The Denial Machine

Discussion in 'Renewable Energy & Energy Saving' started by MikeTV, Apr 9, 2007.

  1. MikeTV

    MikeTV
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,782
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ealing, London
    Ratings:
    +842
    This documentary shows how fossil fuel corporations have kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists believed that global warming was real and had potentially catastrophic consequences. It shows that companies such as Exxon Mobil are working with top public relations firms and using many of the same tactics and personnel as those employed by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds to dispute the cigarette-cancer link in the 1990s. Exxon Mobil sought out those willing to question the science behind climate change, providing funding for some of them, their organizations and their studies.

    The Denial Machine

    The White House is entirely aligned with the oil industry. The Bush administration has done zero in terms of combating Global Warming. Emissions are just increasing. Denial is the agenda.
     
  2. Andy3

    Andy3
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    634
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Cheshire
    Ratings:
    +19
    "Denial is the agenda."

    Good. We need a well-oiled denial mechanism to counter the 'hysteria & bullying' machine of the pro MMGWarmers. Newspapers like The Independent which almost daily scream on their front pages 'The tipping point has been reached' and delight in showing polar bears 'stranded on melting ice floes' have caught the public attention and the BBC cannot get through any of its news bulletins without mentioning it.
     
  3. Steve.J.Davies

    Steve.J.Davies
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,995
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +199
    There we go with 'denial' again.

    'heretic' etc.

    Semantics count...and inform...
     
  4. Steve.J.Davies

    Steve.J.Davies
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,995
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +199
    watched it - no science in it....
    and it argues the consensus argument (and so IPCC), 'denialists'.
    No looking at both sides.
    This is merely a political program. A diversion.

    "if you look in scientific literature there is no debate" (about global warming).
    Give me a break.

    Still, plenty of reference to the tobacco industry....
     
  5. MikeTV

    MikeTV
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,782
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ealing, London
    Ratings:
    +842
    Bad. We do need healthy debate on the policies to combat GW - but we do not need denial of the science itself. That's just misinformation and undemocratic. Lying, if you prefer.
     
  6. Miyazaki

    Miyazaki
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    Messages:
    14,393
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +850
    That is good. Seeing as the media have ignored global warming and countless piles of evidence ammasing since at least the 1980s.
     
  7. MikeTV

    MikeTV
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,782
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ealing, London
    Ratings:
    +842
    You are right. It is about the politics behind GW denial. It's not a science documentary.
    It wasn't supposed to be a debate, but a revelation, a polemic. Just like the "swindle" documentary, or the "documentaries" that you have so often provided links to.
    With massive social and economic consequences. That is the whole point. It is entirely political.
    The connections between the GW denialists to the tobacco industry were clearly identified. Deeply worrying.
     
  8. Steve.J.Davies

    Steve.J.Davies
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,995
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +199
    at least the prog I linked to had some real opinions and fact based criticism of the pro MM GW argument. Isn't that what we are talking about in this forum.
     
  9. MikeTV

    MikeTV
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,782
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ealing, London
    Ratings:
    +842
    We are discussing all kinds of things in this forum, like whether or not there is bias in the media, political motives for denying the science behind GW. This documentary has real opinions, and real fact-based criticisms. Only in this case, it's against the denialists, and not the scientific consensus. Are you disputing that those criticised in the documentary were actually climate scientists? If so, I may be inclined to agree with you.
     
  10. MikeTV

    MikeTV
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,782
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ealing, London
    Ratings:
    +842
    We may now be losing 27,000 species per year to extinction.

    For mammals alone, the past 400 years have seen 89 documented mammalian extinctions (of about 5,000 known mammalian species) almost 45 times the predicted rate, and another 169 mammal species are listed as critically endangered. And these are just the ones we know about.
     
  11. pjclark1

    pjclark1
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,463
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Thailand
    Ratings:
    +271
    Who cares,
    We haven't counted how many species there are (estimates range between 3 and 100 million)
    We have only named about 1.4 milion so far.

    http://pubs.wri.org/pubs_content_text.cfm?ContentID=535

    PS
    There appear to be more polar bears alive now, than at any time in the last 100 years ....... mainly because they are no longer shot on sight.
     
  12. blearyeyes

    blearyeyes
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    325
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +10
    I think you'll find this figure is based on pure guess work. After a sweep of selected Amazonian trees, the number of unique insect species was counted and then extrapolated to cover the entire forest areas. The figure for the number of species on earth (the majority being insects and fungi) came out at 30 million tops. Someone then asummed the area of forest being destroyed on a daily basis and divided that species number into 30 million and came up with the 'fact' that thousands of species are becoming extinct every year! It's parr for the course with green claims - they are all based on bogus facts and figures.:boring:
     
  13. Andy3

    Andy3
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    634
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Cheshire
    Ratings:
    +19
    We've always had famines and floods, and species have always adapted, moved or become extinct. We are still discovering new species! Do these environmentalists think that planet Earth should be set in aspic, nothing ever changing for millions of years? The world is always changing, in both fast and slow cycles, and the sooner these hysterical doomsters realise it, the better off we'll be!
     
  14. Steve.J.Davies

    Steve.J.Davies
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,995
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +199
    I believe that over 90 percent of all the species that have ever existed are extinct - it is the natural order of things. Darwin, ELEs (and dodos and passenger pigeons etc of course).

    What gets me is that mankind somehow thinks it has a right to be in the 'current survivors list' forever.

    How many species are we now discovering - I believe there is some effort on that now in some areas.
    What percentage of the total estimated is the 'maybe' 27,000 ?

    the answers to the last two question may lend some balance to the bald ' may be losing 27,000'. The comment about extinction being normal may lend some perspective..
     
  15. njp

    njp
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,069
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +177
    We can make informed choices that influence our future. Do you know of another species that can do that?
     
  16. johntheexpat

    johntheexpat
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,367
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    France
    Ratings:
    +2,811
    Aside from the GW debate,where you have made your views very clear, that's a terribly depressing view of the world and one which I think will be generally disagreed with.
    If we can't influence the future, or more importantly believe we can't influence the future, what is the point of doing anything of substance? The raison d'etre of most of us is to ensure the future of mankind, by procreating, providing, protecting and progressing. We are in the process, at this moment, of creating the future and if we believed we couldn't influence it why bother? What is the point of life if we can't make a positive contribution to the advancement of the species (in other words, influence the future?)
     
  17. pantages

    pantages
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    976
    Products Owned:
    2
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Boston
    Ratings:
    +64
    Mike, from where does that figure of 27,000 come from? How on earth is anyone going to prove or disprove it. It is a typical alarmist statistic. In a couple of years time, this fad for GW will have disappeared and you will be looking rather foolish. Note my tag line, and believe that the majority do not believe in GW. JUst how gullible some people are, including yourself, is incredible, you only need to watch Songs of Praise to see that! Just because 'scientists' say it is true does not mean that it is, they are so often wrong!
     
  18. MikeTV

    MikeTV
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,782
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ealing, London
    Ratings:
    +842
    I agree that compassion fatigue is likely. Let's face it, millions die each year from poverty - lack of clean water, lack of food, disease, and we in the West do very little about it. So I believe that people in the west may, in due course, object to having to change their lifestyles. But I do not believe, for one millisecond, GW is a fad. I believe we have barely even begun to see the consequences. I'd be truly delighted to look foolish in a couple of years time, but it isn't going to happen.
     
  19. njp

    njp
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,069
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +177
    That's a statement of such ludicrous generality that it precludes nothing. If I tell you that the dodo became extinct around the year 1700 because the first humans to land on the island of Mauritius destroyed their habitat, hunted them and brought with them animals that plundered their nests, you will presumably simply turn round and tell me it was natural law that they should go extinct.

    This is not a scientific perspective. This is a quasi-religious perspective of a most unusual kind. It is exactly the same as the one espoused (or perhaps "preached" would be more appropriate) by Neil "I am all in favour of cutting down the rainforests" Jones.
     
  20. pantages

    pantages
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    976
    Products Owned:
    2
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Boston
    Ratings:
    +64
    Many westerners do do something about it, but nothing changes. For the same reason governments choose to brainwash their people into believing GW is true, they also prevent third world countries from developing. Imagine some of these places being as good as the west! That wouldn't do at all. No matter how much money is poured into those countries that are suffering, nothing will be allowed to change. It suits western governments because it another way of looking good and taking our well earned money from us.
     
  21. pantages

    pantages
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    976
    Products Owned:
    2
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Boston
    Ratings:
    +64
    Whatever the consequences there is nothing we can do to prevent change. It is what happens, as I have said before -and again something you choose to ignore - is that the universe is constantly changing, nothing is steady or permanent. So our world will change because the climate will change - naturally. It has changed many times before and will do so again and again. But man does not control the weather or the climate, nature does. Nature is in control not man. People like yourself who preach doom and gloom will do more harm to mankind if enough people choose to believe what you say, simply by interfering with nature. Luckily though, the vast majority do not believe man is responsible for GW. Those 'scientists' who dare to produce evidence that GW is a fallacy are somehow 'silenced'.
     
  22. njp

    njp
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,069
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +177
    Nobody denies the inevitability of change. But change can occur at different rates. Presumably you would object to the idea that it's perfectly alright to kill you now on the grounds that you are going to die eventually anyway?

    The issue with the recent climate change is that it is acyclic, and it is happening very fast. The evidence strongly suggests that it is being forced not by natural variation, but by what we have been doing to the planet. Even if we stopped producing CO2 entirely tomorrow (which is clearly impossible), the warming that we have started would continue for several more decades. So we are going to have to adapt to those changes anyway. The issue for the human race is how to minimise the rate of change, so that we have time to adapt.

    I'm still waiting for you to explain how "natural law" accounts for the demise of the dodo. Or the quagga, if you want an even more recent mammalian extinction.

    It's a shame the Natural Law Party is no longer registered as a political organisation in the UK. You'd have appreciated their efforts to solve the world's problems through the medium of yogic flying.
     
  23. pantages

    pantages
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    976
    Products Owned:
    2
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Boston
    Ratings:
    +64
    I couldn't care less that you are waiting, I don't sit at my PC 24/7. The fact that man was responsible for the demise of the dodo is irrelevant to natural law because I am sure that the man who killed the last dodo was unaware that it was the last one. If a species is wiped out by man, that does not change what is natural law. Nature controls our world, not us, and events such as the demise of the dodo et al are unfortunate, but one of those sad facts of life. Man does not control the world or the weather. (I'll be back in my own good time).
     
  24. damo_in_sale

    damo_in_sale
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,877
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +565
    The dodo became extinct because it was pathetic and useless. The same fate awaits the giant panda. Get over it.
     
  25. njp

    njp
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,069
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +177
    Your response is exactly as I predicted. And if mankind were to explode his entire nuclear arsenal tomorrow, you would claim that as another triumph for natural law!

    You and Neil are truly the philosophical heirs to Dr Pangloss.
     
  26. tapzilla2k

    tapzilla2k
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    7,580
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Oxford
    Ratings:
    +2,810
    That's a rather Nihilistic view to take. The most famous extinction i can think of is that of the Dodo. Which was caused by a mixture of human actions and the animals we bought with us on the ships.

    We are having an impact upon the wider environment if you like it or not. Cutting down trees and removing habitats for certain species is putting them under pressure, that they would not have been under if not for us and our need for some brand spanking new kitchen funiture. There are pratically millions of insect species that we have as yet not indentified. They are the true masters of evolution, not us puny humans. If you want to go by population sizes alone.
    Exxon Mobile has been distorting the global warming debate as a whole for the last decade or more. It is only interested in protecting it's profit margins. It does not give a monkeys about the rest of us.
    We need to be developing new technologies to replace our dependance on oil and other fossil fuels now, because they are going to run out within most of our lifetimes.
    Global warming or not, it would be prudent to be ahead of the rest of the world in developing new methods for generating clean energy.
     
  27. Wellington Tim

    Wellington Tim
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    147
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Ratings:
    +13
    tapzilla is perfectly correct regarding the extinction of the Dodo... the animal had no natural enemies until Europeans came along and killed them for food (and fun). The species man introduced did the rest.... nothing to do with nature, it was a man-made extinction...

    And to reverse your argumant... how do you know that's NOT true?
     
  28. Stuart Wright

    Stuart Wright
    AVForums Founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2000
    Messages:
    14,884
    Products Owned:
    7
    Products Wanted:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    167
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    Ratings:
    +10,858
    The whole reason why this forum exists is because man's influence on the climate is either having a detrimental effect on humanity or it certainly will do.
    If you don't agree with that, please don't post here.
    In my view, even if the majority of scientists are totally wrong and global warming is just a natural occurrence, we should still consider what effect we may be having on the environment to exacerbate the situation.
    Some people think that because I am the owner of this forum, I should not express my opinion about things if it's controversial. I have kept relatively quiet recently, but I created this forum to raise awareness of the issue and to discuss what we can do to ensure that our children and grandchildren do not suffer tomorrow because of our complacency today.
    Anyone who denies that man is having an effect on the global climate is an IDIOT. That's my opinion and if you feel insulted by that remark then you should not participate in this climate change forum.
     
  29. johntheexpat

    johntheexpat
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,367
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    France
    Ratings:
    +2,811
    Personally I believe that the GW debate has reached the stage that the anti-smoking debate was at 20 years ago- there is a good body of evidence to support it, but absolute positive proof has not yet been shown. Enough evidence to make people sit up and take notice but with some areas that can support the doubters too.
     
  30. njp

    njp
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,069
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +177
    As I keep pointing out, absolute positive proof of anything is simply not possible in an empirical science. Only in mathematics is that possible (and not always there, either). All you can ever have is a high degree of confidence that something is the case. I believe that this is where we are with GW, just as we are with smoking (and I'm pretty sure we were there with smoking at least 20 years ago, after the work of Richard Doll demonstrated the cancer link - but I haven't checked the timeline).
     

Share This Page

Loading...