Global Warming

I didn't mention anything about any sort of conspiracy theory--that's you putting words in my mouth again. All I said was that media and political interests tend to hype and exaggerate things in favor of partisan political agendas. That is a pretty incontrovertible fact.

Exactly--just like terrorism, there is a real problem at the core, but media and political interests tend to distort the severity of the problem depending on their partisan political agendas.

In fact, I'll even go so far as to say that I think the real issue here is merchandising and marketing, not some sinister political conspiracy. Basically, each side desperately wants to sell their own point of view--their agenda--to the public. So, as a result, facts get distorted and blown out of proportion.

Firstly, what do you mean again? I didn't put words into your mouth in the first place, as you were forced to admit.

Secondly, i exaggerated your language, because i feel your point is exaggerated (and also, ironically, a needless piece of 'scaremongering' ). Let's examine it shall we...

The accusation i'm trying to get you to justify is your specific claim that global warming is being exagerrated by partisan groups.

I asked you for evidence, even theoretical or actual, which could back up your idea. You are still totally avoiding this necessity. You are still yet to explain:

-who is doing this
-how they are exagerrating the information
-what they benefit from it.

There's no point banging on about the 'Terrorism' example if you don't present any sort of evidence or cogent theory that relates to GW.

Until you establish a basis for your argument, there's no point discussing this. At the moment you're presenting nothing more than a wild and utterly-unfounded accusation.

Get on with it. Then i can refute it. (Because there's so much more evidence of politicians playing down Global Warming warnings than there is of them exagerrating them)

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Sure. But it doesn't help if you assume every disturbing and emotionally-affecting issue presented to you has been swung beyond recognition.

If you spent any time at all digging beneath the media presentation of GW you'd know that there genuinely is plenty to be concerned about. Saying "the problem is not half as great as it is hyped up to be by the media and by left-wing political interests" suggests a large assumption on your part.

Try looking beyond the media and political spin. It's a necessary life-skill

Okay, first off, let's not fly off the handle! Chill out, man!

On to your points:
Well, fact is that you (and others) have, in the past, often put words in my mouth, distorting or misrepresenting my claims, even, on occasion, quoting me out of context. I was referring to those cases.

Firstly, I don't think your exaggeration of my language is justified even if you feel my point is exaggerated. Secondly, I don't think my point is, in any way, an exaggeration.


Very simple--turn on the news and you will see exactly what I am referring to. I don't know if you get CNN or Fox News in the UK, but anyone in the US who has access to these and other cable news channels will understand exactly what I am referring to. In fact, my point applies just as well to other news media sources--print, the internet, radio, etc. Basically, what I am saying is that the media, invariably with an end to promoting the partisan political agenda that they represent or endorse, tends to distort the facts one way or the other, exaggerating or downplaying the situation to justify their partisan agenda. In addition, I am referring to press releases from the administration, public announcements by the administration, policies endorsed by the administration, press conferences held by members of the administration, etc. All of these (and other) scenarios are examples of my point--that the facts get distorted and blown out of proportion depending on the underlying political agenda that the concerned party intends to promote.

E.g. if you turn on CNN and watch repeated news coverage about hurricane devastation followed by reports on global warming (all of which tend to be blown out of proportion), it's pretty evident that they are sensationalizing the news in an attempt to promote an environmental-friendly political agenda. On the other hand, if you turn on the Fox News channel and watch repeated coverage about terrorist bombings, the Iraq war and the global terrorist threat, it's pretty obvious that they are attempting to promote a war-on-terror political agenda. Both are examples of scare tactics employed by partisan media groups in an attempt to sell or market a specific political agenda to the public.

That's what I'm referring to. I hope my point is clear enough now!

Actually, sure--the news is all subjective. It's always spun one way or the other. How many times can one claim to get an unbiased, objective report on anything these days? It's virtually impossible. The only way you can be sure of anything is to be as open-minded as possible and listen to every side of the issue.

It's easy to talk about, but not so easy to do. Spin is everywhere--most of the time it deceives most of the people. The only way you can possibly have an objective view on anything is to have access to news sources that are very often inaccessible. I'm not advocating paranoia here, but it's really impossible to tell how accurate any news is unless you have an objective gauge to measure it against, like being an actual eyewitness to the events described in the news. Without that, it's all about the credibility of your sources. For the average man on the street, it's virtually impossible to make that kind of determination. For example, (and I personally love this example), the New York Times reporter Jayson Blair got away with outright lies he was passing off as journalism on several occasions, until it was finally revealed that he was fabricating his stories. But how was it possible to determine that his stories were utter fabrications until this was revealed? How can one test the credibility of the news you see on TV or read in the papers? It's virtually impossible. TV news routinely passes off stock footage as "live" reporting. Some news channels even go so far as to film their "live" reports in front of a green screen, with stock footage added in to created the illusion of being live. With all this going on in the news industry, you're telling me that "looking beyond the media and political spin" is "a necessary life-skill"? Dude, for most people, it's virtually impossible to do!

It was clear from the start Djangles. At no point have i disagreed with you about the media distorting information, and sometimes down partisan lines.

What you have avoided doing, is justifying your claim that politicians have been exagerrating Global Warming claims. Your media examples are in no way evidence of this.

You said this...

Now prove it, with respect to GW.

(There are some examples of it, but i want you to produce them - so i can show you how puny they are when compared to the examples of GW science being downplayed by politicians)

---

If you're going to put down GW-fears to partisan-squabbling and media-exaggeration then you're guilty of ignoring a serious problem simply because of the spin attached to its presentation by numerous parties. That makes me angry, because it means you've taken your eye off the ball and are focusing on the wrong thing. Clear?

Everyone should come over to my place. I've already equiped it with as many floaties as I could get my hands on and have made all the windows air tight. Next week I'm thinking about adding a Propeller So I can visit other places.

In my opinion, you are all blowing this way out of porportion. There is almost nothing short of a miracle that can occur to stop what we are doing to the planet. It's going to happen, my only comfort is that it will probably be my Children's and grandchildrens problem because it's not going to be anything terribly dramatic for a while. It's not like the ocean is going to rise a few thousand feet in one day. Besides, Humans adapt. We will not be killed by some melted ice, trust me on this. And when it gets to that, we will probably already have developed the technology to fix our hole over the North Pole

__________________
"An Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
-Ben Kingsley, GHANDI

"Snozberries taste like snozberries"

Scepticism is necessary, yes, but you can't let it dominate your view.

With regards to GW reports you've got very little excuse to give in to spin, because you can go straight to the 'facts'. You've got the internet - check in on the websites of science magazines that follow the research - read about the polemical issues from the scientists themselves. Cut out the obviously-manipulative middle-men.

I won't go into detail on ways to side-step spin, because this isn't the right thread for it, but it is possible, to varying degrees. Let's just say that there's no point adopting a position of 'it's all lies'. Find reliable sources with a good track record, research the facts behind dubious stories where possible...

And above all - don't accuse GW of being a media/political myth near me again. Coz my god i'll spank you with info. (If you ever present a factually-justified argument that is )

Erm, are you sure you aren't blowing it out of proportion?

You're right that we're fairly screwed (human nature and population growth do mean that our chances of reducing our emissions by the necessary amounts are pretty slim).

Don't under-estimate just how nasty the implications of 'accelerated' global-warming 'shift' are though. Those two little issues of human nature and population size are gonna really come into play if-and-when the 'shift' takes hold, and competition over desirable-land and drinkable-water really kick in.

Hey ho. Like you say, we probably won't feel the brunt of it anyway - but i'm not sure i want my grandkids having no choice but to live the Mad Max way

I should be charging you $10/- per word at this point, but I'll make an exception here because I find the subject interesting.

Firstly, let's not lose perspective--this discussion began with a reference to a fictional book by Michael Crichton. Secondly, I don't claim to be an expert on this subject. Thirdly, I am not politically aligning myself one way or the other here--I am only obliging your request for specific examples.

That said, here goes (3 specific examples of fear-mongering by politicians related to global warming):

• A speech by Tony Blair--a classic example of panic-inducing hyperbole (in a sincere-sounding English accent)
• A speech by Al Gore (whom I otherwise respect, but I don't condone this sort of exagerrated fear-mongering)
• A speech by the mayor of Salt Lake City, UT--begins well, makes many valid points, but laces his speech with claims that I find pretty far-fetched

I want to underscore that environmental issues are a legitimate concern for me--I am totally for a cleaner and greener environment. However, that does not justify fear-mongering. I think a better approach would be education and positive actions and measures. I'm sure there are plenty of those. But fear-mongering through speculative hyperbole is uncalled for and achieves nothing of value, IMO. It's a self-defeating negative approach.

That said, there is clearly a great deal of positive work being done about real environmental problems, and, obviously, global warming due to emission of greenhouse gases is clearly one of them--in no way do I or have I ever denied the reality or seriousness of this issue. My point is that this issue, along with many other real, threatening issues, tend to be exploited by politicians to promote their personal agendas through hyperbole and fear-mongering. My point is that fear-mongering serves no real purpose. Inducing mass hysteria or creating a panic attack in the public achieves nothing. It's far more effective to educate people on the issues and promote real solutions to the problems. Fear is ultimately based on ignorance, and fear-mongering is about promoting ignorance. It's far more effective to educate than it is to terrorize.

Who told you that? Great improvements could be achieved if everyone did a little bit each.

Well, that's very thoughtful of you...

Are you aware of the consequences if the ocean would rise one feet in one year?

Please tell me your kind is rare...


Moving on to whether the effects of global warming are being exaggerated and all that...

What would be the motive for any political fraction to exaggerate that threat? That is something I would like to have explained for me. What has been exaggerated is the connection between nature disasters such as the Tsunami and Katrina, events that could have been a result of global warming, but it could just as much not be a result of global warming. But who's making these exaggerations: the media. As with everything else the mainstream commercial media is picking out the most spectacular aspects of everything, simplifying and sensationalizing it and blowing it out of porportion. Media rarely speaks about the real effects of real global warming because it's not as spectacular as talking about Katrina being the result of the green house effect. Nevertheless it's there and it is effecting us right now. But I'm not very surprised that so many here have such an amazingly ignorant attitude about this - not with Mr. Oil in the White House.

Some people talk about how it's normal for the Earth to go through "ups and downs" and that the planet - and the beings living on it - will adapt. It is true that the Earth has gone through good and bad, heat and cold. The difference is that, if we take the Ice Age for instance, that was something that happened over time. And with "over time" I don't mean in a hundred years but thousands of years. Thing is, the changes in climate that we see now is the result of Industrialism and the Consumer Society - phenomenons not one century old. In other words, if the life of this planet was one week, we are destroying it in one millisecond if we keep doing what we're doing.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Dude, don't take this stuff personally. I understand that global warming is probably a personal issue for you and that you feel passionately about it, and I commend you for it. But my point is in no way to downplay the seriousness of an obviously serious issue. And it's true that there are plenty of sources indicating that this is a serious issue.

My point is the more general point that legitimate issues are all too often manipulated or exploited by politicians and the media to promote or endorse or sell or market certain political agendas. I'm saying that scare tactics in the media and in politics (which is everywhere, IMO) is basically a marketing strategy--it's about scaring the public into accepting an idea or a theory or a political agenda. That's what I am objecting to, in a very general, non-specific sense. Get that? I'm saying that scare tactics used as a marketing strategy is fundamentally wrong! It's also self-defeating and promotes ignorance and mass hysteria.

What's the solution? Education. Discussion. Legitimate debate. In my experience, these are much more productive and useful when it comes to the dissemination of information or the promotion of ideas or inspiring a certain attitude or course of action. This works, IMO, and is a better, more positive course of action. You see this all the time, even in the marketing arena. Infomercials are proven to be effective. Scaring the public only hurts everyone in the long term.

So that's my bottom line--politicians and media interests should stop terrorizing the public with their unfounded, exaggerated speculative claims and rather seek to educate the public with facts.

Conspiracy, terrorism, raped religion, social drugs that toy with ya and public pollution to the minds of the blind...

What will you do as an individual to clean or correct this... or maybe just balance it out?

Feeling the change in the belly of the beast or is it just the Starshucks mocha?

__________________

Not exactly - this discussion started when you stated that the book made a valid statement about the real world.

Yes, i think that's one of the annoying parts. You've been filling up this thread with a mainly unrelated issue which actually obscures the science, and the presentation issues, that we should be talking about.

So let's see. Are these the type of things you have a problem with...?

Tony Blair:
"1. If what the science tells us about climate change is correct, then unabated it will result in catastrophic consequences for our world.

2. The science, almost certainly, is correct."

Similar scary science-based scenarios were brought up by your next example... but like Blair he also strove to sound positive notes...

Al Gore
"The solutions are more accessible than people thought," he said. "We can do this."

This is the man of whom the article says: "he was, at times, uncharacteristically funny." - And this while 'scare-mongering', you claim. Could it be that you were sucked in by the sensationalist article title "Global warming called an emergency"?

Are these the type of things you're objecting to? In which case you've proved my point. They're quoting the climate scientists! (And they're seeking out positive and practical routes that we can take ).

As for The Mayor of Salt Lake City, well, he's the Mayor of Salt Lake City. His science comes from CNN. (But actually, i'm intrigued by what you object to in his parochial little claims. Objections to giant malls? I would've thought you'd approve ). Either way, he's hardly provoking the "mass hysteria" you've been talking about with his derogatory remarks about cars. If he errs in his interpretation of the science, then that only shows how important it is to understand the scientific claims as fully as possible (before making claims about them either way).

So yes, the reputable speeches by big politicians make 'scarey' claims - but all of those claims are sourced in science. There's no exaggeration going on in the claims they're making. Or if there is, you would have to point the finger at the scientists.

And if you do that, you'll have to know your facts.

Exactly - so why hold the spectre of political-exaggeration-for-manipulation-purposes over the GW issue? It's practically non-existant on those terms. You are conjuring up an unnecessary and unrealistic fear, with regards to GW..

If you've got a problem with the 'fearful' nature of the scientific conclusions, tackle them instead. Educate yourself

I'm sure it isn't. But by attributing the 'fearful' aspect of GW predictions to political spin, which is what you're basically doing, you are downplaying the very thing we should be concentrating on overcoming.

Exactly. And altho a genuine issue, it really isn't that relevant here. There is no significant political exaggeration of GW issues that needs to be recognised or overcome. Do you not see that?

As for the media...

Media irresponsibility and sensationalising is indeed a problem. Focus on misrepresentations of the science by all means. Criticise the over-rushed connections that have been made between hurricanes and GW, for example - like me and Piddz have on this very thread .

It's so much more positive to focus on what can be done, dontcha think, rather than beating up strawmen all day long

But not everyone is willing to do anything. Don't get me wrong, I try to to do as much as I can but being a 16 year old kid, I can't do much to help with the limited amount of resources I have at hand. I think it's a terrible thing. Some people are perfectly willing to help, and some people are perfectly willing to sit on their @$$ and point the finger at someone else for not doing anything.

As for that thing about my children and grandchildren, I was just trying to lighten the mood a little, it seemed too dark to me. Obviously it didn't work though.

Let's clarify that point--Michael Crichton's book State of Fear is a work of fiction that describes a conspiracy theory in which environmental terrorists use acts of terrorism to promote the fear of global warming to promote their environmentalist socio-political agenda. In no way do I believe that to be fact. In no way do I endorse the belief that there is a "green conspiracy" among environmentalists to use terrorism to promote an environmental-friendly political agenda. Where I think the book does make a valid point is that legitimate issues (like global warming, terrorism, etc.) are frequently exploited and distorted through hyperbole and exaggeration by the media and by politicians to promote their own socio-political agendas. That's the point I made--for the sake of clarity.

On the contrary, I'm talking about the point I made, based on Michael Crichton's book. You are talking about how terrible global warming is.

That is, exactly, my point. These speeches do make valid claims--I have admitted that repeatedly. However, what they then do is lace their claims with exaggerated, far-fetched claims that tend to provoke mass hysteria. It's like Bush making a speech in congress about Iraq's supposed WMD program, using limited factual evidence blown out of proportion and, thereby fabricating a non-existent threat. The result? Gulf War II, with it's tragic consequences.

I'm talking about the general issue of political manipulation based on a book by Michael Crichton, which happens to associate this issue with global warming.

No, I don't find the scientific facts scary. What concerns me is how politicians and the media exaggerate the science to scare the public as part of a marketing strategy to sell their pet agendas.

No, I'm saying that politicians spin the facts to scare the public. The actual scientific facts are not as scary as what the politicians and media make them out to be.

No, I don't see that. The political exaggeration is very significant. It's hype. The scientific facts are hardly that terrible. Yes, there is a long term possibility of some limited climatic change over the course of several centuries resulting from unchecked pollution, etc., but hardly enough to justify the sort of panic or mass hysteria that politicians like Tony Blair of Al Gore seem to be advocating. Like I said, with education and information, the threat can be curbed, assuming that it exists (and there are many who claim that it does not).

And I congratulate you both wholeheartedly for that.

I agree about focusing on what can and should be done, and I also agree that it is more positive (I've been saying that all along). I'm not trying to beat up strawmen. Rather, I'm criticizing political and media spin and hype.

I am very close to misplacing my levelheadedness...you know who you are......... and why.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton