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."
"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?
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.
I agree. The oil companies and right-wing have poured millions for many years into discrediting global warming and environmentalists in general. This has been profusely documented.
What's surprising is if this can be linked directly to the Republican Party. After all, we know they worked many ways to undermine the last two national elections, but a direct link to dirty tricks like this would be hitting an all-new low. (As if cooking elections isn't low enough.)
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.
>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.
"Political TV ads always have to say who paid for them. I don't see how a video posted to youtube would be any different."
"The best PR goes unnoticed" is apt in this case. PR firms wouldnt survive if you knew who paid them.
Read this for more information about how PR companies shape America.
In fact, the most emotionally moving testimony on October 10 came from a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name of Nayirah. According to the Caucus, Nayirah's full name was being kept confidential to prevent Iraqi reprisals against her family in occupied Kuwait. Sobbing, she described what she had seen with her own eyes in a hospital in Kuwait City. Her written testimony was passed out in a media kit prepared by Citizens for a Free Kuwait. "I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital," Nayirah said. "While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."83
Three months passed between Nayirah's testimony and the start of the war. During those months, the story of babies torn from their incubators was repeated over and over again. President Bush told the story. It was recited as fact in Congressional testimony, on TV and radio talk shows, and at the UN Security Council. "Of all the accusations made against the dictator," MacArthur observed, "none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City."84
At the Human Rights Caucus, however, Hill & Knowlton and Congressman Lantos had failed to reveal that Nayirah was a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Her father, in fact, was Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's Ambassador to the US, who sat listening in the hearing room during her testimony. The Caucus also failed to reveal that H&K vice-president Lauri Fitz-Pegado had coached Nayirah in what even the Kuwaitis' own investigators later confirmed was false testimony.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
First of all you are mixing modern "liberal" phrases with a time in our country that jsut does nto add up. You analogy is not very good.
Slavery was never a very good way of doing business. I wrote a paper in college breaking down the economics of slavery and let me tell you it was not that profitable. Depending on the era the slave was bought (import of new slaves was outlawed before slavery was abolished but smugglers still got them into the country) a young male slave would often cost from $40,000-50,000 in 2006 dollars.
Over the course of their lifetime they would produce enough goods to make it worth their original expensive but there were complications. Slaves would run away, get sick, die early, or be injured. Also minor sabotage was very common such as slaves intentionally using their hand tools incorrectly in order to break them (one example is while they were turning soil if they found a rock with their hoe they might break their tool over the rock and claim it was just an accident). Very few people ever afforded to buy slaves with cash and almost 100% of slave owners were in debt due to the loans for buying slaves.
So why did the south want slaves so much if it not only did not produce a good profit and also put them into debt? The answer is that the slave owners were building a way of life. They did not only care about their bottom line which is a business is run today. The slave owners were setting up and maintaining a society where the whites where at the top and even if they were not technically rich on paper they had a comfortable lifestyle living off the work of slaves. 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.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep