"Global temperatures have now largely eliminated most of the one degree Celsius warming that had previously occurred over the last 100 years. Hundreds of climate scientists have warned that there is not significant man-made global warming."
First we need to bury no child left behind. What we are doing is dragging all the smart kids down, rather than building the dumb ones up. That is the way it works. Stupid kids cannot choose to be smart, but smart kids can choose to be dumb. We are letting our children down.
I spent years making good money rewriting old code to avoid Y2K. We programmers were spectacularly effective at reducing the impact to near nothing. IF nothing had been done, you can believe that there would have been real problems. It's like what if you could go back in time, and kill the 9/11 hijackers before they acted? You would have been convicted of murder and executed, no one having any idea that you saved thousands of lives in the process.
Several hypotheses have emerged to explain the global warming phenomenon. Among these theories, Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has emerged as the leading theory, which deduces that the Earth is warming due to human activity and that as a result humans will eventually destroy the planet. The AGW theory has permeated nearly every facet of modern society. Over the past few decades, scientists, politicians, marketers, and Earth lovers alike, for various reasons, have employed propaganda techniques to promote the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory; in the process, they proactively sought to curtail the exposure of the truth in order to profit from people’s apprehension of global warming.Fears of the Earth’s rising temperature are based on global temperature averages over the past 100 years, with special interest placed on the past decade. During the mid 1800’s, the average surface temperature varied but, was close to -.4 °C. Contrasting the older temperatures with today’s average of .4°C, a difference of nearly .8° C, has alarmed many and caused others to investigate the reasons for the perceived increase in temperature.Human activity has borne the bulk of the blame for the increased temperatures. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations to investigate the impact human activity has on the global climate, while recognizing other factors that influence the climate, attributes the majority of global warming to human activity.1 Human activity includes land clearing, industrial emissions and transportation emissions, which increase greenhouse gasses and aerosols. The IPCC, the chief promoter of AGW, identified that the primary cause of increased temperatures worldwide is human-related carbon dioxide emissions from fossil burning fuels.The IPCC recently published dire worldwide predictions based on their global warming calculations. While supporters of the AGW Theory often quote other sources, the IPCC is generally recognized as the most authoritative body on the subject. Their report concludes that the increasing global temperatures will cause ocean levels to rise and the water to become more acidic; the confident estimates predict that precipitation, wind, and ice will change as well- although there is no consensus on their magnitude.2 The IPCC deftly presents all of the calculations, though nearly each one contains a caveat explaining that the models employed are lacking significant data or the phenomenon is too complex to accurately model.Propaganda Techniques:Scholars have written volumes explaining the techniques and methodology of propagandists for hundreds of years. To propagandize, one need only read a how-to manual to learn the concepts of an effectively run propaganda campaign. Propaganda techniques include appealing to fear, appealing to authority, name-calling, transference, bandwagoning, obtaining disapproval, over simplification, utilizing virtue words, employing faulty logic and more. AGW proponents utilize all of these methods to further their goals, which will be discussed later.Appealing to fear is perhaps the strongest technique used by propagandists. Hitler’s Propaganda Minister, Goebbels exploited and motivated the German population by striking fear into them. Likewise, propagandists have attempted to use the fear factor to get the media’s attention and gain front-page real estate. Headlines such as “Scientists fear global warming higher than expected” are designed to make the audience cringe with fear when they read that earth's average temperature could rise by 7.8°C by 2300 with polar ice caps melting and seas rising by seven meters.3 Nearly every report concerning global warming is laced with calamitous consequences if something is not done soon. This type of propaganda is effective in catching readers’ attention and motivating them to some action.In the early stages of AGW propaganda, global warming fears dominated public consciousness. Later, beginning in 1998, the Earth began to cool while atmospheric CARBON DIOXIDE continued to rise in complete contradiction to the theory. As a result, the phraseology of AGW alarmists became "climate change" so that any variation in the Earth’s climate could then be attributed to human activities.4 The problems with the scare tactic is that eventually people become immune to the warnings, prompting the AWG propaganda engine to produce more extreme warnings. John Ritch, director general of the World Nuclear Association, provided an excellent example of upping the fear factor; in June 2007, "Greenhouse gas emissions, if continued at the present massive scale, will yield consequences that are - quite literally - apocalyptic. ... If these predictions hold true, the combined effect would be the death of not just millions but of billions of people- and the destruction of much of civilization on all continents."5 At some point, propagandists will be forced to rely on other tools of propaganda- as appealing to fear will eventually lose effectiveness.AGW propagandists do not rely solely on fear to influence the masses however; an appeal to authority is a common technique. By invoking the infallible name of science, advocates can point to others who have advanced degrees and use scientific jargon to impress and beguile the masses. Because the average citizen does not have the time or resources to conduct her own study of the warming phenomenon, she is forced to rely on the opinions of those scientific authorities. Who on their own can readily cite hard numbers and create computer models to evaluate and project the future? Appealing to authority alleviates the average citizen of this academic burden.Authoritative sources include dictionaries, which have become a tool of the propagandist. American Heritage Science Dictionary gives the following definition for global warming:An increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase great enough to cause changes in the global climate. The Earth has experienced numerous episodes of global warming through its history, and currently appears to be undergoing such warming. The present warming is generally attributed to an increase in the greenhouse effect, brought about by increased levels of greenhouse gases, largely due to the effects of human industry and agriculture. Expected long-term effects of current global warming are rising sea levels, flooding, melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, fluctuations in temperature and precipitation, more frequent and stronger El Niños and La Niñas, drought, heat waves, and forest fires.6Authoritative sources employ several other types of propaganda techniques, many of which overlap. The above appeal to authority includes the tactic of fear and faulty logic- using seemingly contradicting predictions concurrently; how can a worldwide drought simultaneously be accompanied by flooding and melting of land-locked glaciers? Contradictory statements by some authoritative sources seek to lend credibility to the AGW argument by oversimplifying the theory, yet making it confusing enough for the average citizen to leave in the hands of “experts”.Name-calling is usually reserved for politically minded individuals and those audiences predisposed to agree with the one presenting the message. Words such as “right wing” or “ultra conservative” contain such a built-in prejudice, that when an author utilizes them to describe an opponent of AGW, the same prejudices are transferred to that individual- regardless of the opponent’s political leanings. Name-calling will often be invoked attacking the person, rather than the idea being presented. Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate researcher became frustrated during a conference on Global Warming when challenged by Colorado State University's William Gray, one of the nation's preeminent hurricane forecasters and said that Dr. Gray is not a credible scientist, “Not any more. He was at one time, but he's not any more".7 Name-calling attempts to discredit individuals and the ideas they represent- is unprofessional, and unfortunately, individuals on both sides of the AGW theory engage in it.Additionally, name-calling is often applied to naturally occurring molecules in nature; carbon dioxide is regularly labeled as a pollutant- something that is essential for plant life and, subsequently, all life. Placing a label those who disagree with AGW as less than educated or ignorant stifles scientific thought and academic deliberation, favoring the pro-AGW theorists. Further, attempting to categorize carbon dioxide as a pollutant wrongly demonizes nearly every oxygen breathing carbon dioxide emitting organism, but primarily places the blame on humans- who release CARBON DIOXIDE in the air when burning fossil fuels. Additionally, placing carbon-dioxide in the category of pollutant emphasizes, as many AGW supporters do, that it is a major green house gas, which it is not. Water vapor, the primary greenhouse gas, may soon be targeted and placed on the list of pollutants.Proponents of AGW engage in a propaganda technique known as “transfer.” Transfer occurs when the positive or negative traits of one thing or person are associated with that of another. For example, when the supporter of AGW addresses a television audience, he wears a white lab coat, whether or not he works in a lab, because people associate white lab coats with scientists and truth untainted. Conversely, when interviewing a skeptic of AGW, the deft AGW reporter will find a suitable candidate among a Texas oil town or a steel worker in Detroit. In each case, the viewer will associate a negative or positive image of the person speaking with what he or she is presenting.A vivid illustration of transfer is the attack by Ben Stewart of Greenpeace on the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the primary think tank that opposes the AGW theory. Stewart says, "The AEI is more than just a think tank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra”.8 By equating the AEI to the Mafia, Ben Stewart attempts to transfer the negative feelings and images of the terrorist/criminal organization to that of the AEI and President Bush- simultaneously, he engages in name-calling to discredit the AEI. Mr. Stewart does not attack the concepts presented by AEI or any of the rational behind their objections to AGW, he attacks those funding the organization and appeals to outside organizations predisposed to bias.Bandwagoning and polarization go hand in hand. The propagandist will attempt to simplify the issue, presenting only two extreme options: you can either pollute, drive big SUV’s, burn coal and waste energy or you can join the eco-friendly, caring people who want to preserve the Earth for future generations- which is what every other responsible person is doing. These techniques are highly effective because while one may not completely agree with what is presented, it is easier to go along with what everyone else is doing- thousands of scientists and millions of other people can’t be wrong.Bandwagoning is invoked regularly when discussing the Kyoto Protocol. Propagandists will posture that every other nation has agreed to the Protocol except for the United States. The manipulator will then polarize the argument, presenting America as the reckless polluting capitalist giant, which has excluded itself from the responsible nations of the world. Nevertheless, even those “responsible” nations recognize the implications of the Kyoto Protocol. Margot Wallstrom, the European Union's commissioner for the environment and global warming said, “[the Kyoto Protocol] is not a simple environmental issue where you can say it is an issue where scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations; this is about economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what is at stake and that is why it is serious."9 The EU knows that if the US agreed to the protocol, it would disadvantage the US economically. The technique of bandwagoning and polarizing the issue can only be effective among those less informed masses; those who fully understand the subject comprehend the myriad issues and consequences of such actions.Propagandists capitalize on the public’s disapproval of big industry and the distrust of oil companies. Several websites posit that oil companies fund the bulk of the research disputing AGW through its primary opponent, AEI.10 Whether this is true or not, it implies that: because oil companies and big industry cannot be trusted, neither can the results of their research. Despite the fact that AEI scholars and fellows are required to disclose in their published work any affiliations they may have with organizations with a direct interest in the subject of that work, detractors continually cast doubt on the work of their scientists and scholars.11 In fact, a popular website declares the AEI as “an extremely influential, pro-business right-wing think tank … [which] promotes the advancement of free enterprise capitalism, and succeeds in placing its people in influential governmental positions. It is the center base for many neo-conservatives.”12Direct attacks on this organization are representative of a propagandistic technique to obtain disapproval. In other words, if group X (which the audience believes is inherently bad) likes or approves of s
Closed AccountMar 6, 2008
Indeed.. it's a shame nazi ideals haven't died off.. if anything they are stronger then ever.
chevyiimanMar 6, 2008
"Global temperatures have now largely eliminated most of the one degree Celsius warming that had previously occurred over the last 100 years. Hundreds of climate scientists have warned that there is not significant man-made global warming."
muchachoburachoMar 6, 2008
Dude half of digg would have missed that if he hadn't said it
redherringhackMar 31, 2008
First we need to bury no child left behind. What we are doing is dragging all the smart kids down, rather than building the dumb ones up. That is the way it works. Stupid kids cannot choose to be smart, but smart kids can choose to be dumb. We are letting our children down.
redherringhackMar 31, 2008
That's Ye Old Tyre Shoppe.
redherringhackMar 31, 2008
I spent years making good money rewriting old code to avoid Y2K. We programmers were spectacularly effective at reducing the impact to near nothing. IF nothing had been done, you can believe that there would have been real problems. It's like what if you could go back in time, and kill the 9/11 hijackers before they acted? You would have been convicted of murder and executed, no one having any idea that you saved thousands of lives in the process.
coopzjApr 15, 2008
Several hypotheses have emerged to explain the global warming phenomenon. Among these theories, Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has emerged as the leading theory, which deduces that the Earth is warming due to human activity and that as a result humans will eventually destroy the planet. The AGW theory has permeated nearly every facet of modern society. Over the past few decades, scientists, politicians, marketers, and Earth lovers alike, for various reasons, have employed propaganda techniques to promote the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory; in the process, they proactively sought to curtail the exposure of the truth in order to profit from people’s apprehension of global warming.Fears of the Earth’s rising temperature are based on global temperature averages over the past 100 years, with special interest placed on the past decade. During the mid 1800’s, the average surface temperature varied but, was close to -.4 °C. Contrasting the older temperatures with today’s average of .4°C, a difference of nearly .8° C, has alarmed many and caused others to investigate the reasons for the perceived increase in temperature.Human activity has borne the bulk of the blame for the increased temperatures. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations to investigate the impact human activity has on the global climate, while recognizing other factors that influence the climate, attributes the majority of global warming to human activity.1 Human activity includes land clearing, industrial emissions and transportation emissions, which increase greenhouse gasses and aerosols. The IPCC, the chief promoter of AGW, identified that the primary cause of increased temperatures worldwide is human-related carbon dioxide emissions from fossil burning fuels.The IPCC recently published dire worldwide predictions based on their global warming calculations. While supporters of the AGW Theory often quote other sources, the IPCC is generally recognized as the most authoritative body on the subject. Their report concludes that the increasing global temperatures will cause ocean levels to rise and the water to become more acidic; the confident estimates predict that precipitation, wind, and ice will change as well- although there is no consensus on their magnitude.2 The IPCC deftly presents all of the calculations, though nearly each one contains a caveat explaining that the models employed are lacking significant data or the phenomenon is too complex to accurately model.Propaganda Techniques:Scholars have written volumes explaining the techniques and methodology of propagandists for hundreds of years. To propagandize, one need only read a how-to manual to learn the concepts of an effectively run propaganda campaign. Propaganda techniques include appealing to fear, appealing to authority, name-calling, transference, bandwagoning, obtaining disapproval, over simplification, utilizing virtue words, employing faulty logic and more. AGW proponents utilize all of these methods to further their goals, which will be discussed later.Appealing to fear is perhaps the strongest technique used by propagandists. Hitler’s Propaganda Minister, Goebbels exploited and motivated the German population by striking fear into them. Likewise, propagandists have attempted to use the fear factor to get the media’s attention and gain front-page real estate. Headlines such as “Scientists fear global warming higher than expected” are designed to make the audience cringe with fear when they read that earth's average temperature could rise by 7.8°C by 2300 with polar ice caps melting and seas rising by seven meters.3 Nearly every report concerning global warming is laced with calamitous consequences if something is not done soon. This type of propaganda is effective in catching readers’ attention and motivating them to some action.In the early stages of AGW propaganda, global warming fears dominated public consciousness. Later, beginning in 1998, the Earth began to cool while atmospheric CARBON DIOXIDE continued to rise in complete contradiction to the theory. As a result, the phraseology of AGW alarmists became "climate change" so that any variation in the Earth’s climate could then be attributed to human activities.4 The problems with the scare tactic is that eventually people become immune to the warnings, prompting the AWG propaganda engine to produce more extreme warnings. John Ritch, director general of the World Nuclear Association, provided an excellent example of upping the fear factor; in June 2007, "Greenhouse gas emissions, if continued at the present massive scale, will yield consequences that are - quite literally - apocalyptic. ... If these predictions hold true, the combined effect would be the death of not just millions but of billions of people- and the destruction of much of civilization on all continents."5 At some point, propagandists will be forced to rely on other tools of propaganda- as appealing to fear will eventually lose effectiveness.AGW propagandists do not rely solely on fear to influence the masses however; an appeal to authority is a common technique. By invoking the infallible name of science, advocates can point to others who have advanced degrees and use scientific jargon to impress and beguile the masses. Because the average citizen does not have the time or resources to conduct her own study of the warming phenomenon, she is forced to rely on the opinions of those scientific authorities. Who on their own can readily cite hard numbers and create computer models to evaluate and project the future? Appealing to authority alleviates the average citizen of this academic burden.Authoritative sources include dictionaries, which have become a tool of the propagandist. American Heritage Science Dictionary gives the following definition for global warming:An increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase great enough to cause changes in the global climate. The Earth has experienced numerous episodes of global warming through its history, and currently appears to be undergoing such warming. The present warming is generally attributed to an increase in the greenhouse effect, brought about by increased levels of greenhouse gases, largely due to the effects of human industry and agriculture. Expected long-term effects of current global warming are rising sea levels, flooding, melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, fluctuations in temperature and precipitation, more frequent and stronger El Niños and La Niñas, drought, heat waves, and forest fires.6Authoritative sources employ several other types of propaganda techniques, many of which overlap. The above appeal to authority includes the tactic of fear and faulty logic- using seemingly contradicting predictions concurrently; how can a worldwide drought simultaneously be accompanied by flooding and melting of land-locked glaciers? Contradictory statements by some authoritative sources seek to lend credibility to the AGW argument by oversimplifying the theory, yet making it confusing enough for the average citizen to leave in the hands of “experts”.Name-calling is usually reserved for politically minded individuals and those audiences predisposed to agree with the one presenting the message. Words such as “right wing” or “ultra conservative” contain such a built-in prejudice, that when an author utilizes them to describe an opponent of AGW, the same prejudices are transferred to that individual- regardless of the opponent’s political leanings. Name-calling will often be invoked attacking the person, rather than the idea being presented. Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate researcher became frustrated during a conference on Global Warming when challenged by Colorado State University's William Gray, one of the nation's preeminent hurricane forecasters and said that Dr. Gray is not a credible scientist, “Not any more. He was at one time, but he's not any more".7 Name-calling attempts to discredit individuals and the ideas they represent- is unprofessional, and unfortunately, individuals on both sides of the AGW theory engage in it.Additionally, name-calling is often applied to naturally occurring molecules in nature; carbon dioxide is regularly labeled as a pollutant- something that is essential for plant life and, subsequently, all life. Placing a label those who disagree with AGW as less than educated or ignorant stifles scientific thought and academic deliberation, favoring the pro-AGW theorists. Further, attempting to categorize carbon dioxide as a pollutant wrongly demonizes nearly every oxygen breathing carbon dioxide emitting organism, but primarily places the blame on humans- who release CARBON DIOXIDE in the air when burning fossil fuels. Additionally, placing carbon-dioxide in the category of pollutant emphasizes, as many AGW supporters do, that it is a major green house gas, which it is not. Water vapor, the primary greenhouse gas, may soon be targeted and placed on the list of pollutants.Proponents of AGW engage in a propaganda technique known as “transfer.” Transfer occurs when the positive or negative traits of one thing or person are associated with that of another. For example, when the supporter of AGW addresses a television audience, he wears a white lab coat, whether or not he works in a lab, because people associate white lab coats with scientists and truth untainted. Conversely, when interviewing a skeptic of AGW, the deft AGW reporter will find a suitable candidate among a Texas oil town or a steel worker in Detroit. In each case, the viewer will associate a negative or positive image of the person speaking with what he or she is presenting.A vivid illustration of transfer is the attack by Ben Stewart of Greenpeace on the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the primary think tank that opposes the AGW theory. Stewart says, "The AEI is more than just a think tank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra”.8 By equating the AEI to the Mafia, Ben Stewart attempts to transfer the negative feelings and images of the terrorist/criminal organization to that of the AEI and President Bush- simultaneously, he engages in name-calling to discredit the AEI. Mr. Stewart does not attack the concepts presented by AEI or any of the rational behind their objections to AGW, he attacks those funding the organization and appeals to outside organizations predisposed to bias.Bandwagoning and polarization go hand in hand. The propagandist will attempt to simplify the issue, presenting only two extreme options: you can either pollute, drive big SUV’s, burn coal and waste energy or you can join the eco-friendly, caring people who want to preserve the Earth for future generations- which is what every other responsible person is doing. These techniques are highly effective because while one may not completely agree with what is presented, it is easier to go along with what everyone else is doing- thousands of scientists and millions of other people can’t be wrong.Bandwagoning is invoked regularly when discussing the Kyoto Protocol. Propagandists will posture that every other nation has agreed to the Protocol except for the United States. The manipulator will then polarize the argument, presenting America as the reckless polluting capitalist giant, which has excluded itself from the responsible nations of the world. Nevertheless, even those “responsible” nations recognize the implications of the Kyoto Protocol. Margot Wallstrom, the European Union's commissioner for the environment and global warming said, “[the Kyoto Protocol] is not a simple environmental issue where you can say it is an issue where scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations; this is about economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what is at stake and that is why it is serious."9 The EU knows that if the US agreed to the protocol, it would disadvantage the US economically. The technique of bandwagoning and polarizing the issue can only be effective among those less informed masses; those who fully understand the subject comprehend the myriad issues and consequences of such actions.Propagandists capitalize on the public’s disapproval of big industry and the distrust of oil companies. Several websites posit that oil companies fund the bulk of the research disputing AGW through its primary opponent, AEI.10 Whether this is true or not, it implies that: because oil companies and big industry cannot be trusted, neither can the results of their research. Despite the fact that AEI scholars and fellows are required to disclose in their published work any affiliations they may have with organizations with a direct interest in the subject of that work, detractors continually cast doubt on the work of their scientists and scholars.11 In fact, a popular website declares the AEI as “an extremely influential, pro-business right-wing think tank … [which] promotes the advancement of free enterprise capitalism, and succeeds in placing its people in influential governmental positions. It is the center base for many neo-conservatives.”12Direct attacks on this organization are representative of a propagandistic technique to obtain disapproval. In other words, if group X (which the audience believes is inherently bad) likes or approves of s
ethen6May 22, 2008
<a class="user" href="http://www.genericsmed.com">http://www.genericsmed.com</a><a class="user" href="http://www.generics.ws">http://www.generics.ws</a>