.
I keep hearing that statistic about his use of air fuel, but should he take a rowboat to China? You didn't see the movie probably- and I'm not saying anyone's "obligated" to do so. The message, however, as far as I can tell was very calm: This is a legit problem (spends a whole bunch of time on that- demonstrating things are a indeed bit amiss) but w/ some adjustments in efficiency and other areas this is a problem that does not need to be a problem. His presentation is not a call to abolish jetliners as we know it or make everyone get out and walk to work. At best, you could call him a hypocrite w/o any other way to get his ideas out yet. You make it personal (I guess as I'm doing w/ you right now) and miss the argument entirely- unable to weigh its merits. That last jab at 'ol Al for making that wacky statement that he invented the internet... check this out: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp But ignore all this, since you seem more interested in information from the "competitive enterprise institute" or the DCI Group- folks who like when they can get others to roll their eyes and dismiss new ideas.
The first rule about Slashdot Club is, we don't complain about Slashdot Club.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
I think that many republican Slashdotters have gone over to Digg.com. I notice that website is slightly bias toward them, as Slashdot has more of a liberal view.
I'm an independant since my vote kinda swings depending on the issue but if I was a republican and I heard that my donations to the party were going towards producing amature hour vid's on youtube I would be highly pissed and think twice about contributing in the future.
You're too late. They got there first.
Shill... which is to say, "Duh."
Who'd've thought the Republican's could catch on to such a new trick?
As a media professional, after watching this video, I would like to say that it definately looks professionally produced, while at the same time aiming for an "amateurish" quality (like the Blair Witch Project, Digg, etc.)
All of the penguins, the ones being hypnotized by Gore's global warming spiel, are Tux, the Linux mascot.
So, not only did the republican PR firm want to spoof Gore, they're saying you're all dupes and idiots. (And yes, if you're reading slashdot, they mean you.)
Ain't that interesting?
The real troubling thing here is that major news outlets including The Wall Street Journal, ABC, and even our beloved Slashdot are playing right into the hands of Exxon, DPI, and whoever else is behind the video.
By reporting about this incident, these outlets are providing the video a vast amount of exposure that it otherwise would not receive.
I'd bet anything that WSJ didn't stumble upon this story randomly - someone at DCI surreptitiously helped them along because DCI knew that they could get media outlets to unwittingly distribute their propaganda.
And at the end of the day, it's still considered good PR for all parties involved - Exxon got their point out to millions of viewers, DCI got paid, and ABC/WSJ/Slashdot did a good job of uncovering the "truth" of the situation, which pleases their readers and viewers just as much as any other story.
All of this is just an elaborate game to get you to view an anti-Gore advertisement.
Sad that this is how the media works today.
"Burn, baby, burn. That's a beautiful thing." -- Enron trader, on the California fires
"Can you smell money?!?!?!" -- Jack Abramoff
"People of YouTube, I am one of you, believe my message: Facts are boring, therefore Al Gore is lying, QED. Watch more cool videos, and ignore reality... Just keep filling those tanks!" --toutsmith
I'm not saying Al Gore is completely correct, but at least I'm not hiding an agenda.
Did you, for chance, notice that updates on the frontpage seem to happen every 30 minutes or so, day and night?
Doesnt that kinda stick as odd if there would posting those stories the moment they accept them, as you seem to have illusions of them doing?
Hint: maybe this story was already in the "to the frontpage" list when you submitted it. Just dont be a dick about it.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
The way I see it, each party is as bad as the other. One's just better at it than the other one. Both try to exploit human characteristics in order to gain and hold power.
"Look at these poor people being oppressed! If you let us do X, thereby strengthening our power, we'll help them!"
"You're being oppressed! If you let us do X, thereby strengthening our power, we'll help you!"
Variations on these lines have been used by both the Left and the Right for decades. They've probably been used for millenia, whenever there has been a political divide. The "oppressed people that need saving" are generally actually being oppressed, but the result is always more power for the government, in the form of increased taxes, more spy powers, or laws that serve their ends.
""Public relations firms have long used computer technology to create bogus grassroots campaigns, which are called 'Astroturf.' Now these firms are being hired to push illusions on the Internet to create the false impression of real people blogging, e-mailing and making films.""
Can You Tell Which Photos Are Real?
Take these quizzes to see how well you can spot digital tampering
I'm aware of the psychological roots of this method, but I still find it detestable. Instead of arguing like an adult, the oil firms reduce themselves to the political equivalent of taunting the guy who gets high grades and/or is knowledgeable about many subjects because he's a "nerd".
Come on, oil companies, argue bravely and responsibly. If you think Gore is wrong, show us the proof. Don't just close your ears and shout "la la la la, I'm not listening!"
My new blog
So what? What's the big deal if someone was paid to produce this? That's just a normal part of politics. I'm a libertarian, so I'm not crazy about Gore OR his GOP opponents, but both of the major parties have partisans who create such material. Leftist organizations such as MoveOn.org try to get people to create buzz about web sites or videos that push their point of view. What's so surprising (or wrong) about some right-wing organization or person doing the same? It's just another attempt to get an opposing point of view into public consciousness. The fact that it was done anonymously on YouTube makes is smarter.
With that said, I think it's very poorly done. I'm not talking about the amateurish production values, but rather the weak (and unfunny) content. I'm a skeptic on global warming, but the piece just isn't effective in lampooning Gore.
David
This is not 'public relations' or not 'lobbying' - this is PAID propaganda. And this particular one, is what is actually lying about some person to demean him/her - the owners of this firm need to be sued, and to hell that is, and should be expelled from public life.
This is NOT democracy. Anyone who tells that this is democracy, are probably other paid propagandists.
Read radical news here
"Permission to use and/or modify this image is granted provided you acknowledge me lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP if someone asks."
http://www.isc.tamu.edu/~lewing/linux/
Then again you can't really blame the Republicans...
Ha! Watch me!
I BLAME THE REPUBLICANS!!!!!!!!
If you submit this search on YouTube, you'll also see the following counter-submissions:
Re: Al Gore's Penguin Army
Al Gore's Penguin Army - Propaganda
'Al Gore's Penguin Army' Misuses Linux Mascot!
"They want it to look like this came from someone who really believes this, who is really critical of Al Gore and global warming," Farsetta said.
There's an interesting assumption here: that the people criticizing Al Gore believe what he has to say but don't want to admit it - that Big Oil, Big Business, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, etc. are lying when they say that they don't think "global warming" is happening. Or alternately, that only the "little people" can have valid opinions on the subject.,/p>
How does that make sense? If I, as an average citizen, espouse the opinion "Al Gore is a boring, irrelevant blowhard", I am being honest, but once I do something like rise to the presidency of my company or amass more than a million dollars in personal net worth, suddenly a statement like "I think Al Gore is a boring, irrelevant blowhard" is disingenuous?
I see that Manbearpig features in this video. The Southpark people should sue.
From: myself To: The Republicans Subject: The Internet Congradulations. You finally learned how to use the Internet. Now go to your keyboards and type up laws to protect that usage for everyone. PS: Remember, this is a Slotocracy. All it takes is 3 mules in November and you're out of power.
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
It costs money to take down demagogues backed by the high net worth mavens of the political Left. Am I supposed to care if companies servicing the Oil & Gas industries lead the charge against those who would tax my gasoline, regulate the size of my automobile, subject the U.S. to international treaties biased toward the developing world and throw barriers in front of new domestic exploration and production? Am I supposed to favor spending my own money directly advocating my interests? I'd rather the concentrated economic powers with a stake in servicing ME as a consumer jump in and wrestle the hypocritical left so I don't have to.
> The way I see it, each party is as bad as the other. One's just better at it than the other one. Both try to exploit human characteristics
> in order to gain and hold power.
But the Republicans specialise in using fear to manipulate. Remember all those terrorist alerts (i.e. "Threat Levels") that used to
be issued by the Bush Administration? In particular when Bush has political problems or when there is an upcomming election?
It's a dupe, too. So, I wouldn't really be that unhappy about getting it rejected :)
My little site.
The first rule about Slashdot Club is, we don't complain about Slashdot Club.
You must be new to Slashdot Club.
Gore may well be a boring old fart, but these images are pretty interesting...
I saw the video a few days ago - the thing is I didn't know Al Gore had a movie out about global warming - I want to see that.
There are wierder online PR things. See the Megaphone Desktop Toolbar. This is a piece of software designed to pump up pro-Israel responses in online polls and blogs. The toolbar pops up "alerts" when some central site sends them out. Nothing new there. But when it tells the user about a poll, the options are to vote their way, automatically, or not to vote at all. Site-specific scripts do the voting for you. Cute.
It is supposedly distributed on behalf of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. That's a new development - government sponsored adware. But that may be a fake endorsement. The "gyius.org" site itself has a "cloaked domain", and the "standwithus.org" site with the endorsement has phony domain registration info. There's no real contact info for either. There's an EULA with no real company name, and mention of a remote update capability. So this may be some clever scheme to get people to install adware/spyware.
Somebody in the security business or the press really should chase this down. There's been an article in The Globe and Mail, but it's not about the technology.
If the article was just a link to the video, your post would be true. Someone would click the link, see the video and think that it was funny and (at a subconscient level) see Gore as a political who cannot be trusted (because the depiction of the video gets to the mind, even if realizing it is a joke, because it shows that people does not like him and are very vocal about it).
But if you link to this video while telling the whole story, then the user does not see a video mocking Gore, he/she sees a video created to deceive them, created by a firm and falsely posted as Jhon Doe... as the receptiveness of the people changes, the thing that they see differs completely.
Why can't
If we are playing the whole intellectual property game (which we conveniently like to do when someone we *don't* like pulls this stuff), did they:
-Get the permission of DC to use the likeness of 'The Penguin' in making over Al Gore?
-Get the permission of Marvel for using X-Men 3 imagery?
So they managed to rip off the Linux logo, and both of the major comic publishers, they really wanted to piss geeks off...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
DCI also runs Tech Central Station, a website frequently referred to by Slashdot and its readers. DCI's client list includes AT&T, Intel, Microsoft, and many others. According to their own website, they specialize in "Corporate Grassroots Campaigns" and "Internet Communications and Mobilization". They helped the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry and now this astroturf attack on Gore. To TCS' credit its not like they hide who owns them.
The lesson is, be skeptical. Don't trust someone or somebody unless they give you a good reason to do so. Don't trust me - click the links above.
Well, considering how much propoganda comes out, especially from the left (I mean seriously Michael Moore movies are nothing but lies and propaganda), does it really matter if it's from the GOP or not. Sounds to me like another news story trying to be cool by bashing the GOP and trying to dig up any dirt they can find.
But regardless, if you think it's funny, then watch it. If you don't agree, then point your browser somewhere else, but don't bitch 24/7 about it being propganda or from the GOP.
Klingon Software is not released, it escapes, inflicting terrible damage onto the enemy as it does
and yet that assessment is inaccurate, because I've never seen the democrats do things just for the sake of power.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
You missed the beam in your own eye while pointing out the mote in your neighbor's. Lets not pretend Democrats aren't peddling in fear just as much. I know it's hard to make any kind of admission that your opinions aren't perfect, but no one is served by such soft-headed bullshit.
Or maybe the 'Explicit Lyrics' warnings on CDs really do protect children (to use one extremely common example). I don't see how, exactly, but then again, I'm not silly enough to think you can protect children from the world.
Speaking of penguins, did you know Al Gore invented Linux? ;)
The man said Republican PR firm. I know it's easy to say "well, they all do it", but there are certain levels of ugliness to which only one side will go. Things like torture, secret prisons, domestic surveillance and war profiteering are generally not the products of Democrats. This video, as with the Swift Boat nonsense and other horrors, are very specifically Republican phenomena. It's worth remembering...
You are welcome on my lawn.
I keep hearing that statistic about his use of air fuel, but should he take a rowboat to China?
No, he should take a commercial flight. A 747 is very efficient - getting about 100 miles/gallon/passenger, definitely as good as my minivan at literally 10 times the speed. Al decides to fly around in a private jet which is getting a fraction of that milage per passenger. He has choices, his choice is to use tons more fuel for his convenience.
Your argument here is what we call a "false dichotomy". His choices are more than "private jet" or "rowboat".
As for the "internet" quote, the snopes article is obviously written by someone with a bias. I was watching when he said it, and his exact words were "I took the initiative in creating the internet." I did a spit-take; it was one of the most brazen lies ever concocted by a politician.
The excuse that his supporters use is that he's claiming that he supported congressional initiatives to fund the internet in the early days, which he did. But the phrase "I took the initiative" means "I did this". You cannot "take" a congressional initiative, you can only create or support such an initative. Look at the word "initiative" at dictionary.com. Al used definition 2, his supporters claim that he meant definition 3.
Do you have ESP?
So, the RNC is astroturfing u-tube videos. So what? The short doesn't even counterpoint the global warming idea. All it suggests is that Al Gore's movie is more like a college lecture than an action flick, which is true. The RNC video wants to be funny, but instead it is very boring.
Nobody ever claimed that the RNC was good at funny.
The ABC News item cited could not even be ranked as a tepid follow up to the print article that appeared a day earlier. Moreover, a great deal of interesting facts were left out of the linked version, e.g. there were Google ads directing viewers to view the animation that suddenly disappeared when the source of this video seemed to be disclosed. Furthermore, Google is not disclosing the source of the ads. One is strongly made to wonder about the possible tight relationship to parties more interested in propagandizing their views than simple reliance upon facts. Note this was all in the Wall Street Journal original piece but strikingly absent from the latter TV News exposition.
The WSJ has some great writers, just skip the editorials and art reviews.
Those warnings have no legal binding. Alba use them because they look cool and are status symbols.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Does it really matter? The video being more professional produced doesn't make it any less entertaining, funny, insightful, or any other adjective you can think of. In fact, were it an individual or the firm, both probably had the same ideas on the subject.
Why can't businesses take advantage of social/viral marketing to get their point across? It should be the content that matters, not who made it.
Where exactly in the original story did it say this was a Republican PR firm? How can a company be Republican? Why assume all anti-environmental actions are instigated by Republicans? It seems the motivator is greed more than politics.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Maybe I've been living under a rock, but I hadn't heard about An Inconvenient Truth before. Thanks to DCI and the youtube trailer, I think this is one movie worth watching, if only due to Katrina and the massive heatwaves over the US and Europe this summer.
This sig is intentionally left blank
On Friday, gas shot up 20 cents to $3.19 in St. Louis. Thursday morning and Satuday morning it was back down to $2.97.
I've got a good mind to call my state Attorney General about this price gouging on Monday.
Adding another $4 at each pit stop isn't just robbery, it is rape.
To make matters even more decetful, these rapist advertise everywhere, then argue that if we don't like it we can walk to work.
I refuse to be black mailed on one end and lied to on the other.
These people at the oil industry posing as a grass roots organinzation are about as benevolent as the giant corporations that pose as small businesses.
I'm starting to believe that they are trying to shut us up. The power went out again in St. Louis this afternoon without a storm, yet the electric company rewired everything last week.
We are being lied too again. It's time to cut out their lying tonuges!
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
Try googling carbon-neutral gore, and hang your carbon filled head in shame. The man is more consistant and does more to act on his convictions than probably anyone here. (Of course if you still are buying the "invented the internet" misquote there's not much chance you're looking for real information.)
One thing I'm curious about though. What do you people who spout this non-sense think Gore's motivation is? Trying to drum up business for his fat-cat environmentalist friends that he's in the pocket of? Surreptitiously trying to destroy the United States, covert operative for The Terrorists that he is? Ah no, i remember now. Sorry, I'd forgotten the 2000 election smear campaign. He's just simply a raving lunatic (raving in a wooden, personality-less sort of way, that is, of course).
Sigh. Go see the movie. At least you'll have some idea what you're talking about then. (Of course it will do no good to mention that scientists, all except the one prominently being funded by the oil companies, seem to think the movie was pretty much, with just a few quibbles, completely accurate.)
Well, sorry to have bothered you. I'll let you get back to your stem-cell research now.
Hey anonymous coward. That's not fear.
Fear being spread is "The terrorists are going to kill you and your family!!!" That the republican neo-con idiots keep spewing.
Explicit warnings simply say "There is strong language on this CD. If you that's cool with you, the CD should be fine. If you happen to not like hearing that, or having your children have it, don't buy it." Where is the fear or terror? That sends no more chills up my spine than a label on clothing that says what % synthetic fibers are in it. I happen to like pure cotton just because it breaths better. 90% rayon fabrics don't 'scare' me. Just let me know what's in it, and let me as a consumer decide if that's what I'd like to purchase.
the phrase "I took the initiative" means "I did this"
"I took the initiative in creating the internet."
"In creating the internet, I took the initiative."
The sentences are equivalent and interchangeable, but phrased the second way, the intent is perfectly clear. Since it is equivalent to a correct statement, it's a correct statement. But if you're really committed to choosing the wrong connotation of a sentence from a millenia ago by a man with no power for the purposes of a joke that hasn't been funny for any of its last 168 trillion tellings, I guess that's okay.
In any case, he knows it was unclear, he's made fun of himself for it, so continuing to make fun of him for it is a little bit of a dickful thing to do.
Your sig puts you on my friends list, but fix the typo
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Uhm. I think the original poster meant public life, as in life as a politician, not life itself. Slightly different there buddy. Calm down and relax. Maybe try getting outside once and a while, too, might help.
The non-comercial nature of this video, and the way in which the trademark is used is unlikely to create that sort of impression, so no trademark violation here.
While IAmNotALawyer, I believe that if (as alleged) the video was produced as paid propoganda, even if the distribution was non-commercial it would then be hard to argue in court that the use was non-commercial.
The image is also protected by copyright but the copyright owner says: "Permission to use and/or modify this image is granted provided you acknowledge me lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP if someone asks." The key bit here being "if someone asks".
So (my puckish side chortles), if one calls the firm rumored to have done the work and ask them if they used this image in the video, it would seem they must either admit to doing so (which they apparently are loathe to do), or deny it... violating the use license and (ergo) copyright. That could be a problem....
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
..Al Gore's new movie, An Inconvenient Truth, wins the award for 'Most faked .torrnet download 2006', coincidence?
Reminds me of an old saying: If the facts are on your side you pound the facts; If the facts are not on your side you pound the table.
moveon wasn't pulling this kind of shit in a much more public forum not too long ago? so what if it was a PR firm, moveon is really no different. Let's at least be consistant here. Oh, that's right, the second a democrat gets elected slashdot will suddenly decide that the "politics" section isn't worth taking care of anymore.
Maybe if everyone's mailbox ended up full tomorrow morning, they'd get the message!
-b.
Funny, because the Snopes article quotes those exact words (among some others, for context). It seems that you deliberately decided not to read the article, and thus wouldn't know if it's biased.
ABC News is reporting that a supposed amateur video posted to YouTube.com may have actually been designed and posted by a Republican public relations firm called DCI
Really? It was a bit amateurish. They ripped off Matt and Trey from South Park with the Man-Bear-Pig. Then they ripped off Larry Ewing's tux. I know parody is somewhat protected from copyright laws, but can you just blatantly rip something off verbatim (like their presentation of tux)?
If a public relations firm actually did this, I feel sorry for them. The video was neither interesting, funny, or had any fucking point whatsoever.
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
I totally agree with you, however it seems that making people feel responsible-guilty for the global warming is even cheaper that building nuclear power plants and it gives the opinion the illusion of having found a solution to the problem.
Hey, let's buy a Hybrid car to make ourselves feel better about that problem and let's not even pay attention to the fact that in our country we use coal power plants as some countries use nothing but nuclear power plants and wind mills.
You just got troll'd!
Typo?
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Perhaps this is the case with the "Loose Change" video?
I'd like to know how the PR firm infiltrated all of these blogs to even get the movie seen. I saw it on Fark and when I watched it, I was wondering why the hell the thing even showed up there. It's technically awful, it's not funny, the pacing is slower than An Inconvenient Truth (which is hard to do for a 3 minute movie!), and basically didn't have any merit to it whatsoever besides the message that Al Gore is boring. Why would it be posted to all of these popular sites?
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
The oil corps love Al Gore, look at how much fuel the jet flights, limos and SUVs he drives / rides in use. Don't forget all the energy required to heat his multiple large homes or the millions he has invested in energy sector stocks and bonds.
Al Gore talks the talk but by no means does he walk the walk.
Many Republicans are extremely corrupt, and are willing to do anything to get what they want. Read more about it: Armed Madhouse.
Do you think that the violence of the U.S. government will end the 3,000 years of violence in the Middle East?
Are you willing to pay to occupy Iraq so that supplies from the second biggest reserves of oil in the world can be restricted, thus driving up the price of oil?
Can people who gladly pay to kill other people be correctly called Christians?
The saddest thing is that you'd think a PR firm could do so much better than that shite video.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Then again, some change of lifestyle wouldn't be such a bad idea, really. Right now, a lot of Americans are pretty overweight, out of shape, and spend 2 *hours* of their lives every day in isolating glass and steel moving bubbles. Driving is fun, but *having* to drive sucks royally. If smaller cities and towns with businesses in their center cores within walking, biking, or short driving distance of homes became viable again, this wouldn't be such a terrible thing. The evisceration of rural America and the movement of (regular, not nostalgic or kitchy) businesses to inaccessible highway strips isn't a great trend.
-b.
i hate to point out the obviuos. but arent both parties guilty of doing astroturf?
The reason that this crap works is that most of the citizenry is unable to follow a valid argument, neither on an informal nor formal level. Informally, can you distinguish between the 83 Rhetorical Fallacies? (Read "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" by Damer, if it's not too much work. Did you notice the three Rhetorical Fallacies contained in my first sentence?) In his book, "Dumbing Us Down", John Taylor Gatto http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/ says that if you picked up a 5th grade book on Rhetoric or Arithmetic from the 1850's, some of the content is equivalent to what is now being withheld until college.
And think about this: Al Gore's movie is built on the same premise; that people are too stupid and/or too lazy to follow rational argument. Another example would be Michael Moore's movie. While he claims that there are no "factual" discrepanciews in his movie, Moore's presentation of relying on out-of-context snippets and arrangements bypasses any rational thought, and promotes a whole movie of ad hominem argument. Moore could be the most successful propagandist since Hermann Goering.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
Wasnt one Al's biggest supporters early on the Malthusian fool who wrote the big population growth scare book of the 80's.(we should be all dead by now).. His name escapes me. I think Al's of the same sorta scare-group mentality. Sure you can listen to him, but I would never consider voting for him.
|-0-|
"This is not 'public relations' or not 'lobbying' - this is PAID propaganda."
Paid propaganda is called "advertising". I don't like it either, but there's no way to change it; most people don't mind it.
"And this particular one, is what is actually lying about some person to demean him/her"
This is called "libel". It's illegal. Relax.
"This is NOT democracy."
Yeah, the lack of ballot papers gives it away.
Do I understand this correctly the INCONVENANT TRUTH is not a parody movie. Looks like a kid put it together. So a parody of a parody?
What the heck does this have to do with tech?
More liberal slander, who cares.
So, Al Gore makes a one-sided movie, pretending to be a documentary. His opponents make a spoof pretending to be a grass roots effort.
Slasdot readers accept the first as "truth". The second one gets slashdot readers up in arms.
What have we _really_ measured by this experiment?
This is what drives me crazy about the DNC. The Democrats will complain like crazy about Global Warming and making a change, but block the technology that could single handedly drop emissions in the country more than anything else.
But then my alternative is the Republicans who see no need to worry about CO2 emissions whatsoever. But they will build nuclear power plants.
So who will have a greater effect on reducing CO2? Right now I'm leaning towards the Republican side because economics will reduce oil consumption, and we will have nuclear plants. With the Democrats we would have better cars, but nothing would be done about the huge amounts of CO2 emitted by coal and gas plants.
Theoretically with both the RNC and DNC we could have the best of both worlds. But in reality, we get the worst. (sigh)
"I'm not saying Al Gore is completely correct, but at least I'm not hiding an agenda."
The user who modded -1 Troll, however, clearly has an agenda.
Another COPYRIGHT issue.
Did they properly attribute Tux's creator Larry Ewing?
"Permission to use and/or modify this image is granted provided you acknowledge me lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP if someone asks."
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
These people pretend to be someone else while they snipe at Gore and his movie. They don't debate or argue his claims, they don't find fault with his methods or supporters-- it's pure assassination, and they do it from hiding.
If you're sure you want to draw a lesson here, please do. I suspect you're too busy cheerleading to do so.
I love the head-in-the-sand morons who deny reality. Just keep repeating the Big Lie, like our moron-led government does now about so many things, like the WMD idiocy. And "9/11" has gone from a tragedy for a few thousand people, to an excuse to bankrupt the country, discard the US Constitution and Amendments, and move the USA from the most-admired to the most-loathed country on Earth. This is not just bombast, I travel overseas about half the time, if you go around starting wars for no reason, and deny obvious facts like manmade global warming, people tend to mistrust/hate you. What a surprise!
War is Peace. Hate is Love. Oil Companies are a LOT richer than they were 5 years ago. All is well.
The big deal here is the dishonesty.
Trying to make it look as if there is a grassroot movement.
In what way does it do that? It doesn't even have credits, you'd pretty much assume one guy did it. A single person, making a single movie, is no indication there is a "movement" of any kind. Hell, half the stuff on YouTube is produced by companies anyway so anything with some polish you'd assume was produced by someone else and the guy just found it somewhere and posted it!!
I agree that trickier that tries to make it appear there is a larger number of people that actually support thing is dishonest; but there is no way to see this being a case of that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I dislike arguing against a position unless I completely understand that point of view (Hell, if I don't completely understand a point of view, how do I know it's not correct?).
_ Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png for one example). This rising is far above the usual cyclic fluctations due to ice age cycles (see http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Carbon _Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png).
u mental_Temperature_Record.png).
So can one of the climate change skeptics around here tell me exactly which stage of the following logical chain it is you disagree with? Who knows, you might even convert me if your argument is convincing.
One. It is fact that burning fossil fuels gives out carbon dioxide. The amount can be calculated from the amount of fossil fuels burned. This goes into the atmosphere, and since the rate at which the World's fauna is converting this back into Oxygen is reasonably static (or even decreasing, since we're cutting down vast amounts of the rainforest every year), the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will rise.
Independant confirmation of this is given by...
Alternative One. The fact that carbon dioxide levels are rising has been measured many times by laboratories around the globe (e.g. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/8/88/Mauna
Two. It is fact that greater levels of carbon dioxide lead to greater trapping of the Sun's energy. This is settled science, and can be independantly confirmed by anyone with a cylinder of carbon dioxide, a temperature probe, and an inquiring mind.
Three. Greater trapping of the Sun's energy will lead to a reasonably predictable rise in global average temperature. The calculation is not hard once you know the relevant specific heat capacities. Again, should the logical chain not be enough, there is independant confirmation of this from temperature stations around the globe, which fairly closely matches predictions made using the previous links in the chain (e.g. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/f/f4/Instr
Four. It is fact that water expands when heated. The calculation is, again, easily performed, and will lead to a rise in sea level, which will cover predictable parts of the world, especially affecting places like Bangladesh (where large areas of the country are less than one meter above sea level). The rise in temperature will also lead to the glaciers receding, and higher sea temperatures will also increase the number and severity of hurricanes. Ocean currents will also be affected, severely changing the climate in parts of the world which depend on them.
Climate change sceptics are happy to look at the predictions of that last point and say that it's rubbish. But when I look at the points, I see a reasonably watertight chain of logic. So which point are you disputing?
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Let's see, multibillion dollar commercial firms using whatever method they can to get their (anti-Gore) message across?
How is that news?
Next thing you're going to tell me is that Mr. Gore made this movie all by his poor little self, without the backing of multimillion dollar enviro-conglomerates? Or perhaps a handy billionaire or two, who might have a vested interest in attacking the current administration?
(And please, if you believe that Greenpeace & Co. don't have an agenda, just don't even bother posting. Just hit 'cancel, I'm naive'.) What's so ironic is that it was MR GORE's administration that refused to sign Kyoto. Anyone remember that?
Anyone got any idea who paid for "An Inconvenient Truth"? Or did the crew just make it out of the goodness of their hearts?
Amazing.
One side spends millions (ok, I've seen the movie...maybe tens of thousands) of dollars to make a pure propoganda movie that would make Leni Riefenstahl wince with it's unsubtlety, and the OTHER side is 'evil' for having its own propoganda campaign? Could we mod this story -1, hypocritical?
-Styopa
And delete your youtube video.
No offense, but you have a face for blogging. Your video will gives linux supporters a bad reputation as amateur basement dwellers.
You don't get people in the middle of Antarctica drilling very deep holes in the ice to fake evidence on global warming when they can do it at home where it is warm.
So where's the 'Optimized for CyberDog' logo on that page you linked, then? Huh? Huh?!?
"Scientific fact is a very ellusive thing."
Until an ID debate starts up. Then it seems to firm right up.
Individual donations likely matter very little to most Republican (and Democratic) politicians. They'll gladly accept them if offered, but it's not a situation where they depend on them. It's the corporate donors who they're truly concerned about.
Even if there were to be a significant enough drop in donations from regular individuals, the various corporations and industry/religious groups could easily make up the difference. The Republicans would still make war, pander to fundamentalist Christians, restrict individual freedoms, and otherwise do exactly what they do now.
...I mean, Al Gore was behind that science spoof, 'An Inconvenient Truth'
Why oh why didn't I take the purple pill?
Um, about your signature "Libertarians are really properly called propertyarians and when push comes to shove value material things over liberty." First, the term is "propertarians", and second, you reveal your ignorance. Libertarians value property rights because you need ownership of things to have freedom. On the most basic expression of the term "property rights", you own your own body. If you didn't, then somebody else would, and you would be their slave. The next most basic expression is that you own the food you eat. If you didn't, then you would be paying somebody else rent on the food that you eat and .... you wouldn't exactly be a slave, but you wouldn't be very free either. The next most basic expression is that you own anything you can trade your time for (that is to say, you own your own productive output). Again, without property rights, you have no freedom.
Do you perhaps now understand that propertarianism exists not to advance material values, but instead to advance liberty?
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
the major point is that we can reduce a lot of CO2 emissions WITHOUT changing our lifestyles. Instead we need to stop being cheap bastards (and stop glad-handing our corrupt and inefficient industries) and pony up for some simple investments and regulations (like matching European and Asian fuel efficiency and investing in something other than coal power).
But that DOES change our lifestyle of glad-handing our corrupt an inefficient industries! Don't you understand? THEY are the ones who pay for the congress so THEY get to make the rules and regulations.
Are you telling me that politicians are now staging things like this? I mean what next? The impromptu photo-op?
"The difference is that the Democrats do it for the forces of Good, while the Republicans do it for Evil."
Fine with me, as long as neither one starts wearing spandex.
Sig?
Perhaps the whole "We need your help" is more a way to make people think they are involved in the political process, rather than a fundraising method. Of course corprate donations are much bigger, and tax dollars support some political activities (or do they? I might be wrong). Almost like rich musicians pretending to "keep it real," these appeals for aid would make parties seem more homely.
Also, who knows, maybe the video was put up by Gore to increase publicity... but I highly doubt it.
I have freaks! I did something right...
No one asserts the video was produced by elected officials.
I can only assume he/she wants to exterminate the producers.
Parent is the one too excited.
I live outside-better able to see the disgraced Dyke University provosts jumping from their graft paid condos.
mytrip writes to tell us ABC News is reporting that a supposed amateur video posted to YouTube.com may have actually been designed and posted by a Republican public relations firm called DCI.
...
Why didn't the poster of this story put a link to the video? How is anyone capable of commenting the issue without seeng the film?
Well, here is how it goes:
- Re-pub-licans did lululu
- But the democ-rats did uauauau
- But the re-pub-lican't dhuhua
When the coments should be more on the content of the video: It is so american in nature that I barely could hold my breath. It is so poorly made that I hope an amateur did it and THEN the PR firm tried to distribute it.
This little allegedly home-made video is not even suitable for an article in uncyclopedia.com. It is stupid, quite-not-funny and plain insult to thinking people. The idea behind the scene is: nobody is interested in the global warming, only a bunch of nerds (penguins, that is) is going to see that movie (an inconvinient truth). The while thing is like a lame joke from not-another-teen-movie. Even worse.
You know what, maybe we are not the cause of the global warming. Who knows? But WTF is that american denial of the world around them? Insulting Al Gore for being interesed in a significant problem?
From the article: "Public relations firms have long used computer technology to create bogus grassroots campaigns, which are called 'Astroturf.' Now these firms are being hired to push illusions on the Internet to create the false impression of real people blogging, e-mailing and making films."
The good thing is that occasions like this reminds us that even when real people post something, we should not trust them lightly. Well, that is not so stylish as follow-the-hurd logic of the masses, but is kinda smart, don't you think?
From the article:
Just so there is no misunderstanding, I do agree that Mr. Gore along along with a myriad of other politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle are men of principle. The one principle they cherish and have indeed adopted as their own was first espoused by H.L. Mencken:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed----and hence clamorous to be led to safety----by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
I studied and researched global warming as a student some 12 years before Al Gore discovered it. At least then, the scientists and researchers could admit that their results were inconclusive or even ran counter to conventional wisdom in this arena without fear of losing their funding. It was, simply, because it was not an emotional politicized panic button issue the way it is today.
As
>I for one find the whining about fossil fuel burning and climate change to be the same sort of sad, illogical drone as that emanating from Kansas on the topic of evolution.
n _Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png). Ice age CO2 fluctuations are historically between 180 and 270 ppmv; it is now 385. As you'd have known if you'd read my original post and at least attempted to answer it, which you clearly haven't.
8 57240
In this, I entirely agree with you. However, you seem to be a bit confused as to which way round the analogy works. In Kansas, all the scientists are united on one side (evolution) against those who have an external reason for disbelieving it (the Bible doesn't support it). With the climate change debate, all the scientists are united on one side (climate change exists) against those who have an external reason for disbelieving it (the oil companies will make less profit if people start to try and combat it).
Don't believe me that all scientists are united on the side that it's climate change exists? You don't have to. Pick up ANY scientific journal -- Nature or Science are rather dense for non-scientists, so try New Scientist or Scientific American or any one of countless others. Attend scientific conferences. Go to lectures. Look at the graphs. Read the reports produced by any of the major scientific bodies, either US-based or international. Or the G8. Or the UN. They all say the same thing.
>The inability for the reader to understand the science means that magical forces must be at play.
The ability of someone to igonore all debate, evidence, and logic in favour of mechanically asserting that they are right certainly exists, but is more psycological than magical.
The simple fact is the sun is a variable star. The earth has been both hotter and colder than it is currently, all without the intervention of man.
True, it's called the ice ages (incidentally, it's not yet considered settled that the cause of them is the variability of the sun). However, the problem is that the current changes are far above the usual cyclic fluctations due to ice age cycles (see http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Carbo
Lets remember that you get what you pay for. Pay for a bunch of yes men academics to produce papers saying what you want isn't the same as real science.
Who on Earth is paying scientists to produce evidence showing that climate change exists? No-one stands to benefit in the least. Are these strange people paying the entire, vast scientific community around the world? Is this some sort of global consipracy?
Don't be ridiculous. The academic papers are being produced by scientists trying to bring the issue into the wider understanding. If you want an example of people paying to produce material on a side of the issue, I suggest you consult TFA.
The one thing you still seemingly refuse to do is answer my original post. In case you can't find it, it's still at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=193278&cid=15
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Well I for one think its a great little video, I don't really care where it came from in this case.
...shove it where the sun don't shine
2 04872-9747219?v=glance&n=283155
And I call bullshit on the fundamental premise of your post, there is a difference between "owning" (which is really just existing) your body and the very basic housing you need to survive and "property" which can be unlimited in it's extent while other people suffer in great misery. Native Americans for example "owned" their own bodies, tools, and houses with no idea whatsoever of the abstraction of a possible infinite accumulation of property.
Economists in my opinion are the rationalizers of the great evil of 10 percent of the U.S. population owning as much as the bottom 40% of the poorest people in the world. Paying people less than a dollar an hour while your have billions as Phil Knight who owns Nike does is evil.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/2KZ5.html
No Phil is not 10,000 times more "productive" than one of his workers in Vietnam who works in stifling hot conditions for 12 hour shifts with few bathroom breaks so she can go back to a tiny shack and a plate of beans and rice.
As far as I'm concerned by providing the intellectual version of spin in fancy charts and statistical analysis that are based on on fundamentally flawed premises economists serve much the same function in society as Nazi propagandists like Goebbels did, i.e. putting a happy face on misery and destruction. And what are some of these false premises?
1. Economics is predicated on the idea of infinite expansion and in fact it's necessary for the economy to function. Clearly this is a fallacy because infinite expansion is not possible on a finite planet. Why is infinite expansion part of economics, because banks when they give out loans by creating a loan account in essence create money out of nothing, and that newly created money must be paid back by expanded production or the whole pyramid scheme of bank financing collapses because banks loan out more money than they have in savings and checking accounts.
2. Currency speculation can expand the money supply without actually creating more productive activity. This in turn leads to bubbles like the Asian financial crisis, the great depression, the dot com bust, and the current perilous housing market are just 4 examples of. Thus fundamental instability in capital financing again leads to great suffering throughout the world.
3. Pure capitalism leads to monopolies which destroy the competition that Adam Smith's self organizing principles of economics are based on. Yet most supply side economic theory does nothing to reign in pernicious monopolies and their distorting effects on society. Do I really need to talk about Microsoft here on slashdot? Look up Bechtel, Haliburton, Shell in Nigeria, Coke in India, Union Carbide in Bhopal, Nike in Vietnam, and when you have read of the great suffering these companies have caused feel free to shove your charts and graphs up your ass.
4. Pure capitalism has no easy way to quantify externalities and thus encourages pollution as long as the pollution doesn't directly damage the property owners own property.
5. Closely related pure capitalism cannot distinguish destructive activity from non destructive activity except through the wild guess of "opportunity cost." Thus for example war by the U.S. and Israel is very profitable for Boeing the Carlyle group and their friends and guess what again causes great suffering in the world. And rebuilding the destroyed societies as vassals of U.S. multinationals is also a "gain" for the GDP.
So if your claim that I made a "typo" is based on some economic terminology I'll pass and use my own terms thanks.
I also recommend you read "The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1887208038/002-0
Where a Stanford business school PHD takes down the fundamentally flawed assumptions in contemporary economic theory that underpins the globalist juggernaut.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Mr. Gore did sign the treaty. Why didn't the Clinton administration submit it to the Senate? Perhaps because doing so would mean a massive waste of time for both administration and Congress?
n _of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_treaty#Positio
Now if the oil companies wanted to counter the claims made in the movie, I'm sure they coculd find more proper methods of getting their own view out. It's not as if they can't afford it.
My main problem with Gore and other environmental groups is that they are all problem and no solution. They treat large energy usage in moral, almost religious tones, as if we are being gluttonous by using too much energy. With is complete BS. Rather than look for a solution to the problem, like the ozone hole, they seek push all conservation. Which is practically no solution at all. If Gore right now pushed breeder-reactor Nuclear, he could make a massive change for the better in this country. Couple that with some fuel-cell advances, and we could be golden and off of foreign oil. And I could think of nothing the auto makers would like better than to force everyone to buy a new car in the next 5-10 years because gas is going away...
I saw the movie, and while a few parts were a little... slow, I thought overall it was an excellent documentary which I'd reccomend to everyone. One issue, however, is that while global warming is a very real phenomenon, most of the evidence is rather subtle, and only accessible to those who are experts. Furthermore, there is no consensus on the severity, timescale, and effects of Global Warming (indeed check out Global Dimming which seems to be offsetting it, at least for the moment). I work with many atmospheric scientists at Cornell, and the main issue that they have is that there simply is not enough information for proper policy creation. Economic/social interest groups/lobbiests aside, to form a proper policy, one must have a good notion of the expected costs and consequences of various plans of action. Right now we're doing nothing and we're still okay - likely that will change, but how much is a very big unknown. If the cost of people moving inland is small enough (consider that rebuilding cities from scratch will lead to vast improvements in efficiency over large timescales that practically pay for themselves), it may be the best option. It's equally possible that radical action is neccessary - but that action cannot occur until people are convinced, and even then it will be an uphill battle.
Sometimes tradgedies come along, like the Great Depression, and they bring out the best in people. Perhaps global warming is just what we need to unite as a species and settle our differences once and for all. Or perhaps we'll just end up fighting over what little remains afterwards, who knows?
Not only this is paid propaganda which, despite being uncovered by some media, will cast some shadow on al gore (first effect) but this will cast a shadow on any future internet grassroot movement (second effect). Call me paranoid but I have the feeling, seeing how the political flows and ebbs are in the USA right now, that this side effect may has well have been sought for... Think about it : eliminating or hindering grassroot campaign can only be a win for both party enabling them to canalise any politic debate toward what they wish (aka : all usual campaign talk directed toward the public) while diverting people from what they don't want to speak about (Irak, erosion of liberty, illegality of of certain governemental action etc....).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The sig is the little tag below your responses which you can set in your user prefernces.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
IMO, high-efficiency vehicles are worse than nothing. The eco-conscious buyers are typically replacing vehicles
that were already pretty fuel efficient. And the other category of buyers are those folks who need an economical
way to get to and from their ex-urban McMansion 80 miles from where they work.
More likely, the editors waited till it got 50 submissions (diggs) before they decided to post the story. Heaven forbid editors should chose a story on its merits instead of waiting to see its popularity.
Most of the skeptics arguments are against points one and four. They point at the bazillions of tons of CO2 that can come out of volcanic eruptions or methane emissions from flatulent herbivores (mostly cattle)* and claim those are enough to make any contribution by burning fossil fuels insignificant. There's also the "it's not so bad" camp that argues that sea level probably won't rise that much, and deserts probably won't grow much beyond their present boundaries, and northern Canada would make great farmland, and hurricanes are too unpredictable to really understand anyway. Then there are the flat-earthers of climate change; they're already covered in the post above this one.
*Not that the present huge population of cattle has anything at all to do with mechanized agriculture, advanced transportation, affluence that allows many people to eat meat and dairy every day, and generally the presence of an industrial society. It wouldn't be *at all* fair to lump a majority of those cow farts in with the rest of the anthropogenic emissions or anything like that...
0 1 - just my two bits
Have a look at Melissa Scott's The Jazz for a fine sci-fi example of this effect in action. We're simply seeing the evolution of PR and marketers finally groking this "Internets"
, bye, bye karma, nice knowing you.
What is this 'karma' you speak of? It seems valuable. Can you sell it? eat it? Can you exchange it for google money (aka GMoney(tm))? Does it help your reincarnation progress? Does it have anything to do with outsourcing?
... shove it somewhere I think you ought to find uncomfortable, because I wish you harm. But I come in peace and desire universal good.
... something. ... something. ... something. ... something.
... remind me what your point was again?
*whining*
Life is unfair! Some other dude got stuff I don't think he deserves!
1. Continuation of life is predicated on the availability of infinite energy; the universe is bound to run out of steam eventually, thus life is either evil or impossible. Maybe even both.
2. People are stupid and greedy, thus creating harm; therefore,
3. People are lazier than expected, thus creating harm; therefore,
4. People are lazy; things are more difficult than we would like, thus they are impossible, but we think they are necessary, therefore
5. People are self-centered, therefore they sometimes do things I don't like; thus creating harm, therefore,
Also, please read a book by a person with letters after their name, because people with letters after their name are always right. In fact, I'm sure you couldn't possibly find an academic with similar letters after his or her name who agrees with your obviously flawed point of view. All academics agree with me.
Can't really judge by the title alone, now can we?
If the body of the article you submitted read something like "It's fake, noooooh, me no likey is all non-real. Dagnabbit! Rappublykans suxx0rs yo big ass momma, biatch.", I can understand why they rejected it.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Not sure why the article doesn't link to the video, but after searching around, found this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI
-Bill
SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
Since the most vociferous libertarians in the US seem to be WASPs, maybe it should really be property-aryans?
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
I suppose it is - at least in the US. But should it be? This kind of thing is very close to such things as fraud and slander. I don't have a problem with people making parody and satire, but if you make fun of other people, you should have the guts to stand up for what you say. This is not often a problem in Europe, but I really think it should be law that everything that has been sponsored by political, religious or commercial interests should be clearly and fully declared as such. And I think faling to do so should be under the same penalties as fraud.
"....false impressions...." = Propaganda The Republicans have taken propaganda to places they used to lambast the U.S.S.R. for going to.
-Eric
When reading the topic first thing came to mind was this poopypeanutz story on k5:
chickengeorge.mpg . So this has become reality?
I saw this movie and I saw "Al Gore" in every frame of this movie. Al Gore's biography, why Al Gore is doing this and that, Al Gore giving us lecture (looks idiotic, since he is not an expert in the field he is giving a lecture on).
Compare to F9/11 or other movies by Moore the egomaniac. The latter are more on substance then this shameless piece of self-promotion.
This movie does a great disservice to the "global warming is caused by humans" camp by using questionable methods.
I see the whole problem with the "global warming" issue in the fact that uneducated public is participating in it. And don't start even with "don't we have to educate them" because I will say, yes, we do, that is why there is an educational system in this country for: universities, colleges, degrees, theses, public defence. Anyone who thinks that layman can be "educated" by pseudo-sci-pop movies is delusional at best, and more likely dishonest. What those "educate the public" videos do is spreading pseudo-scientific opinions, not science, not even interest in science.
We do not live in the times of Galileo, when clear scientific experiments were not enough to prove the validity of scientific point of view. The rules of scientific truth and its limitations are clearly established. By those standards only one thing is clear: global warming does take place to some extent. The rest are premature speculations.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
major news outlets including The Wall Street Journal, ABC, and even our beloved Slashdot are playing right into the hands of Exxon, DPI, and whoever else is behind the video.
Fortunately, we Slashdotters don't read articles.
First off, as somebody else pointed out, these are picked out by various editors. Interstingly, it appears that it only takes one to reject it so that it is kept from the rest. So, if you submit in the same 8 hour time and see heavy rejection, then change the time frame to a different one. I have noticed that I was being nuked continutely during one time period. Now that I have switched time (and a user for submission), I get some stories. Roughly, just as we have a#$%^&*s doing moderation, there are definate a#$%s doing editing.
And your sig. While you may feel that Libertarians are property orientated, we are not. I am guessing that you are looking at the party from a fairly recent light. Over the last 5 years, I have noticed that we are aquiring a number of new members who are not really Libertarians, but really are Republicans. I suspect that this is either a concerted attempt to undermine the party or it is simply republicans who do not like what there party is currently. One of the side affects of all this, is that now, some members are pushing an anit-abortion campaign with the party (next I expect them to push the idea that outlandeous deficts, invasaion, and lose of personal liberties are just fine).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
My point is that neither side has a monopoly on being good or being evil.
No, historically and over the long run, neither label, "Republican" or "Democrat", has had a monopoly on being good or evil: evil people, corrupt people, and incompetent people are attracted to power, whatever label it happens to fall under. It just happens to be that in 2006, they seem to have taken over the Republican party: incompetent foreign policy, abusing the tax system for social engineering, vast expansions of the federal bureaucracy, costly and ineffective wars, violations of human rights, intrusive government, bad economic policies, cronyism, and widespread instituionalized corruption, to name just a few. This administration and this Congress are one of the worst we have ever had in US history, and the damage they are doing to the US will be felt for decades to come.
And if you're saying "no, no, the other party doesn't agree with me on ____", you should find out why. If you can't find a reason why someone disagrees with you, save they're evil, you really need to open your mind.
I don't know about the GP, but it's no mystery why Republicans disagree with me: the party is dominated by people who are incompetent, power hungry, and, at times, simply corrupt. And since they have excellent PR people working for them, plus wealthy funders to pay for PR, they can convince enough people to vote for them to remain in power. The real problem isn't that there are evil Republicans or that they have power, but that people like you are stupid enough to vote for these kinds of people. I mean, assuming you're somewhere in the 40k-200k income bracket, you're so dumb that you let the current government talk out out of many thousands of dollars that they collect in taxes from you and funnel to their political buddies, and you don't even notice it.
Republicans brought an end to slavery in America.
Yeah, if only anybody could bring those Republicans back. Unfortunately, today's Republicans are the antithesis of that; they have simply latched on to the name in order to give their agenda an acceptable veneer.
More like Astronomical Rip-off !!!
"Libertarians value property rights because you need ownership of things to have freedom."
...and other's value religion because you need to "know God" to have freedom. Both are deluding themselves if they think freedom is something that can be mandated. To paraphrase Bob Marley - freedom is a (delusional?) state of mind.
The problem I have with the Libertarian view is that they think simple "property laws" will suffice to cure our social problems, yet the bulk of law is already about property (in ALL cultures). Also why does the Libertarian view rarely talk about unwanted/international property, such as pollution and the dwindling numbers of fish in international waters? If the last tree on the planet was in my yard, am I allowed to poision it to make way for my driveway? - As it stands now, the answer depends on where I live.
I agree with the sentiments in "tradgedy of the commons" (ie: if nobody owns it, nobody will look after it) but to have property laws we need to have people who create, judge and enforce the laws (ie: a government). These people need to be paid, blah, blah,...tax the only people we can (ie: those with property). Many nations are already at that stage, but on a global scale 50% of all mesurable property is still concentrated in the hands of ~500 individuals ( ~0.00000008% of the population). The Libertarian view is nothing more than a nieve "systems analysis" of how the "system we have" arose in the first place.
Disclaimer: The same can be said of any political "ism" that claims to have all the answers, political "ism's" are simple ideas for simple (or desperate) minds, they fail not because of their answers but because of the questions they ignore (ie:dogma).
Having said all that I still think the Libertarian view has some interesting points. I like the idea that my body belongs to me, this would give me the right to fill it with whatever drugs I fancy and use it anyway I like with another consenting adult.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It's the economy stupid!
What do you think Public Relations is? One of the "fathers" of modern day public relations, Edward Bernays wrote a book. It's called.... Propoganda. And the entire context is how to help a company or politician spread their message or product.
It's actually an interesting read: http://militant.org/files/propaganda.pdf. It will only take a couple of days and give you insight into where modern day techniques originated from. Adolf Hitler, the American bacon for breakfast campaign, a lot of things that are popular today are so as a result of this book and this man.
The frontal assault doesn't work reliably on people any more - everyone who wants to be effective any more has to be somewhat manipulative.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
NAFTA was approved by a republican congress. Matter of fact, anything in the law from 93 onward was largely republican driven or supported. (Remember, they've owned the Congress where laws are made, like that wonderful HB1 and L visa programs)
As for the video - you evidently haven't read/seen enough items from history. Start with fiction - "A Brave New World" and "1984", watch "V is for Vendetta", and then watch some WWII Nazi history films, preferably documentaries that include Joseph Goebbels' efforts and effects.
Whether you are for or against the Republicans, this misuse and misdirection of the public for PR purposes done by a PR firm must be viewed as dispicable, especially when done by those in power.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Let me get this straight: A PR firm posts a video that's assumed to be more credible because it seems to come from a kid whose closest brush with reality comes from flipping burgers.
Huh?
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
"Wasnt one Al's biggest supporters early on the Malthusian fool who wrote the big population growth scare book of the 80's.(we should be all dead by now).. His name escapes me."
The book you're thinking of was published in 1968.
You're a little off.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
promoting general increases in critical thinking and scientific reasoning in American education.
So that when Antartica's ice cap melts, Americans will at least be ready to understand why.
When the country falls into chaos, politicians talk about 'patriotism'. Lao-Tzu
The full quote, from our great leader, is:
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
To much applause, mind you. It makes more sense now that so people give right up and go into the porn industry.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
My point was if you are going to be an asshole on purpose and cause great misery and destruction and then obfuscate your evil deeds with a pseudoscience called "economics" don't be surprised that when people figure out your scam that they don't like you. People don't like being scammed and mocked, screw that, yes I'm speaking very directly, oh gasp how terrible I might hurt some upper middle class exploiters FEELINGS.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
I'm confused, did Newt lie under oath during a civil rights trial?
it's a Republic...
What exactly did Moore's propaganda actually accomplish?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Even if someone was never able to pay off their debt they were trying to enter the plantation class which was actually a very small number of people. The poor whites defended the slave owners because it was the dream of many people to eventually become a plantation owner.
Boy, take away the racism and slavery, and not that much has changed, has it? Think of all the people up in their ears in debt today, fired from well-paying jobs that were offshored and now working two minimum wage jobs that fiercely oppose progressive taxation and demand flat taxation or consumption taxes or demand an end to estate taxes that will put most of the burden on themselves.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Let me start by saying that I don't think it's climate change skeptics you want to hear from so much as "human induced climate change skeptics." Just because a person doesn't believe that humans are having a significant, or even measurable, impact on global temps does not mean they don't believe that the global temps are rising. "Don't believe me that all scientists are united on the side that it's climate change exists? You don't have to. Pick up ANY scientific journal -- Nature or Science are rather dense for non-scientists, so try New Scientist or Scientific American or any one of countless others." I'm old enough to remember when they are ALL in agreement that we were coming up on a new ice age (way back in the 70's.) "Who on Earth is paying scientists to produce evidence showing that climate change exists? No-one stands to benefit in the least. Are these strange people paying the entire, vast scientific community around the world? Is this some sort of global consipracy?" Are you serious? The more "evidence" there is of global warming the more money is given to "environmentalists". That compounded with the save the whales, newts, bermuda grass, or whatever other FotM endangered species there seems to be that many people who study these fields come into them with is more than enough to bring their results into question as far as a lot of people are concerned. And this is from someone who won't even consider a vehicle that isn't ULEV-rated, never leaves the light on when they leave the room, and goes out of their way to conserve. I want cleaner air/water for its own sake. Believe me, if you can't convince people that clean air/water is a noble enough cause to get them to change their behaviors then you're surely not going to get them to change by simply repeating that it's hotter and it's all our fault.
I don't care who posts movies on YouTube, but if this was some sort of political clip, it wasn't very good at all. Linux penguins? No mention of the large body of evidence disproving man-made global warming or the majority of climate scientists who call it bunk? Come on, America can do better than this!
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
I've read the snopes article twice, and, yes, it has the correct quote. The author's interpretation is wrong. Again, look up initiative at dictionary.com. Al used definition #2, the snopes.com author claims he used definition #3. Read the dictionary and you'll see the difference, particularly since their example on definition #2 includes "took the initiative".
Do you have ESP?
Where did all my carriage returns go? =(
...and the article is here.
Strong anti-Bush and pro-Democratic feelings, including a strong reinforcement for those already polarized. I suspect that if there was enough money to produce 10 or 12 of these type of films, (including the Al Gore type film) that it would be a major influence in swinging the vote from the Republicrats to the Demopublicans. I expect to see many of these type of films in the 2008 election, and even more in 2012. Soon after that the novelty will wear off and the public will no longer find them as attractive. I suspect that a film is in pre-production right now that will "expose" the election frauds perpetrated during the 2000 and 2004 elections, and the intent will be inflame the voters against one party. (Both parties made massive underhanded attempts to sway the elections, so I'm not going to guess which party actually gets their film out first, but the Democrats have more active actors willing to put money and time into it, so they may have the slight edge.) Whichever party gets its film out first gains the high ground on that issue. The counter-tactic will be to produce a propaganda film exposing how the other party is using propaganda films to influence the voters...
The key, of course, will be to produce these "independently" to diminish the charges of bias, and to prevent the appearance of campaign contributions.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
Wait...so now i've got to be on guard for fake videos appearing on the Internet? Damn, here i was assuming everything i saw on the internet was real.
Also, what he obviously meant by "took" was #9 of the definitions of take:
So the real question is who that initiative person was and whether she (he?!) was of legal age/willing.Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Sorry for the slight quibble, but the US hasn't been the "most-admired" country around for quite some time. It was most admired really only from the time of the colonies to the advent of slavery. We got a few admiration points post civil war all the way to the second world war. Foreign like of our country waned after that point due to foreign policies of various administrations. By the late 80's and into the 90's we were seen by most countries as arrogant towards the rest of the world and ignorant of others problems. Whether this loathing was deserved or not is debatable, but the viewpoints are well documented throughout history.
><));>
Yeah, you're probably right. I was using my personal perspective of the last 20 years of travelling all over the world. The situation has deteriorated rapidly since the God Squad stole the 2000 election, and somehow enabled/allowed the 9/11 event (aka "Reichstag Fire - The Sequel") to occur. Not a ranting conspiracy-theory, just asking the question "Who benefitted from all this?" Follow the money....
Reduce, reuse, cycle
How many tons of particulates do you suppose have gone into the atmosphere because of the lefts war on nuclear power? The French get 80% + of their power from nuclear power plants. That is just one item I would imagine not in the movie. That is not the case here due to Jane Fonda and the left. The left opposes every possible solution including wind power(it kills condors and other birds). The Kennedys oppose wind power unless it is in the poors back yard.
>It is not a fact that water expands when heated. Liquid water is in fact very strange, and expands upon freezing, which is why if you put a beer can in the freezer it will explode. It is also why icebergs, thankfully, float. It also decreases in volume up to 4 deg C, and then increases in volume after that. (Properties of Water)
I'm sorry, you're contradicting yourself -- specifically, you contradict your first sentence with your last 7 words. Since the majority of the worlds oceans are above 4 degrees C, an increase in temperature will indeed lead to an average increase in volume.
You are, however, completely correct when you say it expands on freezing. Specifically, it expands around 10%. Non-coincidentally, that same percentage is the percentage of an iceberg that is above water -- it's Arcimedes principle. The upshot of this is that the North pole melting would not siginifantly affect sea levels (Try it yourself - get a glass of water with ice in it, put some cling film on it to prevent evaporation, measure the water level, then let the ice melt - the waterlevel will not change). The damage caused by the North pole melting will be mainly due to the flow of water southwards completely mucking up the Gulf stream.
Of course, for the South pole it's different; since most of it is above water, melting will affect sea levels. However, the amount of water trapped in the South pole as ice is tiny compared to the amount of liquid water in the oceans, and the lower density of water at higher temperatures will definitely have a significant effect.
Doing a very rough calculation...
Take the volume of water in the oceans as 1,338,000,000 km^3 (*10^9 for m^3). The expansion of water over about 4 degrees difference at around 20 degrees is around 0.1 percent. This gives an increase in volume of about 1.338*10^15 m^3. Divide by the surface area of the oceans (335,258,000 km^2 = 3.35258 * 10^14 m^2) and you get a sea level rise of somewhere around 4m.
In other words, somewhere around one meter per degree rise. And that's not counting your point about the South pole.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
The eco-conscious buyers are typically replacing vehicles that were already pretty fuel efficient.
It's not like those cars go straight to the junk yard. Someone else buys them, and they might be replacing their old gas gussler.
"all the scientists are united on one side (climate change exists)" The last time we heard a statement like that, it was from proponents of eugenics. How did that work out?
All these scientists are working in their basements on their own dime? I guess it is only those you disagree with who can have their motives questioned.
> But, in what proportion compared to breathing, forest fires, cows, etc.
Breathing doesn't produce more CO2 than the plants you have eaten consumed when growing. It is for the same reason that an ethanol based car is theoretically CO2-neutral. The ethanol is produced from crops, which got their carbon from CO2 in the athmosphere.
Forest fires are not a problem if they are matched by a similar regrowth. Systematic deforestation can be a problem as it decrease the amount of carbound bound in the biomass. On the other hand, planting new forest on marginal land can be a way to bind carbon.
CO2 from vulcanic eruptions is more relevant, as this is "new" CO2.
Why the hell would reducing burning of fossil fuels lead to fuel shortages in Africa? In the poorest parts of Africa, where lack of food is a severe problem, industrialisation is usually little to non-existant. You get food from growing crops, cutting them down, and eating them. Did you think that no-one on Earth eat anything before people started burning fossil fuels in the industrial revolutions? Don't be ridiculous.
And obviously we don't have the option to "simply stop burning fossil fuels" -- the point is to slowly start phasing them out with better alternatives. Which we'll have to do anyway eventually - they are a finite resource, you know. In fact, the chance of "economic disaster" is probably greater if we rely on them until they aren't there anymore than if we start slowly replacing them with renewable alternatives.
To answer your list -- yes, ethanol produces CO2 when burned. Yes, humans produce CO2 when we breath. However, the obvious point which you seem to have missed is that overall, humans breathing, burning ethanol, biofuels, wood etc. does NOT increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, because the CO2 released when wood etc. are burnt is the same CO2 that is abosrbed by the trees when they were growing. Same applies to humans - crops absorb CO2, we eat crops, we breath, CO2 released back into the atmosphere. It's called the Carbon cycle. There is no net increase in CO2.
So the CO2 released by a human riding on a bike is the same CO2 that was absorbed from the atmosphere when the crops that the human eats were growing. Not so with the SUV.
And there are many more alternative resources that you neglected to mention - coincidentally, the ones that have actually been successfully been put into practice. Wind. Wave. Tidal. Nuclear (which, whilst not a sustainable resources, has the advantage that its waste producets are not released directly into the atmosphere, and can be kept secure until they have decomposed).
And obviously we should do something about it. You're the one who mentioned impact on third world countries. A surprisingly large amount of Bangladesh is less than 1m above sea level, to pick one example. If global warming continues at the current rate, about (I think) 15% of the Earth's land surface would be under water by 2100. Please explain how this is a good thing?
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
I've read slashdot for years and I have noticed over time there has been an increasing lefist trend in the stories posted. I don't care if its a right or left swing, because any bias in journalism is wrong. If you disagree with me, try to find a "story" on a Democrat astroturf campaign in the older stuff. When was this news that parties use astroturf to garner support?
Right now power plants are responsible for 21% of the greenhouse gasses. Nuclear plants provides 20.6 percent of our electricity. Coal is just over 50%. Hydro amounts to 8%. We'll just say that greenhouse-gas producing sources amount to 70% of our electricity generation.
Lets say we double our nuclear usage from 20% to 40%. That cuts the CO2 producing methods to 70% of their current levels ((70-20)/70). We've just cut our total CO2 production by 6% (20.6 - 20.6*.70).
The question I pose is: Which would be cheaper? To cut all CO2 producing activities by 6% through efficiency improvements or using different methods, or to double our reliance on nuclear power?
I'm not trying to be anti-nuclear. I believe we should increase our usage of it. However, fixing one thing won't solve the problem, and forcing one industry (or group of customers) to bear the costs wouldn't be fair either.
Perhaps you would care to read the next paragraph of the post, starting with Don't believe me that all scientists are united on the side that it's climate change exists? You don't have to."?
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Yes, but the water which you are peeing originates either from water which you drunk or the liquid content of food. In either case, the original source of the water can be traced back to reservoirs which are filled by rainwater or freshwater rivers, which, in turn, can be traced back to evaporation from the oceans. So by peeing into the oceans, you are only replacing water which was removed a relatively short time ago. It's similar to burning wood - you're releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, but the CO2 you're releasing is the same CO2 that the tree absorbed from the atmosphere whilst growing, so the entire process is carbon neutral.
.
. .
No, I don't have a sense of humour; why do you ask?
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
I have been reading slashdot for many years. I have not visited this website for 3 months. I decided to revisit and see what stories were posted. When I fell upon this post I remembered why I stopped visiting this website in the first place. I see /. is still full of the same partisan, sophmoric, off topic posts as ever. I don't suppose this site is worth revisiting. Here is my one last parting shot. For those of you who think that their party is good and the other evil, think again. Both (all) parties are rife with corruption. I can name scores of scandles on both sides of the aisles. Oh and by the way, most of those PACs that you contribute to (environmental groups too) are chocked full corruption. More disinformation originates from special interest groups (including environmental groups and unions) than any other source. Don't kid yourselves, money and power corrupts EVERYONE not just Republicans or Democrats. The source of problems are those of you who are "team players" that blindly believe that their side is good and the other is evil. You have long ago sacrificed ANY objectivity that you might have had in lieu of a lemming mentality. The next time you feel the urge to tell someone how good your cause is and how evil the other cause is, do youself a favor and shut your mouth. To those with a modicum of intelligence and maturity, you just seem like a complete fool for they realise that there can be both nuance and reason to both sides of the arguement. Most people who vote are pricipled people who have actually thought about their positions and no they are not just being duped and they are not evil. It is the "team player" (Democrat and Republican) who are the problem.
I thought they were the PR firm of choice for this kind of thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_&_Knowlton
They created Citizens For A Free Kuwait
Stop! Stop, will you?! Stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle!
Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say 'Trademark'.
[THUD! crunch]
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
We have full instrumental records dating back 150 years; more than enough to show the change since the industrial revolution (the sudden change in gradient, unsurprisingly, starts shortly after atmospheric CO2 concentrations started increasing). We also have reconstructed records dating back around 5 million years in places like the Antarctic, where we can deduce the temperature from the way the ice was formed. Also thanks to the ice, we have reliable recordings of the CO2 conentrations in the atmosphere dating back nearly 500,000 years, enough to encompass at least four ice age cycles and demonstrate how much current concentrations are deviating from the historical cycles. What more do you want?
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
The earth has been both hotter and colder than it is right now. Do those 500,000 years of C02 levels match with those temperature trends? If they don't then this C02 data is worthless.
For example where I'm sitting right now used to be covered by a glacier. Now its not. What caused the C02 emission that warmed the globe enough to melt that glacier? In fact to melt thousands of miles worth of it. What caused that global warming?
I find being offended by me offensive.
Halliburton.......?
>Do those 500,000 years of C02 levels match with those temperature trends?
_ Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png (CO2 concentrations) to http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Ice_Age _Temperature_Rev.png (Ice age temperature changes).
Yes. E.g. compare http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon
>What caused the C02 emission that warmed the globe enough to melt that glacier?
A combination of natural and manmade causes. Ice age CO2 fluctuations are historically between 180 and 270 ppmv, in a 100,000 year cycle. We are now at the top of that cycle. On top of that, in the last 150 years CO2 concentrations have jumped from the expected 270 (which it would be normally if man did not exist) to 385 ppmv -- a 42% increase -- due to carbon flux from the burning of fossil fuels.
So if your glacier alterately formed and melted in 100,000 year cycles in the past, it's current state of melting would have happened anyway, since we are at the top of the natural cycle. If, however, it has remained a glacier throughout the cycles and has only melted in the last 150 or so years, then its melting is caused by the higher CO2 (and CFC, etc.) emissions from manmade sources.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
>> " I'm old enough to remember when they are ALL in agreement that we were coming up on a new ice age (way back in the 70's.)
I remember the media blowing out of proportion a couple of wacky scientists and a couple of hard winters. I don't remember every scientist that looked at the issue saying that we were going into an ice age. In fact they had a lot of scientists that disputed the claims by this tiny minority.
The media blew out of proportion the cold fusion issue a few years ago too. One lab in the world said they could perform cold fusion and the media became a circus around them. The rest of the worlds scientists were saying, "Ummmm, this needs to be confirmed by independent labs." Which they attempted to do and failed because of flaws in the original experiment.
I really wish the media would wait until the scientists came up with a consensus on research before making wild claims on either side.
Unfortunately for your arguments, it is the consensus by 99.9% of all scientists on earth that there is global warming and that the global warming is being caused by human activity. How do we know this? Because they have built very accurate forecasting models based on the facts that humans are releasing green house gasses into the environment. These models have been very accurate in predicting global temperature gains the past few years. Scientists using a sun changing temperature model have not been accurate in predicting the actual temperature changes we are monitoring.
It is not the scientists that are heavy handed propagandists. The Bush administration has been caught time and time again trying to change NASA reports and silence our own scientists in regards to this matter, because a few politicians and vested interests find the truth to be inconvenient.
Wow, the timing of your post here is only minutes after the paragraph you quote was added. Coincidence? I think not. Your vandalism has already been reverted, and your utter bullshit lies have been removed.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
. . . due to carbon flux from the burning of fossil fuels. I'm going to need some documentation on that.
I find being offended by me offensive.
Greenland is huge and is above sea level. It has an ice pack that is melting too. Seas will raise quite a bit if only Greenland melted off it's ice pack.
Burning fossil fuels produce carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide ends up in the atmosphere. This increases the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What's there to dispute?
_ Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png _ History_and_Flux_Rev.png. They both rise gently since 1850 and steeply since 1950.
If you want to see the graphs, here's one showing CO2 variations from the last 4 or so ice ages including the recent jump: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon
And here's one showing the carbon flux compared to independently measured CO2 concentrations for the last 250 years: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
You must be new here :-).
I dunno. I like the idea of a consumption tax, like the FairTax.org one. I think it would be more fair and distribute the burden better. First, many of the extremely wealthy, don't work...they live off investments, so don't pay income taxes. However, they DO buy lots of stuff...expensive stuff, and you'd catch them on this new method.
Currently, investments are taxed in the form of capital gains and dividend taxes as well as the estate tax for the super rich. The proponents of the so-called FairTax would do away with all of this. The wealthy spend a significantly small percentage of their income than the middle class and would escape enormous amounts of taxation. In addition, the FairTax is ridiculously easy to dodge by simply claming purchases as business expenses, which wouldn't be audited due to the closing of the IRS that they propose.
Also, there is a lot of 'cash' basis transactions out there...whether for illegal ventures (drugs, gambling, prostitution, illegal immigrant work)...that the govt. doesn't get a cut of. However, again, all the people involved in these 'trades' do buy stuff...and the consumption tax would get those dollars that currently are lost.
This is, of course, a fallacy. It's a slick one, though, since it hides that the tax dodge happens at a different part of the equation. It's like claiming that a fridge dodges the laws of thermodynamics by cooling things because you're only looking inside the fridge and not looking at the whole system including the heat exchanger on the outside of the box. Let me walk you through it:
A man, Bob, visits a prostitute, Alice. Under the current system, Bob's income is taxed, but Jane's is not. Neither Alice's purchase of goods, nor Bob's purchase of "services" is taxed. Alice is dodging taxes by not reporting income.
Under the FairTax, Bob and Alice's incomes are not taxed. Alice's purchases of goods are taxed, but Bob's purchase of "services" is not taxed. Bob is dodging taxes by not paying sales tax for the "services" he has purchased.
In this case, Alice's income is the "fridge" from before. You see no taxes being paid at all before and then taxes being paid now and think that you've made a positive because you don't see Bob's dodged taxes in the other half of the equation. The tax dodge has been moved from after Alice gets her money to the time of each transaction. The same amount of taxes is dodged because instead of Alice dodging taxes, Bob is now the one dodging them. Do you think that drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal labor, etc. will charge sales tax for their services and dutifully report it to the authorities?
It's quite frankly, the silliest argument in the FairTax book, and Boortz should be ashamed of making it.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
do you know what is unconstitutional? FISA!!! It is unconstitutional for one branch to limit the power of another branch, but Fisa gives the President to use the unwarrented wiretaps for foreigners or U.S. citizens in contact with suspected foreigners, but then FISA says the president must get approval. That is unconstitutional.
Wow, you must know more than everyone from another country that I have ever met. You must also know more about the opinions of people than they do themselves, as a large majority of Iraqis still support the original American liberation of their country.
As far as global warming, scientifically speaking humanity has thus far lived in the tail end of an ice age, which means the temperatures are bound to rise. Also, the vast majority of damage that we have done the atmosphere has been done by the large amounts of domesticated animals we have raised througout history as well as the millions of trees felled throughout history for farms and cities. We have done more damage with all of our accumulated campfires than we could ever hope to do with cars for many generations to come.
Oil companies are preparing to move into other niches or be destroyed, oil will not be around much longer. They need capital to invest. Besides, they have always operated on a thin margin, oil exploration, transportation, and collection is hugely expensive. PNC bank here where I live has consistantly reported profit margins much higher than all of the largest oil companies. Once more, you should read about two things: supply and demand, and China.
To stop terrorism, we need to get rid of repressive regimes who use a fanatical faith to control and exploit their populations. It may be an idea, but it is an idea propogated by men. legitimizing these men legitimizes the ideas they spread and violence they wreak. Give people self determination, and it is a chance for true peace.
Let's not forget that before the U.S. wars in the middle east, there was no peace. Just because we get involved doesn't suddenly make it war. The regions people have long been suffereing from each other and repressors, they had no real peace. Democracy is a chance for everyone to have real peace.
i had just gotten done telling a freind who wants to watch gore's movie "you know what i hear when i hear gore? blah blah blah, the world is ending, blah blah blah, i can predict the future, blah blah blah". then the next day i hear about the video.
"What's new here is that they now see the blogosphere as important enough to merit attention."
sheesh, politicians have been been whacking off to the net as a way to brainwash the masses since day two or three. fuck, why do you think gore invented the damn thing?
If Big Tobacco got in trouble for hiding research or misrepresenting it with the end result that people were killed then can't we do the same to Big Oil, the Bush family, and any others purposely profiting from this vile behavior - or do I live in a fantasy world? Surely people will die due to global warming and proving it shouldn't be THAT tough. Seriously though, why couldn't we sue them, either corporately or personally?
>True, it's called the ice ages (incidentally, it's not yet considered settled that the cause of them is the variability of the sun).
No kidding. I've never even heard solar variability and ice age in the same sentence before.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You missed the point so I'll be explicit. All you're saying is that C02 lvels are rising, which is a normal occurance. You've done fuck all to show that this increase is some how causing global warming.
I find being offended by me offensive.
What matters is the content of the piece, not the identity of who created it.
Clowns to the left of me; jokers to the right. Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.
Wow, responding with a Hitler non sequitur.
I guess that means you win. All the scientists are wrong and lying simply because you dislike the results.
No, it's not normal to raise this much in so short a time. It's abnormal. Did you not look at the graphs for CO2 over the last 400,000 years?
Unless you are claiming that there is some possibility that increased temperature causes the CO2 level to rise to the levels we are seeing now? If that is the case then you you are making a huge claim that is unsubstantiated by any evidence at this time.
Where is your proof of the claim that you are insinuating?
...corporate and U.S. government crime.
Your argument conveniently leaves out the fact that many factory workers in third world countries were at one time independent farmers whose livelihoods were destroyed by WTO agreements that allowed the dumping of cheap GMO'd agricultural products in their markets thus destroying their livelihood. Once their livelihoods have been destroyed they are easy pickings for multinationals who rove the world in a predatory fashion looking for the lowest possible wages and thus creating downward pressure on wages throughout the world that is exploited by people with high incomes in the west.
Again I don't see you jumping on any boats to work a 12 hour shift in a sweat shop, though that would certainly be more "productive" of an actual real good than your shilling for the forces of oppression and suffering.
The far right in the U.S. tries to make much of individual crimes and has promoted the idea of the victim impact statement:
http://crime.about.com/od/victims/a/impact.htm
This is fine as far as it goes, but I propose an extension, a victim impact statement for all the victims of corporate and U.S. government crimes. Under this arrangement victims of U.S. multinational corporations and would have a public forum to speak of the abuses they suffered at the hands of factories subcontracted to U.S. multinationals, in addition victims of U.S. war crimes such as the innumerable bombings of civilians in Iraq would also be given an opportunity to speak and to confront those responsible for their suffering. This follows from basic logic, after all if victim impact statements are designed to allow victims to have some sort of closure for their suffering ought those who have caused the most suffering be the first in line for having to hear from their victims? Despite the airtight logic of this proposal I doubt apologists for globlization will put it on their agenda anytime soon. After all we wouldn't dare actually hear what the true impact of globlization is on the ground, far better to look at charts whose numbers point, up, up, up, right? Although no proper formal program of this type exists you can read of the stories of the victims of globalization at:
http://globalexchange.org/
After all accountability and responsibility are only for the little people, upper middle class Americans and other people in the west needn't bother with such trifles as responsibility for their actions, and accountability for the suffering and death they have caused right?
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
http://www.cll.com/articles/article.cfm?articleid= 22
Dr. Seuss v. Penguin Books.
"...concluded that the work at issue was not a parody of the Seuss original because it did not ridicule or criticize the prior work, but merely copied the work's best known elements..."
" [T]he substance and content of The Cat In the Hat is not conjured up by the focus on the Brown-Goldman murders or the O.J. Simpson trial. Because there is no effort to create a transformative work with new expression, meaning or message, the infringing work's commercial use further cuts against a fair use defense.15"
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
It's not exactly disputed science. Carbon dioxide traps more of the sun's energy. It's a fact. You can test it in any science lab with a temperature probe, a clear box, an infrared lamp, and a cylinder of carbon dioxide. The temperature rise for a given increase in carbon dioxide is a perfectly predictable.
_ History_and_Flux_Rev.png, and the graph of global temperature is http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Instrum ental_Temperature_Record.png. See the correlation?
_ Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png.
If you want graphical evidence that the CO2 is actually causing temperature rises in the atmosphere, the graph of CO2 concentration is http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon
Incidentally, the AC is completely right - the CO2 rises are in no way normal. CO2 levels are historically between 180 and 270 ppmv, in a 100,000 year cycle. They are now 385 ppmv. See http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Yes I see the correlation. How ever I'm asking for the causation. Please provide that.
Also what proof do you have that temps are rising. Sure this is hottest year in the last 150 but it's not the hottest year ever. If we have such a high level of C02, record levels some would say, why is it not the hottest year ever?
I find being offended by me offensive.
>Yes I see the correlation. How ever I'm asking for the causation. Please provide that.
m ental_Temperature_Record.png).
e ar_Temperature_Comparison.png).
I have given you the theoretical reason of why rising CO2 causes higher temperature. I have given you the empirical data showing a correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperature to a degree that matches the theoretical predictions. I fail to see what more I could possibly give you. Science is, unfortunately, not like Maths, where it is possible to prove that A is caused by B; the only thing that Science can do is come up with a theory that explains A in relation to B and see if it matches the empirical data (i.e. if there is the expected correlation between A and B). In this case, there is.
>Also what proof do you have that temps are rising. Sure this is hottest year in the last 150 but it's not the hottest year ever. If we have such a high level of C02, record levels some would say, why is it not the hottest year ever?
The reason that you only hear that this is the hottest year in the last 150, not that this is the hottest year ever, is that records have only been kept for 150 years. Thus, the only thing it is only possible to say with complete certainty that this is the hottest year for 150 years (graph of recorded temperature in last 150 years: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Instru
It is, however, possible to extrapolate absolute temperature backwards with a reasonably high degree of accuracy to the recent past, of the order of thousands of years; if this extrapolation is accepted, it becomes possible to say that this is the hottest year for 2000 years, too (graph of extrapolated temperature for last 2000 years: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Y
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
This is one of those little nuggets like "you only use 10% of your brain" and "human DNA is closer to frog DNA than to chimpanzee DNA" that just sort of floats around there like gospel truth in debates like this. Documentation, please.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Parody and satire are both fair use defenses for alleged copyright infringement. Parody is something that is used to make fun of itself. Satire is where something is used as a vehicle to make fun of something else, or to make some sort of commentary.
Trademark cases in the US are usually based upon "causing confusion in the marketplace". In other words, if you use someone else's trademark and the court finds it does not cause confusion in the market place, you might be found guilty of statutory infringement only, or the case may be thrown out altogether etc. If the use is found to 'cause confusion in the marketplace' even if it is a parody/satire, then the lawyers will argue this point to a judge and see what happens.
I took two semesters of copyright law in college so I consider myself fairly well educated on the subject.
Libertas in infinitum
This is gibberish. You can accurately predict if you accept the extrapolation? Ok so if I say it's true then it's true? All of these predictions are untestable since we don't know how hot it was. A untestable theory is an unprovable theory.
You're talking about things on a geologic scale here. 2000 years is yesterday.
The whole purpose of this thread was to address skeptics but you've provided nothing but pictures from a propoganda site. You point to two bars both rising and claim it's obvious. As you said it is obvious and exact if you accept the premise. Skeptics don't do this. They reject the premise.
Stop trying to convince people with data from an obviously biased site. Why not grab some of your opposition's data and debunk that?
I find being offended by me offensive.
Wow, a whole flame war over your sig. I loved it because I *personally *know self-professed libertarians who do exactly what you're talking about. They answer all questions through the principle "who owns what in this situation" rather than "who is allowed to do what?". I don't know about all economics being a sham, and I think invoking Goebbels is a little much, but then again invoking slavery is almost as bad and sheds some light:
Isn't the question of slavery just a question of property rights in one view. Who owns the slaves? Can't they do what they want with their property? Makes the libertarian/propertarian divide pretty clear.
Who owns this or that band of electromagnetic spectrum? Or this source code? Can't they do what they want with their property? The problem is obviously the uncritical acceptance of the word "property" for anything that is treated-as-owned, in law, by convention, rather than in accordance with its nature. Can spectrum be "owned"? Can ideas? Propertarians generally don't like to contemplate the nature of things; they just call everything a commodity and are done with it.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Of course Goebbels is a bit much much I *like* waving red flags in front of these bull (headed) people just to make them snort. I figure if their philosophy enables actual suffering in the real world there is nothing wrong with pressing them and making them psychologically uncomfortable which is mere shadow of the suffering of say working in an unventilated sweatshop for 12 hours. Trollish? Perhaps, I personally think people who are blatant assholes and what's more arrogantly proud of their asshole philosophy deserve to be trolled a little. Really they deserve to be behind bars and read victim impact statements from all their untold thousands of victims but THAT is a whole other thread.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
I don't think you quite get my sig, I actually honor the Libertarians questioning of governments role in society. I regularly visit the Libertarian run antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com, and I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul and Paul Craig Roberts who would be considered Libertarians by many. What bothers me is that many so called Libertarians seem to put the interest of property owners BEFORE liberty despite calling themselves "Liber-tarians." That bothers me because I find large property owners often restrict the freedom of those with little or no property by doing things like destroying wilderness areas thus destroying my freedom to hike, polluting the air and water thus restricting my freedom to drink water and breath, and mistreating their workers thus restricting those peoples right to live decent lives, etc. That is why I think that sort of Libertarian ought to call themselves a propertyarian and not a Libertarian because the rights of property owners is their FIRST priority, not liberty. If Libertarians truly put liberty FIRST then I would embrace them, but then they'd be anarchists not Libertarians.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
P.S. just to clarify for example a Libertarian might say, well if you want to hike you ought to own the area you are hiking in, but that's clearly absurd for two reasons:
2 04872-9747219?v=glance&n=283155
a) If I want to do say a multi-day hike into the Rocky mountains then I need to own 500 square miles of Colorado? Get real!
b) It implies that the only people with rights are property owners. Do we really want a society with restricted fundamental rights for non property owners, where an increasing amount of land is walled off and is private gated space? To me a society with endless surveillance cameras and private gated communities and no public space, is no better than Orwell's surveillance society where the government is doing the spying and controlling. In fact in many ways the ultimate Robert Nozickesque
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465097200/002-0
Libertarian society of all private ownership is naught but a photographic negative (that's film for you young 'uns) of a completely government controlled society like Communism. Do you start to see why I say property-tarian and NOT Liber-tarian and that the word Liberty is untrue in the name?
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
>This is gibberish. You can accurately predict if you accept the extrapolation? Ok so if I say it's true then it's true?
The extrapolation I assume you're talking about (the 2000 year one) was the plotted data from ten different large-scale climate studies from 1998 to 2005 (they're each a different colour on the graph). They were all working independantly. Are you seriously accusing all ten studies of some kind of vast scientific conspiracy?
If you really have a serious urge to plot the graphs yourself, the original data is all available from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html, the US Government National Climate Data Centre. Unless -- is the US Government included in this conspiracy too?
The data from the last 150 years of temperature and CO2 (the one that shows the almost exact correlation) is publically available. Unless -- maybe the measuring instruments are also part of the conspiracy?
>All of these predictions are untestable since we don't know how hot it was. A untestable theory is an unprovable theory.
I'm sorry, but your not making the slightest bit of sense. Of course we don't know exactly how hot it was over 150 years ago, since that's when records began. That's the point of the studies which attempt to work out how hot it was from data such as the formation of ice at the poles.
Your 'argument' about testability is identical to the argument used by Creationists trying to rubbish Evolution; that because something is a long-term, ongoing process (and thus, most of the data is historical), it's impossible to test, and is thus not a scientific theory. Unfortunately, it's as bad an argument applied to Climate change as it is applied to Evolution. It's perfectly testable, you just use historical (sometimes extrapolated) data rather than experimental data. The data that's extrapolated does certainly have a higher error margin than measured data, but as long as the margin is calculable and stated, that doesn't make it somehow 'untestable'. Besides, we still have 150 years of unarguable, measured data, and that data unfortunately is consistant with my (and pretty much all Scientists) position.
>You're talking about things on a geologic scale here. 2000 years is yesterday.
The 2000 year data was as a period in which extrapolations can be made backward to a high degree of absolute accuracy, that shows Man's effect on the environment in the last 150 years at a scale that also shows the previous 1850 for comparison. I believe I gave you the graph of the last 400,000 years or so some five posts ago; however, that was too large a scale to effectively show the sudden difference that has occured in the last 150 years.
>The whole purpose of this thread was to address skeptics but you've provided nothing but pictures from a propoganda site. You point to two bars both rising and claim it's obvious. As you said it is obvious and exact if you accept the premise. Skeptics don't do this. They reject the premise.
The question I asked on the first post, and you still haven't answered, is WHAT PREMISE EXACTLY IS IT YOU ARE REJECTING? As far as I can tell, for the last 7 posts you've questioned one after another, and as soon as I explain the one you've questioned you switch to a different one. And no, there is no unified fundamental concept that all sceptics 'reject' unilaterally. The point of scepticism is to not accept something UNTIL THERE IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR IT. Not to look at the scientific evidence and claim it doesn't exist because you 'reject the premise'. What premise, exactly, is it you claim that all these different independant researchers have? Or for that matter, what premise is it you claim measuring instruments have?
>Stop trying to convince people with data from an obviously biased site. Why not grab some of your opposition's data and debunk that?
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Incidentally, forgot to mention: the only reason I even mentioned the 2000 year graph in the first place was because of your nonsensical question about why it is only the hottest year since records began, not the hottest year ever -- the obvious answer being that before records began there were no records, so the only thing it is possible to say with complete certainty that this is the hottest year for 150 years -- i.e. since records began. I provided the 2000 year graph only as a side note, to show that, as far as short-time-period extrapolations that are reasonably accurate in absolute terms (as the close matching of the ten different researchers results show), it is also the hottest period for the last 2000 years. I remind you of this since you seem to have a bad habit of ignoring the main part of a rebuttal to one of your previous posts and attempting to build a new argument on small parts that are indeed not conclusive when taken on their own. Should I take this habit to mean that you are in each case completely agreeing to the main part of my argument (to be specific: in your second post about the amount of data necessary to judge trends, in your third post about 500,000 years of CO2 vs. temperature correlation and your post-glacial abode, etc. etc.?)
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Nah you should take it to mean that I won a bet that I could string someone along for 3 days.
Sorry man. Nothing personal.
I find being offended by me offensive.
The majority of the worlds oceans may indeed be above 4C (long term mean), well noted. But a large portion of the ocean is not. Consider this. All of the 'polar ocean' which reaches approximately the southern tip of NZ and Canada around Vancouver, is below 4C.
And then, when calculating volume, how deep are you considering? at a depth of 50m, the temperature drops markedly across global oceans. Are you just considering volume expansion of the top 1m... if the ocean has to heat uniformly, what about the contraction of the layers beneath the top layer, that may be less than 4C?
Also, should we consider the bulk properties of solutions, given that we are not dealing with deionised wate?
M.