Never said we could. In fact, if dudes had said something along the lines of “CEI appears to be biased, as it does accept considerable funding from the Oil industry- and CEI also has a rather conservative rep.” I would have bought it. I agree we have to take what CEI says with a grain of salt ( same with Sourcewatch, however), but that doesn’t excuse the slanderous lies posted here about them. Crap like “All of these “foundations” are fronts for oil companies” just makes their case stronger as it is so clearly a libel and a faslehood. Hell, there are legit complaints about CEI, sure- but that doesn’t excuse making up lies about them either. CEI* is* respected, and isn’t some tool of the Oil industry. They arebiased- sure, no doubt. And, it appears their bias is reflected in their reporting- but that’s not uncommon either.
In fact, I tend to lean towards the Global Warming side. The problem is- it’s not an easy problem, and it has **no **right or easy answers. Making up lies about a group that happens to have differening opinions about such a complex subject doesn’t help anyone. Sure, I admit & agree that CEI is now in the minority (and probably wrong), but their stuff is hardly crackpot science, either.
The question, of course, is about the reliability, accuracy and honesty of the Al Gore movie.
The discouraging thing about these boards is the rapidity with which perfectly serious questions are drug down some dark alley and throttled in the course of some juvenile game of Got’cha that turns on some tangential point. So here, the funding of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (who thinks up the names of these outfits? You almost expect to see something called The Sainted Mothers’ Association for Scientific Inquiry ) doesn’t have much to do with the merits of the Gore film. That the CEI’s public statements are misleading, manipulative and disingenuous if not just dishonest, seem to be pretty well established by this Annenberg Fact Check piece. When these guys start attacking the movie with this sort of stuff you have got to figure that there is some merit to the film.
Propaganda does have a pejorative connotation. I can only think the OP knew that and figured on getting some milage out of provocative language.
I guess I’d ask who exactly they are respected by. Sure, the Wall Street editorial page respects them…and some other people grudgingly respect them in the sense of admitting that they are influential but that hardly makes their viewpoints, particularly on scientific matters, well-reasoned. Can you name a major scientific organization that has said something positive about CEI’s scientific analysis or their representation of the science of global warming (or even the science of some other issue)?
I also want to point out that their own stated goal is not the advancement of scientific inquiry but to further the interests of free enterprise and to limit government interference.
Hey, don’t shortchange the Koch Brothers, owners of the largest privately held company in North America (by revenue), heavily into petroleum among other things. They are well-known financiers of libertarian / free-market organizations. I think they almost single-handedly bankrolled the Cato Institute in its early years.
Getting back to the OP… Yes, it’s propaganda. The aim of propaganda is to influence opinion, so this movie fits the definition of propaganda. I think the term lost any positive connotations it might have had in this country due to the propaganda by the Nazis and the Soviet Union.
“From its start in 1984, [CEI] has thumbed its nose at the traditional think tank model, instead adopting what it terms a ‘full service’ approach that begins with research , but doesn’t end there, stretching instead to dogged issue advocacy.” - The Washington Post
“The best environmental think tank in the country” - The Wall Street Journal,
“One of Washington’s feistiest think tanks” - The Boston Globe
“CEI is…one of the most influential Washington think tanks” - Now with Bill Moyers
This lists reminds of movie ads where they put up a list of truncated, elided, fragments from reviews. “Keanu Reeves is…an actor…” I notice that your list does not include climatologists or any other scientists.
Taking them one at a time:
The Washington Post calls them advocates. That’s what I’ve been saying. How does that equate to respect for their “research?”
It’s the Wall Street Journal. It’s self-discrediting.
Who cares if their feisty? Michael Moore is feisty. Ann Coulter is feisty. Saddam Hussein is feisty. It’s a value neutral term and does not connote anything about the validity of their conclusions.
Again, “influential” means nothing.
What I have said is that they are a front for corporate interests - especially the energy and auto industries. They hae an expressed goal in advocating for those interests and for advocating against government regulation of said industries. Whether they want to call themeselves libertarian or conservative is immaterial. This is not about “conservatives vs. liberals,” it’s about polluters trying to obfuscate the undeniable scientific evidence for the damage that they’re doing.
The point DrDeth is clinging to desperately is that you haven’t provided cites for all the foundations etc being industry fronts. Many of them yes…but not all of them. The transparency of their bias and their complete lack of respect for the best evidence science can provide is beside the point for the good Dr.
Some call it pointless pedantry…we call it GD.
Perhaps you could modify your statement concerning CEI’s funding somewhat to get past this trivial point.
Perhaps DrDeth will then remove his fingers from his ears and stop lalalala-ing.
Very well, the CEI is an advocacy group for corporate interests and against government regulation, which is largely funded by the energy and auto industries, which is not respected as a legitimate research group by most climatologists or scientists, which touts positions contradictory to the bulk of scientific consensus and which can be shown to have been dishonest in how it represents facts about Global Climate Change.
“largely” in Bizzaro World being defined as 9%. :rolleyes: (9% is all the % of funding shown to come from “energy & auto industries” as most funding comes from private Foundations, at least one of which is a well known and widely respected funder of colleges- such as Harvard-, but some others may well have a more political agenda.)
To a small degree, I also disagree with "advocacy group for *corporate interests * ". True, CEI is Libertarian and anti-government interference, which often coincides with the goals of corporate interests, but if you read CEI’s webpage,you’ll see several other stances it has taken that big industry wouldn’t nessesarily like.
And, “dishonest” I also disagree with. “Misleading” I would accept. Their wording was correct, just not complete.
The point is DtC- you went way overboard in your libel of CEI, as usual stated it as fact and refused to come up with any unbiased cites that supported your “opinion-which-was-as-usual-stated-as-fact.”
Now, others have complained that I am standing firm on a rather small point, and perhaps even hijacking the OP. However, look back to Post 61, where I conceded "*Never said we could. In fact, if dudes had said something along the lines of “CEI appears to be biased, as it does accept considerable funding from the Oil industry- and CEI also has a rather conservative rep.” I would have bought it. I agree we have to take what CEI says with a grain of salt ( same with Sourcewatch, however), but that doesn’t excuse the slanderous lies posted here about them. Crap like “All of these “foundations” are fronts for oil companies” just makes their case stronger as it is so clearly a libel and a faslehood. Hell, there are legit complaints about CEI, sure- but that doesn’t excuse making up lies about them either. CEI is respected, and isn’t some tool of the Oil industry. They are biased- sure, no doubt. And, it appears their bias is reflected in their reporting- but that’s not uncommon either.
In fact, I tend to lean towards the Global Warming side. The problem is- it’s not an easy problem, and it has no right or easy answers. Making up lies about a group that happens to have differening opinions about such a complex subject doesn’t help anyone. Sure, I admit & agree that CEI is now in the minority (and probably wrong), but their stuff is hardly crackpot science, either.*"
I was willing to stop the discussion of CEI there, but DtC and others would not let it lie.
In fact, if dudes had said something along the lines of “CEI appears to be biased, as it does accept considerable funding from the Oil industry- and CEI also has a rather conservative rep.” I would have bought it. I agree we have to take what CEI says with a grain of salt ( same with Sourcewatch, however), but that doesn’t excuse the slanderous lies posted here about them. Crap like “All of these “foundations” are fronts for oil companies” just makes their case stronger as it is so clearly a libel and a faslehood. Hell, there are legit complaints about CEI, sure- but that doesn’t excuse making up lies about them either. CEI* is* respected, and isn’t some tool of the Oil industry. They are biased- sure, no doubt. And, it appears their bias is reflected in their reporting- but that’s not uncommon either.
[pats Dio on head]