Reply With Quote
"We hope the program is accurate and fair, but past experience"
iow, we hope PBS promotes OUR inaccurate, biased, prejudiced, slandering, bull , lies and hate, but they won't.
Always is with Frontline; by far the best political programming in this nation (which admittedly isn't saying much, but Frontline is outstanding).
"We hope the program is accurate and fair, but past experience"
iow, we hope PBS promotes OUR inaccurate, biased, prejudiced, slandering, bull , lies and hate, but they won't.
Did they talk to any former IPCC scientists who are skeptics?
Well no it was one sided.. from the start they explained what the show was about. A viewpoint shifting from everyone being convinced to suddenly why there is suddenly doubt (and who brought the doubt)
The show's premise wasn't " is global warming real and presenting their case"?. It was mainly who is in the game and recapped the boxscore of the past 8 years tbh..
I just finished watching too. I don't see how you think it was a hit piece. The topic was how the AGW activist camp has had their ass handed to them. In that respect it was well do ented.
I have yet to watch the piece, but how did AEI and Hardland go about handing the AGW activist camp their ass to them?
All from the perspective that AGW as the primary reason for Global Warning was 100% real.
It said that 97% of scientist polled agreed that climate was warming and that humans were a significant contributors. It never discussed the science, dimwit. The closest they got was in reference to sea level rise and North Carolina but even that was about the politics and segued into their discussion of how GOP policymakers were afraid to even discuss the topic.
The piece was not about the science. It was about the denier movement, its organizers, and methods. The interview with the head of American's for Prosperity was especially candid. The point that should have been drawn from watching the program and from the interviews was that the science was the secondary concern. Time and again the heads of the foundations stated their concerns were with leftist take over guised as environmental concern or over the idea of regulations.
I'm not surprised that you missed the entire point of the piece.
Three Ways Big Oil Spends Its Profits To Defend Oil Subsidies And Defeat Clean Energy
$105 Million On Lobbying Since 2011, 90 Percent Of Campaign Contributions To GOP: The big five companies have spent over $105 million on lobbying Congress since 2011, according to lobbying disclosures through the third quarter. The biggest spenders were S ($25.7 million), Exxon ($25.4 million), and ConocoPhillips ($22.9 million). The five companies’ oil PACs have donated over $2.16 million to mostly Republican candidates this election cycle. Koch Industries also spends big money to pressure Congress, with $16.2 million on lobbying and more than $1.3 million from its PAC (the top oil and gas spender). In total, the oil and gas industry sends 90 percent of its near $50 million in contributions to Republicans, far eclipsing their record spending in 2008.
Misinformation Campaigns, Including Over $150 Million In Election Ads:
Over $150 million has been spent on TV ads promoting fossil fuel interests, particularly oil and coal, reports the New York Times. In addition to traditional campaign donations, the oil industry has turned to outside groups running attack ads. Earlier this year, Americans For Prosperity — founded and funded by the Koch brothers — launched a bogus ad claiming that clean energy stimulus dollars went overseas. And the oil lobby American Petroleum Ins ute has its own campaign promoting myths about oil production and gas prices. For example, API chief Jack Gerard, rumored to be on Mitt Romney’s shortlist for a White House or agency appointment, claimed that oil production on federal land is down. This is simply not true, since oil production is up 240 million barrels on federal lands and waters under President Obama compared to the Bush administration. And oil companies hold 20 million acres of federal oil, gas leases in Gulf of Mexico that remain unexplored or undeveloped. This is just one of the many myths Big Oil has pushed this campaign cycle.
Behind-The-Scenes Campaign To Defeat Clean Energy: Koch Industries and fossil fuel groups are mobilizing to defeat the extension of modest tax incentives for wind energy, even though oil tax breaks are permanent. The American Energy Alliance, which has Koch ties, aims to make the credit “so toxic” for Republicans it would be “impossible for John Boehner to sit at a table with Harry Reid.” The Koch-funded Americans For Prosperity is also campaigning against wind energy. Meanwhile, the industry has argued its own century-old tax breaks are necessary to maintain, despite years of record-breaking profits.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...-clean-energy/
That wasn't the point of the show, as Fuzzy said. The bias that I saw was that it only focused on the tactics of the anti agw crowd that won the argument when they could have also talked about the scare tactics the agw alarmists used to promote their agenda. By using untrue doomsday scare tactics, I think the alarmists did as much to kill their own goal as these opposing groups did.
Three Ways Big Oil Spends Its Profits To Defend Oil Subsidies And Defeat Clean Energy
$105 Million On Lobbying Since 2011, 90 Percent Of Campaign Contributions To GOP: The big five companies have spent over $105 million on lobbying Congress since 2011, according to lobbying disclosures through the third quarter. The biggest spenders were S ($25.7 million), Exxon ($25.4 million), and ConocoPhillips ($22.9 million). The five companies’ oil PACs have donated over $2.16 million to mostly Republican candidates this election cycle. Koch Industries also spends big money to pressure Congress, with $16.2 million on lobbying and more than $1.3 million from its PAC (the top oil and gas spender). In total, the oil and gas industry sends 90 percent of its near $50 million in contributions to Republicans, far eclipsing their record spending in 2008.
Misinformation Campaigns, Including Over $150 Million In Election Ads:
Over $150 million has been spent on TV ads promoting fossil fuel interests, particularly oil and coal, reports the New York Times. In addition to traditional campaign donations, the oil industry has turned to outside groups running attack ads. Earlier this year, Americans For Prosperity — founded and funded by the Koch brothers — launched a bogus ad claiming that clean energy stimulus dollars went overseas. And the oil lobby American Petroleum Ins ute has its own campaign promoting myths about oil production and gas prices. For example, API chief Jack Gerard, rumored to be on Mitt Romney’s shortlist for a White House or agency appointment, claimed that oil production on federal land is down. This is simply not true, since oil production is up 240 million barrels on federal lands and waters under President Obama compared to the Bush administration. And oil companies hold 20 million acres of federal oil, gas leases in Gulf of Mexico that remain unexplored or undeveloped. This is just one of the many myths Big Oil has pushed this campaign cycle.
Behind-The-Scenes Campaign To Defeat Clean Energy: Koch Industries and fossil fuel groups are mobilizing to defeat the extension of modest tax incentives for wind energy, even though oil tax breaks are permanent. The American Energy Alliance, which has Koch ties, aims to make the credit “so toxic” for Republicans it would be “impossible for John Boehner to sit at a table with Harry Reid.” The Koch-funded Americans For Prosperity is also campaigning against wind energy. Meanwhile, the industry has argued its own century-old tax breaks are necessary to maintain, despite years of record-breaking profits.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...-clean-energy/
http://berkeleyearth.org/donors/
Did you even watch the work? Donor's Trust ring a bell?
Can you provide me with some proof that there is an organized campaign meant to scare people with the scenarios you describe?
Manny there are decades of evidence the over the top scare tactics from the left. If you want to nit pick about whether they were organized or not then suit yourself. Considering that they have lost the argument so badly it would be hard to make a case that they were anything more than poorly organized.
Do you think decades of claiming doomsday is just around the corner has helped or hurt the agw agenda in the court of public opinion?
People need to understand the process and history of temperature taking and record keeping. I just have a hard time believing a scientist when he/she says that so and so year was the warmest ever. Now if that scientist says that so and so year was the warmest year on record then it's different. And why the can't this just be natural?
Why do the Al Gore types want it to be gloom and doom when it comes to climate change? Is it to scare people so they can make money off "green' energy and expensive lightbulbs? Scientists are not perfect and are wrong a lot so that's a big reason why there is doubt. Does it mean that people are anti-science or against science? Nope.
I think climate change is natural process and that humans have played a small part when it comes to the cause of climate change. That's just my opinion. I'm not an expert. Does that mean I'm against science? Nope. And does that mean I think humans should just on the Earth and not take of it? Nope. People should recycle and not litter when they can. And don't waste electricity either. Use common sense.
just put a stick of butter on your counter to check the temp.
LOL, what? I'm pretty sure no climate scientist thinks last year was warmer than when the earth was in a molten state 4.5 billion years ago.
I think anyone claiming an overtop the scenario is likely is doing a disservice. I don't think that isolated people making outlandish claims is anything near the same as an organized effort to spread misinformation. Its not a left or right thing except that for some reason the right has decided in many cases to discard science. I've seen no proof that isolated cases of making outlandish claims has had anywhere near the effect that this very organized effort that a couple of think tanks has embarked on.
I do think what they are doing is a temporary stall tactic at best, though. AR5 from the IPCC is being put together as we speak and climate change is only accelerating.
He makes that same argument all the time. Its been explained to him but he's either a moron or he's trolling.
Koch brothers actually fund PBS programming like Nova.
The really sad thing is people like the Koch brothers are not stupid -- they know global warming is real, but they care more about their economic interests than anything else, so what makes it really sad is the fact that their minions actually believe it when they tell them it's a lie.
LOL, half the episodes of Nova are just episodes of BBC's Horizon with American English narration edited over the original English English narration; most of the video is the same. It's the best thing on American TV right now, but that's because of the BBC's incredible work creating those episodes.
Again, why is it that climate change has to be gloom and doom and involve end of the world scenarios and predictions?
Yes, that was the response from the scientific community. I'm surprised 100% didn't say we are warming. The number for AGW being significant was not 96% though. Now depending on your perspective, 10% being anthropogenic can be significant!
No Sherlock. Where did I claim it did?
Yes, but narrated in such a way that they were wrong. The narration itself implied that AGW is a serious threat being pushed out of the way.
I understood it. I'm also not surprised you are blind to what I pointed out.
Keep throwing that . I will make a mistake at some point.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
