PR Firm Behind Al Gore YouTube Spoof? 777
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."
Obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obvious? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you've been incredibly naive, that is.
Re:Obvious? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Interesting)
LIBERAL != LEFT.
In our current state of politics in the United States, traditionally classified liberals tend to lean towards leftist ideas, but for some reason we seem to think the two are synonymous. They are not.
Re:Obvious? (Score:3, Informative)
So having an agenda on forced redistribution is the test of being liberal or not? Also once again im reading deceptive wording. Using words like "agenda of forced" makes it seem like a minority is forcing a majority to do something. Also im nto even sure what your talking about but I assume you mean policies such as student funding and food banks are "forced redistribution (of wealth)".
But back to your original statement, no my example does
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The Chicken-Hawks. Creators of Freedom Fries and the stupid flag thing, they love Jesus, NASCAR and War. Their patron representatives are the conservative republicans. Side-effects of this group include abortion bans, the military-industrial complex, the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and the Iraq War. They are scared of, and I quote: "Ragheads, Niggers, Jews, Wetbacks, and 'terrorists'".
2. The Lefties. Creators of the "War on Globalization" and Greenpeace, they love Wicca, Soccer and War. Their patron representatives cannot get elected right now, or ever. They relegate themselves to Indymedia.org and protests. Side effects of this group include Wiretapping initiatives, the rise of the Neo-Cons in '00, coffee houses and the Canada thing. They are scared of Militant Christians, logical debate, and growing up.
3. Everyone Else. Creators of the economy, common sense, the space program, etc., they love to worship whatever they worship in moderation, football and baseball, and Peace. Side effects of this group include a strong American economy, foreign policy that is just the right balance between isolationist and imperialist, and the 50-50 distribution of votes in the last election. These people are having a hard time deciding who they trust, so they vote almost at random based on maybe one hotbed issue that is different for each of them. They are afraid of Chicken Hawks and Lefties.
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Obvious? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, we are certainly recovering from a time of prosperity and financial certainty and returning to the more natural state of depression and fear of crippling poverty that preceded his disasterous policies. Whew! Thank goodness!
Re:Obvious? (Score:3, Informative)
Republicans brought an end to slavery in America.
Wow, talk about a radicaly outdated reference. The republican party of Lincoln is almost nothing like the party of today. packeteer said it well when he said it was liberals who freed the slaves, not modern day republicans.
I also find it funny that, that is the most recent positive d
get a clue (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Obvious? (Score:3, Insightful)
See, the problem with dems paying kids to push their talking points by phone is that it's telemarketing, and people hate telemarketing.
The problem with thugs paying a PR firm to produce a smeer video full of false information under the guise of gentle jesting by a person
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obvious? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Interesting)
"The best PR goes unnoticed" is apt in this case. PR firms wouldnt survive if you knew who paid them.
Read this [prwatch.org] 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.
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [gregpalast.com], but a direct link to dirty tricks like this would be hitting an all-new low. (As if cooking elections isn't low enough.)
Re:Obvious? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, I don't particulary support the oil companies (don't even own a car, and I even walk most places as 'suggested' in this spoof) but I think the global warming scare has been blown so much out of proportion that it has begun to look a lot like a religious cult where facts and reality has stopped being important at all, and the core idea is bigger than anything.
Nobody stops up anymore and questions anything. It is now considered a fact carved in stone that global warming occurs, that it is entirely man-made and that the right action by man absolutely will fix everything. It is heresy to even consider that some or all of the effects seen might be the result of some natural process not understood completely. It is downright blasphemy to even hint that the suggested actions intended to fix things actually might make things worse (due to lack of understanding of the deeper issues).
I think it's time for some serious de-programming here.
Re:Obvious? (Score:4, Informative)
That so many have begun questioning this is a testimony to the effectiveness of recent PR campaigns from those who'd suffer from regulations.
Please don't just take my word for it though. Do the research yourself. Find workers in the field and ask them for their opinion. Find web pages and articles that discredit the theory that humans caused global warming and DO BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON THE AUTHORS. That last point cannot be stressed well enough, as it will reveal a disturbing pattern of vested interests and hidden sponsors.
As an example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_o
I recommend the book "Trust Us, We're Experts" to anyone wanting to get insight into how the modern PR industry operates.
Ulf Magnusson
Re:Obvious? (Score:4, Informative)
"Monsanto's PR firm admits involvement in e-mail campaign to discredit scientists"
(2002)
http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/news/100
Re:Obvious? (Score:3, Insightful)
Solutions to the problem often cut out oil usage. No problem, no solutions, no oil-cutting needed.
The Linux Penguin (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Linux Penguin (Score:3, Interesting)
I was intrigued to see that Roblimo has posted this video to YouTube, after he saw the astroturf video in the Slashdot submission bin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y08z9QMe0o [youtube.com]
Re:The Linux Penguin (Score:3, Insightful)
Because taking credit for another person's work is fraud. It's as close as you can get to actually "stealing" information, taking it (or at least the credit for it) away from its author. Sharing music, on the other hand, doesn't involve deceiving anyone about the origins of the music, unless you're intentionally mislabeling the f
Re:The Linux Penguin (Score:3, Informative)
Missing the obvious... (Score:3, Interesting)
-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...
Re:The Linux Penguin (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Linux Penguin (Score:4, Insightful)
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".
Someone should consult a lawyer... (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [boldoutlaw.com] side chortles), if one calls the firm rumored to have done the work [sourcewatch.org] 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....
Re:The Linux Penguin (Score:3)
What? Linux gets along fine with trademark and copyright law.
Re:The Linux Penguin (Score:3, Interesting)
Source: http://www.isc.tamu.edu/~lewing/linux/ [tamu.edu]
I don't have a YouTube account. Anybody want to ask toutsmith where the penguins come from?
{old,new} news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:{old,new} news (Score:5, Insightful)
There is opportunity here to inform the cow-like public that they are being manipulated by assholes. US elections have become a race among liars and crooks. Time to demand better, partly by taking responsibility for one's own role in the process.
If enough of us take the time to care about the social quality of the candidate, we can have a system of honest, compassionate, competent people who are in it because they want us all to do well. A rising tide floats all boats: the greater the common good (ocean), the greater the individual good (your boat).
The only way to have long-term generational success is to ensure we make sure everyone has the opportunity for good health, good education, good standards, and good safety.
Re:{old,new} news (Score:5, Insightful)
For those of you too young to remember, that one of the big issues during the 1992 campaign. Republicans said that Clinton didn't have the character to make a good president, and Democrats kept pounding home that, "character doesn't matter," making the Republicans out to be old-fashioned 1950's squares who didn't understand that running the country doesn't take integrity.
Fast-forward to a post-Lewinsky world and neither side seems to give a crap about the integrity of their candidates.
Re:{old,new} news (Score:4, Funny)
Re:{old,new} news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:{old,new} news (Score:5, Insightful)
While republican pundits and gop congressmen were tearing their own shirts in self-righteous indignation over the result of an $80 million investigation over real estate deals (a stained blue dress), the rest of the world didn't snicker at Clinton's peccadilloes, they in fact snickered at "the ridiculousness of those american prudes, so hung up about sex".
And then, the ringleader of the impeachment movement, Newt Gingrich, resigned his post on the eve of Larry Flynt publishing in Hustler the nine extramarital affairs Gingrich had been involved in during the previous twenty years.
And then, Gingrich's replacement, Robert Livingstone, who promised to continue the good fight for morals, integrity and decency, withdrew when Mr. Flynt uncovered one of his extramarital affairs.
And then, the largest mouthpiece against Clinton's sins, thrice-divorced comedian Rush Limbaugh, is caught with industrial quantities of OxyContin and, later, unprescribed Viagra while returning from a caribbean vacation.
These hypocritical imbeciles are seen as 'martyrs' and/or 'heroes' in republican twisted family values circles, while Clinton is viewed as The Devil Himself. Yeah, right.
What many people do not get is that Clinton did not parade a stained blue dress in front of all the american public, children included, republicans did. Clinton did not flaunt and wave the image of a soaked cigar in front of the american public, republicans did. And then they tore their shirts in moral indignation at how the minds of children are being poisoned with decadence and depravity.
Under republican so-called standards of decency:
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and that would be Bill Clinton.
Re:{old,new} news (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the narrative of the '92 election put forth by the Republicans. While I'm sure in this vast country you can probably find a Democrat that uttered these words, this was just a Republican talking point, a straw argument they attributed to their enemies so they could manipulate the opinions of their base. Looks like it worked in your case.
A more representative Democratic viewpoint on character is this: character matters, but it's complex. Good people do bad things some times. Democrats believe in mitigating circumstances and allowances for human weakness. Republicans do not. Thus, in the Democratic view, a good man man might cheat on his wife in a moment of weakness, but he wouldn't bring up divorce when his wife while she was in a hospital bed recovering from surgery. The difference is character: in one case it's a common place flaw, in the other it's wanton self centeredness. The Republican viewpoint makes no allowance for circumstance of human weakness. It's wrong to cheat on your wife, so that's bad. It's unfortunate, but sometimes necessary to discuss divorce, so that's OK.
Yet, the standard issue Republican viewpoint on character is more rotten than merely misguided.
We would do well to remember what a Republican politician who sets himself up as a role model is: a politican. It only makes sense to heed this if you think politicians are suitable ethical role models. They're not. There's too much temptation. I'd even rather set up athletes as role models than politicians.
The reason Bill Bennett gets heat over his gambling problems is because he does not live up to his own professed standards, nor does he alter those standards in light of his personal experience. He remains a self-righteous scold who plies his self-appointed trade as arbiter of moral virtue as a weapon against people who disagree with him. Same with Rush and his drug problems.
You've given us the Republican view of the Democratic view on character. Now let me return the favor.
From the Democratic standpoint, the Republicans view of character consists of burdens they place on others and not themselves, of standards they impose on others with no intention of living up to themselves. It's a logical outcome of a political philosophy forged to defend the special privileges of the powerful and wealthy. In the Vietnam era, it promoted the benefits of anticommunism and wartime spending without the burden of fighting the war. Now, it's the future burden of deficit spending for war profiteering, and the liquidation of the nation's social and economic gains for current profit. Capital is, after all, mobile. Those who make their living from it can exploit the homeland and move the fruits offshore, the way corrupt oligarchies did throughout the twentieth century in countless third world countries.
Now, if the Republicans get to define "character" then I'll stand up and say "Character (as defined by the Republicans is a political ploy. It does not matter."
Makes sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
You must not frequent youtube.
Maybe this link will work. (Score:4, Informative)
And if any PR company produced that, they're seriously over paid.
Re:Maybe this link will work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Afraid you're missing the point. YouTube is largely community-produced content, often full of drunken dancing / buffoonery and clips from TV shows, etc. This clip was designed to "fit in" and look as amateurish as the rest of the tripe on YouTube to pass the smell test for most of the content there.
I'd say they did their job brilliantly.
Re:Maybe this link will work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, if they make it look too stupid, it just reflects badly upon their side...
Re:Maybe this link will work. (Score:3, Interesting)
I bet we could find out lots in discovery if both Exxon and DCI were to be sued for trademark and copyright infringement (you'd need discovery to make the linkage to Exxon).
GRAA WANTS YOU!!! (Score:3, Funny)
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
Continuation (Score:5, Insightful)
And, notice the penguins (Score:3)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Au contraire... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The real troubling thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether that's true or not, I see a deeper effect that works to serve their interests. These sorts of stories reinforce the cynicism people have about politics, which instead of getting more ordinary people to demand their voices be heard, has lead to a disengagement from the political process.
Greed knows no bounds. (Score:3, Interesting)
"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.
Will the real photo please stand up? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can You Tell Which Photos Are Real? [popsci.com]
Take these quizzes to see how well you can spot digital tampering
Horrible movie anyhow (Score:5, Insightful)
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!"
Re:Horrible movie anyhow (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that THEY think Gore is wrong, they KNOW he is right. It's that they want YOU to think he is wrong. Otherwise it makes no sense not to just lay the fact smackdown on him from the start. This kind of thing is just to "convince" people who are already sort of in the mood to be contrary anyway who will then go and make a lot of noise and thus turn the debate into, "Oh, don't worry, it's just those two crackpot extrememist groups at it again... Boy it's hot, pass me another gin and gasoline please".
Re:Valid argument? You're kidding! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Horrible movie anyhow (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately this news story if correct disproves that defense.
Re:Horrible movie anyhow (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah. I mean, how many other industries make only nine cents per unit profit, while selling hundreds of millions of units a week?
Oh - and your little oil industry pity party forgot one thing - there are many, many products made from oil. Fuel is one of the less profitable products per volume, but it is profitable - most other products made from petrochemica
Why is this news? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to make it look as if there is a grassroot movement.
It's like the prefab letters (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3190934.s
It's like producing thousands of letters-from-the-public to look to be genuinely written by granny's. ("In 2001, the Los Angeles Times accused Microsoft of astroturfing when hundreds of similar letters were sent to newspapers voicing disagreement with the United States Department of Justice and its antitrust suit against Microsoft. The letters, prepared by Americans for Technology Leadership, had in some cases been mailed from deceased citizens or nonexistent addresses. [3]" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing [wikipedia.org])
It's like writing that Indians will be oh so happy with GMO cotton (http://www.newkerala.com/news3.php?action=fullne
That's LYING and CHEATING for profit. That's the problem.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay... and how did you reach this conclusion? I've seen Gore's movie and I can assure you that it does not accuse you personally of being manipulative. Of course, when a Republican PR firm releases a video that poses as an amateur work and makes personal attacks against Gore and says that everyone who agrees with him is
Re:Why is this news? (Score:3, Interesting)
Have a look at a climate summit and see the so-called grassroot organisations with the there-ain't-any-human-influence glossy folders, then do some research and find out that they are frontgroups of the oil industry.
I'm more in the genetic world than in the climate scene, and in this world it is SO common that pro-GM sounds turn out to be astroturf. Recent example:
+ INDUSTRY FUNDED LOBBY GROUP IN CURITIBA
Among the pro-biotech lobby groups active in Curitiba
Again and again, such firms need to be closed (Score:5, Insightful)
This is NOT democracy. Anyone who tells that this is democracy, are probably other paid propagandists.
Double whammy (Score:3, Interesting)
Another will spring up. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's actually an interesting read: http://militant.org/files/propaganda.pdf [militant.org]. 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 popu
YouTube search (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Al Gore's Penguin Army [youtube.com]
Al Gore's Penguin Army - Propaganda [youtube.com]
'Al Gore's Penguin Army' Misuses Linux Mascot! [youtube.com]
CMD vs DCI? (Score:5, Interesting)
"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?
Re:CMD vs DCI? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the average citizen is a disinterested party. The head of a company that pumps billions of tons of carbon into the air (directly or indirectly) has a lot more to lose (short term, we all lose long term) if Al Gore is right.
Re:CMD vs DCI? (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps English is not your first language. This is one of those subtle aspects of English that give non-native-speakers quite legitimate fits.
"Dis-interested" in this context means that you do not have a financial interest in a given position.
The CEO of a company that is embedded in the hydrocarbon economy--an oil, coal or automobile company, to name but a few examples--has an interest in convincing people that global warming is nothing to worry about, because their company's profits and the CEO's fat bonus and golden handshake depends on it.
The average
"Dis-interested" does not mean "has no opinion." It means, "has no non-rational (financial , religious or similar) reason for pushing a particular opinion over others."
Re:CMD vs DCI? (Score:3, Interesting)
Provide me with -ONE- peer reviewed article that says that global warming isnt taking place.
Also - I've done some research on this - of the vocal "scientists" that argue against global warming, all but one that I've read about was or is on the payroll of big oil. That one scientist that isnt - argues against everything. He still argues that smoking doesnt cause cancer.
Manbearpig (Score:4, Funny)
well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:well... (Score:3, Interesting)
Even wierder: The Megaphone Desktop Toolbar (Score:5, Interesting)
There are wierder online PR things. See the Megaphone Desktop Toolbar. [giyus.org] 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 [standwithus.com]. 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 [theglobeandmail.com], but it's not about the technology.
DCI also runs Tech Central Station (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
WSJ Article of the 3rd was more informative. (Score:4, Interesting)
The WSJ has some great writers, just skip the editorials and art reviews.
Thanks DCI! (Score:3, Interesting)
the thing was terrible (Score:4, Insightful)
Can a climte change skeptic answer (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Can a climate change skeptic answer? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
The Video (Score:4, Informative)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI [youtube.com]
-Bill
Re:Disclosure? (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Re:Disclosure? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Disclosure? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Disclosure? (Score:3, Informative)
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 c
Re:Disclosure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Try googling carbon-neutral gore [google.com], 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 [wired.com], 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.
Hello Mr Orwell? Call for you on line 3! (Score:5, Insightful)
War is Peace. Hate is Love. Oil Companies are a LOT richer than they were 5 years ago. All is well.
Re:This was less interesting when I submitted it.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:This was less interesting when I submitted it.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Politicians lying to people? No, just Republica (Score:3, Insightful)
"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, wheneve
Re:Politicians lying to people? No, just Republica (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Republican(?) PR Firm. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DCI_Gr
Re:Playing God and the Devil (Score:5, Insightful)
To make matters even more decetful, these rapist advertise everywhere, then argue that if we don't like it we can walk to work.
The oil companies aren't forcibly raping us. We're bending over, spreading our cheeks, and taking it without lube from them!
We drive unnecessarily huge, inefficient cars. We live in comparatively big houses which are often poorly designed (read: no passive solar heat in winter, no convection ventilation in summer) even if well insulated. We oppose the construction of new nuke and hydro power plants: not in my backyard! We commute to work by car from 40 or 50 miles away. We don't complain when our employers put up a new headquarters in the middle of nowhere. We haven't electrified our railroads in order to move freight without using oil.
This isn't rape. This is a consensual masochistic activity on the part of the US.
-b.
Re:The oil companies love Al Gore. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many people out there who 'walk the walk'. However, you are never going to hear from them because they live frugally on their farms and don't have access to the media that Gore does.
Yes, Gore is a politically active member of the American upper class. Like most other members of the American upper class, he uses lots of energy. Unlike them, however, he also works to get the message out about global warming. In return for his hard work, he gets called a hypocrite, while his equally energy-using do-nothing peers all skate by without a second look. No good deed goes unpunished, of course... but I for one am glad that someone with the resources to make a real difference also has to balls to do so -- even if it does mean taking flack from the peanut gallery.
Re:U.S. government corruption: Let's fix it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Changes will have to address the failures of democracy, in its present form, and look at more sane alternatives such as decentralized self-government and the over-encroachment of goverment in the daily lives of citizens.
False equivalence, and you know it (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:False equivalence, and you know it (Score:5, Insightful)
Gore's "one-sided view of the 'facts', presented as truth" was an argument. That's how you make an honest argument: You draw a conclusion from facts, you present the facts that support your conclusion along with your sources for them, and you do it under your own name and with your own motivations on the table.
Flinging snarky personal insults while pretending to be someone else is not argument, and it's not honest.
Re:False equivalence, and you know it (Score:5, Insightful)
When you base your argument on facts, and you present the facts that support your argument, and you provide the sources for those facts, and you do it under your own name, you're not just propagandizing.
When you take baseless jabs at the other side, without bothering to argue the facts or the other side's reasoning, well, then you are just propagandizing.
It takes either shameless disingenuousness or ethical bankruptcy to claim that Gore's methods and DCI's are the same. Whichever afflicts you, I hope you get over it. I just wanted to make sure that your post didn't go unrefuted, so I'm done here.
Re:Anyone else see the irony (Score:3, Insightful)
There are not two sides to scientific fact. Even a minor amount of research on your part will reveal that there is no myth or debate over global warming occuring, and
Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is quite clear that you have no idea what propaganda actually is, and therefore simply label everything propaganda. Congratulations - you're at best an idiot, and at worst, morally bankrupt (to pick up the terminology of another poster). Yup, this was an insult. Yup, it was who me said it. Wanna take a wild guess and say what the difference between my post, "An Inconvenient Truth" and this little YouTube video is?