Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-05-2006, 02:29 PM
ralph124c ralph124c is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 18,476
Is Al gore's documentary propaganda?

Al Gore has been pushing his recent film about global warming. I watched him last night, and it was obvious to me that he was not portraying science-everything in the film is calculated to bring a message-that
:
(1) the earth is heating up
(2) human use of fossil fuels is causing it
(3) catastrphies as a result of global warming are in store for us
Now, Al gore has the right to propagandize as he sees fit..however, I would hope that this film might include some balance (I haven't seen it). For those of you who have, is there any balance in it?
Gore 9in the interview) talked at lenght about the immenet melting of the Greenland and West antarctic ice sheets. What is the consensu on this? I have heard that the glaciers of Southern Greenland are moving faster and dumping more ice into the sea-but some are saying that the Northern greenland icecap is growing.
As for antarctica-I've heard that the sea ice is shrinking, but snaowfall on the continent is growing.
How much of Gore's film is based on fact?
  #2  
Old 06-05-2006, 02:37 PM
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 42,441
Propaganda:
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.


Yes, it is propaganda. Propaganda does not mean "false" or "inaccurate." Or, for that matter, "unscientific." Although it certainly can be one or more of those things. Is Al Gore's movie false, inaccurate, or unscientific? I don't know, I haven't seen it. I'm just tired of seeing people use the word "propaganda" as a synonym for "untruthful."
  #3  
Old 06-05-2006, 02:47 PM
sqweels sqweels is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Edina, MN
Posts: 5,098
It's generous to call the Bible propaganda.
  #4  
Old 06-05-2006, 02:53 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralph124c
Gore 9in the interview) talked at lenght about the immenet melting of the Greenland and West antarctic ice sheets. What is the consensu on this?
Overwhelming.
Quote:
I have heard that the glaciers of Southern Greenland are moving faster and dumping more ice into the sea-but some are saying that the Northern greenland icecap is growing. As for antarctica-I've heard that the sea ice is shrinking, but snaowfall on the continent is growing.
These are couple of attempts at misdirection being propagated by CEI (an political advocacy group funded by the oil industry). Both the thickening at the interior of Greenland and the increased snowfall in some parts of the Antarctic are predicted results of Global Warming. They are evidence FOR GW, not against it.
Quote:
How much of Gore's film is based on fact?
Pretty much all of it represents overwhelming mainstream scientific consensus.
  #5  
Old 06-05-2006, 03:20 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralph124c
Is Al gore's documentary propaganda?
So what if it is? Propaganda is not always false.
  #6  
Old 06-05-2006, 03:28 PM
Eonwe Eonwe is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,008
As Miller said, 'propaganda' says nothing about the truthiness of a given piece.

And, I think you would be hard pressed to find a documentary that doesn't push a particular perspective about a topic. The idea that a documentary is 100% unbiased and un-opinonated is just wrong.
  #7  
Old 06-05-2006, 03:31 PM
SentientMeat SentientMeat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cardiff, EU
Posts: 6,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralph
I would hope that this film might include some balance (I haven't seen it). For those of you who have, is there any balance in it?
I haven;t either, but if the documentary was about evolution or the holocaust, would you demand "balance" in the form of some advocacy of Intelligent Design or Holocaust Denial?

As usual, the Onion says it best.
  #8  
Old 06-05-2006, 03:33 PM
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralph124c
however, I would hope that this film might include some balance (I haven't seen it). For those of you who have, is there any balance in it?
The other side is just wrong; portraying them as anything other than liars or deluded would be incorrect. "Balance" is for issues with less than overwhelming evidence on one side.
  #9  
Old 06-05-2006, 04:04 PM
Pleonast Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 6,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the CynicOverwhelming.
These are couple of attempts at misdirection being propagated by CEI (an political advocacy group funded by the oil industry). Both the thickening at the
interior of Greenland and the increased snowfall in some parts of the Antarctic are predicted results of Global Warming. They are evidence FOR GW, not against it.
Pretty much all of it represents overwhelming mainstream scientific consensus.
This is why I favor using the term "Global Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming". The effects are not limited to warming--some areas will get cooler. Changes in rainfall distribution are also important. Using GW instead of GCC makes it easier for the naysayers to sidestep the issues by focusing only on temperature changes.
  #10  
Old 06-05-2006, 04:13 PM
A.R. Cane A.R. Cane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The great PNW.
Posts: 3,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralph124c
Al Gore has been pushing his recent film about global warming. I watched him last night, and it was obvious to me that he was not portraying science-everything in the film is calculated to bring a message-that
:
(1) the earth is heating up
(2) human use of fossil fuels is causing it
(3) catastrphies as a result of global warming are in store for us
Now, Al gore has the right to propagandize as he sees fit..however, I would hope that this film might include some balance (I haven't seen it). For those of you who have, is there any balance in it?
Gore 9in the interview) talked at lenght about the immenet melting of the Greenland and West antarctic ice sheets. What is the consensu on this? I have heard that the glaciers of Southern Greenland are moving faster and dumping more ice into the sea-but some are saying that the Northern greenland icecap is growing.
As for antarctica-I've heard that the sea ice is shrinking, but snaowfall on the continent is growing.
How much of Gore's film is based on fact?
As others have said, propagands is not necessarily a pejorative. This is a global problem, so looking at one area, or a localized phenomenon can easily be decieving. Antarctica is a desert w/ very little precipitation, so increased snowfall could very well be an indication of climate change.
  #11  
Old 06-05-2006, 04:15 PM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,974
I admit I may be woefully ignorant -- I am, after all, not a climatologist.

I agree that the Earth's current warming trend is pretty much a given.

I don't quite understand, nor do I agree, why it's certain that human use of fossil fuels is causing it.

Well before humans started using fossil fuels in great number, there were other warming and cooling trends. The "Little Ice Age" in which worldwide glacial expansion began in the mid 1500s and ended in the mid 1800s comes to mind, and of course there are other examples earlier in the earth's history.

Can someone explain to me why we know, solidly, that the current warming trend is caused by human activity when there have been previous warming trends that obviously WEREN'T caused by human activity?
  #12  
Old 06-05-2006, 04:20 PM
jjimm jjimm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 28,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker
Can someone explain to me why we know, solidly, that the current warming trend is caused by human activity when there have been previous warming trends that obviously WEREN'T caused by human activity?
Because of the unprecedented speed of the change, and the correlation (word used advisedly) with a massive anthropogenic increase in the atmosphere of gases that are known to lead to warming. If you'll forgive an appeal to authority, the vast majority of meteorologists and climatologists agree. Search for SentientMeat's username for some very convincing data.
  #13  
Old 06-05-2006, 04:31 PM
Merijeek Merijeek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller
I'm just tired of seeing people use the word "propaganda" as a synonym for "untruthful."
My own personal irritation is this BS need for "balance".

Why is "balance" necessary in absolutely everything? If a science book declares that the Earth revolves around the Sun, why is it suddenly reasonable for any old asshat out there to demand that I put in an Earth-centric screed to "balance" my statement?

That's just idiotic. However, it's an idiocy that The Right has managed to jam down the throats of this country so successfully that it's now mandatory.

-Joe, although an opposing view may be required as to the truth to what my name may or may not be
  #14  
Old 06-05-2006, 04:52 PM
vibrotronica vibrotronica is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Memphis
Posts: 3,624
So, who has actually seen the movie in question, or is that not necessary before we start passing judgement on it?

That sound you hear is of dozens of knees jerking in unison.
  #15  
Old 06-05-2006, 05:06 PM
Merijeek Merijeek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by vibrotronica
That sound you hear is of dozens of knees jerking in unison.
No it's not.

-Joe, providing 'balance'
  #16  
Old 06-05-2006, 05:20 PM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjimm
Because of the unprecedented speed of the change, and the correlation (word used advisedly) with a massive anthropogenic increase in the atmosphere of gases that are known to lead to warming. If you'll forgive an appeal to authority, the vast majority of meteorologists and climatologists agree. Search for SentientMeat's username for some very convincing data.
Actually, this is the first answer I've ever gotten to this question that makes sense.

It's not the FACT of the warming that makes it likely that it's human activity -- it's the SPEED of the warming.
  #17  
Old 06-05-2006, 05:53 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjimm
Because of the unprecedented speed of the change, and the correlation (word used advisedly) with a massive anthropogenic increase in the atmosphere of gases that are known to lead to warming. If you'll forgive an appeal to authority, the vast majority of meteorologists and climatologists agree. .
But as Cecil has said "We don't vote on the truth around here." Although those gasses can lead to warming, they also increase albedo, which should lead to cooling. Frankly; the cause of the current warming, whether it's a very temporay glitch in the data, or whether we can or should do anything about it, is highly debatable.

Most of the "greenhouse gases" don't come from humans and fossil fuels in any case.
  #18  
Old 06-05-2006, 05:58 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
These are couple of attempts at misdirection being propagated by CEI (an political advocacy group funded by the oil industry). .
This last is 91% false. Your own cite says "CEI, which gets just over 9 per cent of its budget from Exxon Mobil Corporation,..."- which means they get most of their funding from other sources- in this case various foundations. This is why we don't trust dudes who tell us the sky is falling- too many lies.
  #19  
Old 06-05-2006, 06:15 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
This last is 91% false. Your own cite says "CEI, which gets just over 9 per cent of its budget from Exxon Mobil Corporation,..."- which means they get most of their funding from other sources- in this case various foundations. This is why we don't trust dudes who tell us the sky is falling- too many lies.
I said it was funded by the OIL INDUSTRY, not just by Exxon-Mobile and it is. All of these "foundations" are fronts for oil companies (including Texaco and Amaco) and other corporate interests (such as Ford Motor Company, Pfizer, Philip-Morris and Coca Cola). CEI exists for the same reason that tobacco companies use fake scientific studies to prove that smoking isn't bad. CEI exists to further the economic interests of the companies and indivudals which fund it. It's not an objective organization. They get paid to cast doubt on Global Climate Change (thank you, Pleonast).

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...titute#Funding
  #20  
Old 06-05-2006, 06:26 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 80,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast
This is why I favor using the term "Global Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming" .
I prefer Anthropogenic ClimaIe Change (ACC), or Human Induced Climate Change. If it were just "change", then there wouldn't be much that we can do about it. If we're causing it, then we can potientially stop it.

As for the "balance" part, I don't see that it should be dismissed out of hand in the way we dismiss IE wrt evoloution. Most scientist do indeed agree that ACC is a fact, but (AFAIK) they do not agree on precisely what will happen when nor do they agree on the best way to mitigate the problem. And it shouldn't be surprising that people are slow to come around to this environmental problem. We've been hearing doom and gloom about other subjects form various environmental advocacy groups for decades.

Maybe Al Gore has found his niche-- educating Americans about the problem of ACC. He seems to be quite passionate about it, so perhapds he can make a difference. Migiht he be a good candidate for a cabinate post in a future Democratic administration?
  #21  
Old 06-05-2006, 06:27 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 80,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace
As for the "balance" part, I don't see that it should be dismissed out of hand in the way we dismiss IE wrt evoloution.
IE =ID, in case anyone was wondering.
  #22  
Old 06-05-2006, 06:33 PM
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 42,441
I was wondering how Internet Explorer figured into the evolution debate...
  #23  
Old 06-05-2006, 06:42 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 80,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller
I was wondering how Internet Explorer figured into the evolution debate...
It certainly didn't survive by being the fittest!

--John Mace, a Mozilla user for at least 2 years now
  #24  
Old 06-05-2006, 06:55 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace
I prefer Anthropogenic ClimaIe Change (ACC), or Human Induced Climate Change.
Or maybe "Manbearpig!"
  #25  
Old 06-05-2006, 06:56 PM
Gary Robson Gary Robson is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Montana, U.S.A.
Posts: 9,449
Well, I came into the thread to say what Miller said (good job, BTW), but I'd like to expound for a moment.

About a year ago, some tree-hugger friends of mine brought up the subject of global warming. They explained that humans were completely responsible and we were destroying the ice caps by destroying the ozone layer. I asked how they knew this and all they could do was quote a magazine article. I refused to accept what they said based on the article, and they basically said I was "rejecting science" and "blindly following Bush."

What I was doing was doubting. Since that time, I've read extensively what both sides of the debate have to say (studiously ignoring anything written by politicians or comedians). Yes, there are scientists on both sides. James Trefil's book represents the "not people's fault" side reasonably well. Quite a few books represent the other side, some more scientific than others. Reading the debates on the subject on SDMB has been educational, too.

I'm now almost 100% convinced that there is a natural warming cycle, that it's being dangerously accelerated by human action, and that if we don't get things under control it will create a feedback loop that will be near-impossible to stop.

Gore's message is propoganda. Yep.

But I think he's right.
__________________
---
Yes, I have joined the ranks of former moderators. Being a mod was eating my life. Now I'm a member just like you. Except smarter and better looking.
  #26  
Old 06-05-2006, 11:20 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
I said it was funded by the OIL INDUSTRY, not just by Exxon-Mobile and it is. All of these "foundations" are fronts for oil companies (including Texaco and Amaco) and other corporate interests (such as Ford Motor Company, Pfizer, Philip-Morris and Coca Cola). CEI exists for the same reason that tobacco companies use fake scientific studies to prove that smoking isn't bad. CEI exists to further the economic interests of the companies and indivudals which fund it. It's not an objective organization. They get paid to cast doubt on Global Climate Change (thank you, Pleonast).

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...titute#Funding

I want a cite for each and everyone of those Foundations showing what industry is behind it, and a cite that each of those industries are trying to cast doubt on Global warming.

Sorry, you have no credibility. I want hard cites from unbiased sources.
  #27  
Old 06-05-2006, 11:23 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
My link above lists all the funders and is a non-partisan site.
  #28  
Old 06-06-2006, 12:39 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace
Most scientist do indeed agree that ACC is a fact, but (AFAIK) they do not agree on precisely what will happen when nor do they agree on the best way to mitigate the problem.
Underlining added.

Disagree. I think externalities are reasonably well understood.

There is some disagreement regarding the magnitude of the appropriate response: some seemed to lean towards a "no-regrets" policy during the 1990s. Oddly enough, estimated damages were highly sensitive to the discount rate which was assumed.
  #29  
Old 06-06-2006, 12:41 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by vibrotronica
So, who has actually seen the movie in question, or is that not necessary before we start passing judgement on it?
I saw the movie. What do you want to know about it?
  #30  
Old 06-06-2006, 01:24 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 80,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure
Underlining added.

Disagree. I think externalities are reasonably well understood.

There is some disagreement regarding the magnitude of the appropriate response: some seemed to lean towards a "no-regrets" policy during the 1990s. Oddly enough, estimated damages were highly sensitive to the discount rate which was assumed.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. What is an "externality"?
  #31  
Old 06-06-2006, 02:53 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,890
John:

Externalities are a form of market failure. They occur when the full effects of a transaction are not reflected in market prices.

There can be positive or negative externalities. A positive one occurs when third parties receive benefits from a good that they don't pay for.

The classic negative externality is pollution. In an unregulated market, manufacturers (and consumers) lack sufficient incentive to curb polluting activities. To put it another way, when a consumer buys (say) a paper notebook, he pays for the labor, a share of the cost of the plant and equipment and raw materials. What he doesn't pay for are the damages associated with air or water pollution. In an unregulated market, such notebooks will be too cheap, production will be too high, and efforts to adjust production processes to lower pollution will be less than optimal.

Now typically the best amount of pollution isn't zero. So mandating specific plant-by-plant regulations may not be cheapest way to curb pollution. Far better would be to charge (in some way) for the right to pollute. That is, polluters should be charged for the damage they do to health and the environment. That way, the "external" costs of the pollution are "internalized" into the production decisions of the firm and consumption decisions of the citizenry.

That's the argument. There are complications, of course.

Perhaps a better introduction is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities
  #32  
Old 06-06-2006, 02:59 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,890
A "no regrets" policy might have been a tax on CO2 equivalent to about a nickel per gallon of gasoline. It would fall heavier on coal, however, and make natural gas relatively cheap.

Such a tax would encourage people to make low-cost adjustments to reduce CO2 output, but not aggressive steps. Modest fuel switching (from coal to natural gas) might be one example.

It's called "no regrets", since it wouldn't be an awful policy even if scientists discovered an abundance of offsetting factors for global warming.
  #33  
Old 06-06-2006, 03:10 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,890
Anyway, what is the proper tax on CO2 (or its equivalent)?

The proper tax on a ton of C02 should be set equal to the (estimated) marginal damages from pollution.

Some of those damages materialize in the future. When applying cost/benefit analysis, effects in the future are typically discounted in some way, using some sort of interest rate.

The higher the interest rate, the less the weight given to future effects.

Nordhaus (1991) and Cline (1992) used different "discount rates". Apparently, if you set them equal, their results don't differ too much. Cato's capsule summaries (with predictable rhetoric) are here: http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-jt011698.html
  #34  
Old 06-06-2006, 03:13 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 21,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
Although those gasses can lead to warming, they also increase albedo, which should lead to cooling.
Cite?

I thought CO2 was essentially transparent to incoming solar radiation where it matters. And that's the gas that has people worried.

I understand about the H2O/clouds/albedo thingummy-loop-whatsit, but that's not the big driver of ACC. CO2 is.
  #35  
Old 06-06-2006, 03:15 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,890
To conclude:

"Externalities" are fairly well understood. If a market transaction has external effects not captured in existing prices, charges for pollution permit the effects to be internalized.

So we should tax CO2 (or set up a regime of tradeable emissions permits, strengthen TANF and appliance standards in some cases, etc.) The question is, "How much?".

Currently, the government sets a tax of zero on C02. That seems low.
  #36  
Old 06-06-2006, 07:16 AM
jjimm jjimm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 28,701
There's a tree-hugging site in the UK that allows you to offset plane flights with carbon sinks (ie trees). Here's its short-haul figure - 1 tree, for £10, over 10 years, "will sequestrate approximately 730kg of CO2 during its life time [sic]"* and thus offset your carbon footprint for the flight. Through economy of scale, I think that the fee would decrease massively.

*It's not specific whether this is per person/flight or for the entire flight, though 730kg seems on the small size, so it probably is per person.
  #37  
Old 06-06-2006, 10:38 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
My link above lists all the funders and is a non-partisan site.
It does list the funders:"Media Transparency lists CEI as receiving a total of $4,296,645 (unadjusted for inflation) in 123 grants from a range of foundations in the period 1985 through to 2004. [36] (http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?81)

Armstrong Foundation
Barre Seid Foundation
Castle Rock Foundation
Carthage Foundation Scaife Foundations
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation (Koch Family Foundations)
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation (Koch Family Foundations)
David H. Koch Charitable Foundation (Koch Family Foundations)
Earhart Foundation
Gordon and Mary Cain Foundation
Jacqueline Hume Foundation
JM Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation
John Templeton Foundation
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc.
Randolph Foundation
Rodney Fund
Roe Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation (Scaife Foundations)
Scaife Family Foundations
Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation
William H. Donner Foundation "

However, it makes no claims that "All of these "foundations" are fronts for oil companies (including Texaco and Amaco) and other corporate interests (such as Ford Motor Company, Pfizer, Philip-Morris and Coca Cola)", which is what I want cites for. So far, that cite claims that only 9% of CEI's funding comes from Oil interests- but you claim it is 100%. And, Sourcewatch is hardly nonpartisan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sourcewatch
"Critics claim that most of the project's investigative and critical articles are aimed and directed at what SourceWatch perceives to be prominent conservatives, those that are right-of center and Republican Party organizations and individuals. The Center for Media and Democracy, which sponsors SourceWatch, has also targeted and focused on individuals within companies, lobby groups as well as academics, analysts and media personalities.[4][5] [6]

Sourcewatch has been criticised by conservatives and opponents of environmentalism for its political stance. Alan Caruba, who describes himself as a critic of "environmental propaganda' writes "Source Watch is a project of the Center of Media & Democracy, a left-wing organization that devotes a lot of time to attacking the public relations profession in general and conservative writers in particular."[7].

The website ActivistCash.com, operated by industry lobby group the Center for Consumer Freedom, describes the Center for Media & Democracy, the organisation behind SourceWatch, as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization... it is essentially a two-person operation" run by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. ActivistCash adds "If someone in a shirt and tie dares make a profit (especially if food or chemicals are involved), Rampton and Stauber are bound to have a problem with it." [8] The Centre is funded by organisations, described by ActivistCash as 'leftwing', such as the Homeland Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the DJB Foundation, the Carolyn Foundation, and the Foundation for Deep Ecology.CMD Financials."


And more:http://www.answers.com/topic/sourcewatch
"Some critics believe the project to have a liberal or left-wing outlook. Many of the project's investigative and critical articles are aimed and directed at prominent conservatives, those that are right-of center and Republican Party organizations and individuals."
Thus Sourcewatch is hardly "non-partisan".



You have claimed that the following: All of these "foundations" are fronts for oil companies (including Texaco and Amaco) and other corporate interests (such as Ford Motor Company, Pfizer, Philip-Morris and Coca Cola). There is a list of those foundations. Please provides a cite for each and every foundation showing that it is a "fronts for oil companies (including Texaco and Amaco) and other corporate interests (such as Ford Motor Company, Pfizer, Philip-Morris and Coca Cola)"

For others who may be interested- Here is CEI's own home page:
http://www.cei.org/

But I took one of the Foundations at random:
Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation

Here is a list of it's major donations:
http://www.mediatransparency.org/rec...hp?funderID=15
(mostly colleges)

Here is more:http://www.activistcash.com/foundation.cfm/did/474
Funding To Activist Groups Total Donated Time Frame
Natural Resources Defense Council $53,500.00 2000 – 2002
Waterkeeper Alliance $31,000.00 1999 – 2001
Environmental Defense $10,000.00 1995 – 1995
(All of which are well known and respected environmental groups)

And here is this "front" donating to that well known "corportate interest" - Harvard

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...nResearch.html
"Jeremy R. Knowles, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), has announced a $10 million gift from the Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation to the Russian Research Center in the FAS. ....The Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation was established by the late Mr. Davis in 1962 and focuses on higher education and public policy. Davis held degrees from Princeton, Columbia, and the University of Geneva, and he authored four books and numerous articles on economics and international relations. "
  #38  
Old 06-06-2006, 10:57 AM
David Simmons David Simmons is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 12,684
The OP asks if An Inconvenient Truth is "balanced." Just a reminder - balance is highly overrated. There are not always two equally valid sides to every dispute.

There is no doubt that the earth is getting warmer. The consensus among those who have studied the issue is that human activities are speeding up that warming. We are playing with fire. One thing that seems certain is that the climate isn't a linear process. That is, as things warm up climate won't necessarily change in a smooth, predictable manner. There might be a trigger point at which the climate will change drastically. We just plain don't know and if you don't know how things work you shouldn't be messing with them.
  #39  
Old 06-06-2006, 12:59 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
However, it makes no claims that "All of these "foundations" are fronts for oil companies (including Texaco and Amaco) and other corporate interests (such as Ford Motor Company, Pfizer, Philip-Morris and Coca Cola)", which is what I want cites for.
Dude, just seeing the name "Scaife" on that list doesn't tip you off?!
  #40  
Old 06-06-2006, 01:02 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Funders of the CEI -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competi...titute#Funding:

Quote:
In its IRS Form 990 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, CEI reported revenues totalling $2,919,537, including donations from individuals, foundations and corporations. Its net assets were $1,670,808. Salaries and benefits to its top employees were reported as follows:

Fred L. Smith, President, $175,000
Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow, $100,000
Sam Kazman, General Counsel, $98,000
CEI does not publish a list of its institutional donors, but the following companies and foundations are known to have given $10,000 or more:

Aequus Institute, Amoco Foundation, Inc., Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Coca-Cola Company, E.L. Craig Foundation, ExxonMobil ($405,000 during 2002) [7], CSX Corporation, Earhart Foundation, Fieldstead and Co., FMC Foundation, Ford Motor Company Fund, Gilder Foundation, Koch Family Foundations (including the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, and Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation), Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc., Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation, Philip Morris Companies, Inc., Pfizer Inc., Precision Valve Corporation, Prince Foundation, Rodney Fund, Sheldon Rose, Scaife Foundations (Carthage Foundation and Sarah Scaife Foundation), and Texaco, Inc. (Texaco Foundation).

Other known CEI funders include:

American Petroleum Institute, ARCO Foundation, Armstrong Foundation, Burlington Northern Railroad Co., Cigna Corporation, Detroit Farming Inc., Dow Chemical, EBCO Corp., General Motors Corporation, IBM, Jacqueline Hume Foundation, JM Foundation, Vernon K. Krieble Foundation, John William Pope Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation, Roe Foundation and Alex C. Walker Foundation.
So we've got Texaco, ExxonMobil, Ford, GM, the American Petroleum Institute . . . what more do ya want?
  #41  
Old 06-06-2006, 01:49 PM
Evil One Evil One is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,185
There is much research and debate on both sides of the issue...and it's all pointless.

Do you think the american people will accept the kind of lifestyle changes advocated by some of the harder edged environmental groups?

Do you think they are willing to essentially live in a socialist society by accepting the huge tax increases necessary to make changes to every car and power plant?

Do you think that undereducated people in China, India, Brazil, or anywhere else understand the issue? And if they did, do you think they would care when you told them they could no longer drive those cheap cars?

The changes won't be done voluntarily...and they can't be effected or paid for on an involuntary basis. So the debate will go on...adding more hot air to an already "fragile" environment.
  #42  
Old 06-06-2006, 01:54 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil One
Do you think they are willing to essentially live in a socialist society by accepting the huge tax increases necessary to make changes to every car and power plant?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil One
The changes won't be done voluntarily...and they can't be effected or paid for on an involuntary basis. So the debate will go on...adding more hot air to an already "fragile" environment.
So, since there's no obvious way we can solve the problem, we should just ignore it?
  #43  
Old 06-06-2006, 02:00 PM
Evil One Evil One is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
Nice rejoiner. Please elaborate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
So, since there's no obvious way we can solve the problem, we should just ignore it?
No, I'm sure that people who feel passionate about the subject will continue to scream to the high heavens. Although the sky has been falling for the last 30 years...and minds are pretty much made up on both sides.
  #44  
Old 06-06-2006, 02:19 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil One
Nice rejoiner. Please elaborate.
I was rolling my eyes at your incredibly fatuous (if not disingenuous) application of the label "socialist" to such a high-tax society as you hypothesize.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil One
No, I'm sure that people who feel passionate about the subject will continue to scream to the high heavens.
But the important question is not whether people will scream, but whether or not the sea levels will rise even an inch or two.
  #45  
Old 06-06-2006, 02:59 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
Funders of the CEI -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competi...titute#Funding:



So we've got Texaco, ExxonMobil, Ford, GM, the American Petroleum Institute . . . what more do ya want?
Like I said- cites that show that every single significant donor (especially including the foundations listed) is a " fronts for oil companies (including Texaco and Amaco) and other corporate interests (such as Ford Motor Company, Pfizer, Philip-Morris and Coca Cola)".

Not just that large companies send some cash their way- that's hard to avoid. Proof that this well known & respected think tank is completely "funded by the oil industry". (Hint, you can't find proof- as they aren't.)
  #46  
Old 06-06-2006, 03:11 PM
SentientMeat SentientMeat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cardiff, EU
Posts: 6,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
Although those gasses can lead to warming, they also increase albedo, which should lead to cooling.
But it isn't. An increasing albedo effect is strongly at odds with actual observations – even Lintzen is coming around to this. How are you suggesting more light will be reflected if strongly reflecting regions like snow and ice melt?
Quote:
Frankly; the cause of the current warming, whether it's a very temporay glitch in the data, or whether we can or should do anything about it, is highly debatable.
You call these graphs a “temporary glitch”? I hope you’re right, because that would mean that we’d soon be emitting much less CO2 and methane per year than we currently do, such that the graphs stabilize rather than shooting up at such an alarming rate. If we do nothing, they’ll only stabilize at over 700 ppm for CO2, which no climatologist in the world considers anything but extremely dangerous.
Quote:
Most of the "greenhouse gases" don't come from humans and fossil fuels in any case.
The ones in equilibrium, like water vapour? You’re quite right. It’s the effect of those well known greenhousing gases which are shooting up way off their equilibrium value (eg. 280 ppm for CO2 for millennia) which are causing the warming.
  #47  
Old 06-06-2006, 03:13 PM
David Simmons David Simmons is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 12,684
From CEI's web site:
Quote:
Called “the best environmental think tank in the country” by The Wall Street Journal,
Well, I'm certainly reassured.

Of course I would prefer that the WSJ expanb a little on "best." Like "best" for what purpose?
  #48  
Old 06-06-2006, 03:15 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Well respected by who? The scientist they quoted for the misleading shit about thickening ice in Greenland and snowfall in the Antarctic has publicly accused them of cherry-picking and distorting his words. He cited those factors as evidence FOR Global Warming, but they falsely presented it as evidence against. That doesn't sound very respectable to me. When everything they say is contrary to the vast majority of objective scientists, when they can be shown to be demonstratively dishonest and when they're funded wholly by Big Business (particularly by the oil, petroleum and auto industries), I think it takes a heroic level of denial and self-deception to actually believe the CEI is some kind of objective, honest think tank. They sure as hell aren't respected.
  #49  
Old 06-06-2006, 03:28 PM
Gary Robson Gary Robson is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Montana, U.S.A.
Posts: 9,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil One
...and minds are pretty much made up on both sides.
I think you underestimate the impact of hard evidence. Ten years ago, I thought the whole global warming thing was hooey. Two years ago, I was undecided. Today, after examining the scientific evidence and analysis, I believe that it's a problem we need to deal with.

Certainly, there are people who make up their minds and refuse to be swayed, but I see worldwide opinion continuing to shift, and unless our next President is a hard-core nonbeliever like GWB, I think you'll see an even bigger shift in U.S. opinions. Is there anybody credible that believes global warming isn't happening at all?

Even the scientists flouting the minority position no longer claim that people aren't causing global warming. They're only arguing how much of it is human-caused and how long it will be until we reach a critical point.
  #50  
Old 06-06-2006, 03:51 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Well respected by who? .
I am waiting for your cites as I requested above before we go off on a tangent.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017