Sunday, August 06, 2006
Farce of the Penguins
It's not just a Bob Saget movie, y'know.
So a rather stupid video about Al Gore and penguins has shown up on YouTube. And wouldn't you know it, the guy who made it works for a public relations group with ties to ExxonMobil.
There's a good deal of stuff in this article on how the Internet and various video hosting websites are being used in politics. But still, putting a point up on the Internet with flashy imagery means nothing if that point does not have evidence to back it up in a public venue. There's another quote in there from Marc Morano, communications chief for Jim "Global Warming = Reich Propaganda" Inhofe:
Marc Morano, communications chief for Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has led opposition to climate legislation on Capitol Hill, says an Internet strategy is both effective and necessary because mainstream news organizations are "promoting the message of Gore uncritically."
Right. "Uncritically." As if it's exalted by the media, despite the fact that, while 928 abstracts taken from peer-reviewed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 do not dispute the fact that climate change is at least spurred on by man, over half the news coverage of said issue puts it and the idea that climate change is perfectly natural on equal footing.
Y'know, I keep hearing a lot about "getting the message out," but all I see of that message is innuendo and happenstance. I see think tanks dedicated to overturning global warming theory founded by ExxonMobil, who most definitely have a vested interest in the matter. I see video mocking Al Gore for getting the opposite message out. I see video claiming that carbon is good for us, no matter how large the amount, and anyone who says otherwise just wants to overthrow the balance that keeps us alive. I see novels where, in between the presented data, environmentalists are portrayed as clueless fanatics.
Science has been wrong before. There have been cases in history, no matter how remote, where one person pointed out the flaws and changed scientific theory. If the think tanks and public relations groups of the energy industry have such a new age Galileo, then I would be glad to listen to him. But until then, if all I have to go on is corporately-funded numbers crunching and ad hominem mockery, I think I'll stick with science.
So a rather stupid video about Al Gore and penguins has shown up on YouTube. And wouldn't you know it, the guy who made it works for a public relations group with ties to ExxonMobil.
There's a good deal of stuff in this article on how the Internet and various video hosting websites are being used in politics. But still, putting a point up on the Internet with flashy imagery means nothing if that point does not have evidence to back it up in a public venue. There's another quote in there from Marc Morano, communications chief for Jim "Global Warming = Reich Propaganda" Inhofe:
Marc Morano, communications chief for Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has led opposition to climate legislation on Capitol Hill, says an Internet strategy is both effective and necessary because mainstream news organizations are "promoting the message of Gore uncritically."
Right. "Uncritically." As if it's exalted by the media, despite the fact that, while 928 abstracts taken from peer-reviewed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 do not dispute the fact that climate change is at least spurred on by man, over half the news coverage of said issue puts it and the idea that climate change is perfectly natural on equal footing.
Y'know, I keep hearing a lot about "getting the message out," but all I see of that message is innuendo and happenstance. I see think tanks dedicated to overturning global warming theory founded by ExxonMobil, who most definitely have a vested interest in the matter. I see video mocking Al Gore for getting the opposite message out. I see video claiming that carbon is good for us, no matter how large the amount, and anyone who says otherwise just wants to overthrow the balance that keeps us alive. I see novels where, in between the presented data, environmentalists are portrayed as clueless fanatics.
Science has been wrong before. There have been cases in history, no matter how remote, where one person pointed out the flaws and changed scientific theory. If the think tanks and public relations groups of the energy industry have such a new age Galileo, then I would be glad to listen to him. But until then, if all I have to go on is corporately-funded numbers crunching and ad hominem mockery, I think I'll stick with science.
Comments:
<< Home
Agreed. As long as Greed is the driving farce for scientific rebuttle, I'll stick with the science. Imagine if an oil company only walked away with $1,000,000,000 annual profit instead of several billion?
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 9:47 AM
: 9:47 AM << Home
