What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
65 Comments
- Platypus3333, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27I had a severe moment of confusion when I thought there was a link between Tabasco sauce and Global Warming.
Cause, you know... Tabasco sauce is hot. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27It's quite simple really.
The cigarette companies had a whole lot of experience with disinformation, after decades of successfully lying about the effects of smoking. When the oil companies needed the same expertise, they knew exactly who to go to for help with turning dollars into truthiness. - plingboot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9From the money donated by oil companies?
- piesforyou, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"Now, I'm no climatologist"
You don't say. - mikemac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Well, he would if he hadn't died of lung cancer. Twice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_McLaren
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_McLean - BigKoi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7They aren't saying that lung cancer doesn't exist. They are saying that smoking cigarettes is not entirely responsible...
- elektricki, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14Tobacco.
- m0nk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Tomaccos
- sobriquet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Damn, I need a smoke now.
- f0dder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6ipods and macs are OK right?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6They aren't saying that evolution doesn't exist. They are just saying that it's nothing more than micro-evolution, which is totally different from macro-evolution.
- johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7The problem is, as depicted in the article, is that this is the same group that went around telling people that smoking was not a) addictive and b) harmful.
This group has a reputation for conducting false science for dollars - trying to muddy the issue with biased research, then allowing those who's business/opinions fly in the face of established scientific research (which is that smoking is harmful, addictive, and makes women taste like crap which is why I've only kissed a smoker once - or that global warming is just a "brief trend" when 400,000 years of evidence gathered from ice shows that a progressive change has been occuring for the last 100 years that does not show a brief trend, but a long term rise in global temperature that can be mapped to human interference).
*That* is the problem. It's one thing to say "I disagree" - it's another to use a group established as being a bunch of liars to try and support position. - JackHererUK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This story was actually broken by the Guardian in an article written by the man that made the film for Newsnight http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@edzieba
Are you actually complaining that disingenuous trolls are being dugg down? If so, that's pretty ***** up. I know that trolls are an established part of any forum's ecosystem, but that doesn't mean they're desirable or even necessary. - koick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Anyone interested in this politicizing of science should read 'The Republican War on Science' by Chris Mooney (NY Times Bestseller):
http://www.waronscience.com
He talks about how this started with the big tobacco companies and lots of other details including the 'Data Quality Act'. Good Read. - fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"So called 'global warming deniers' are not denying that global warming is occuring, just that it is a natural and recurring cycle,"
Do yourself, and us, a favor and go see Al Gore's movie. Yes there are natural cycles, but we are now so many standard deviations away from the norm that it is statistically impossible to be the result of a natural cycle. - adinb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It takes away attention from the "anti-smoking" initiatives, distracting the public and tying up scientific resources to fight the truthiness campaign.
- JackHererUK, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6read the Guardian article i linked to above, it explains it all. It's all about creating FUD around global warming then trying to throw the "is passive smoking dangerous" debate into the pot in order create confusion and doubt.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5geekee:
Just because you have limited knowledge and understanding of geology and related sciences does not mean that there aren't people out there who know the answers to your questions, and would love for you to read their books and learn these things yourself.
You, like the evolution deniers before you, need to understand this extremely simple fact: Just because you don't know something to be true does not mean that it isn't an established and verified truth in the scientific community. - boxninja, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The story itself doesn't surprise me. The disturbing part is that it took the Guardian and the BBC to uncover something that appears to have been totally overlooked by the domestic press in the US.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Science is not about consensus. The majority of scientists at any period in history have believed a lot of things that turned out to be nonsense.
- johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@geekee:
Is 400,000+ years of samples good enough for you? I think we're now up to 800,000 years if that makes you feel better about the level of knowledge we now have. - SqueakyMouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Commentary magazine is a neo-con magazine, and we already know their stance on global warming. Coincidentally, the neo-cons in power receive much funding from oil companies and some hold shares in oil themselves.
This is exactly the sort of thing the article is talking about. Among real climatologists, there really is no doubt that global warming is a problem.
The PR company's idea was to present reasonable looking articles from people with a scientific background that cast doubt on the issue. Journalists, who don't know *****, then think it is appropriate to quote both to present both sides of the argument, as if it were a court case.
However ...
One side has set out to do genuine research starting from no preconceptions. That's how scientists work. It's lead to some wonderful discoveries over the years.
The other has chosen the 'truth' first, and done whatever it takes to make it sound plausible. That's how lawyers, PR consultants, L. Ron. Hubbard and corrupt politicians work.
Let the climatologists research the climate and trust their judgement, or there's no point in having them in the first place. - totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4what were those tobacco tomatoes homer simpson was growing called?
- Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"So called 'global warming deniers' are not denying that global warming is occuring, just that it is a natural and recurring cycle."
Which, according to the vast majority of scientists actually working in the field, is pure FUD. That's the point. It's like that creepy "carbon dioxide is good for you" commercial. Sure, it is: but don't get caught in a locked room filled with CO2, or else you'll die. - catholicismwow, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6The Marlboro Man will save us from Al "Internet" Gore and his blatant disinformation campaign!
- totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4m0nk,
thanks! mmmmmmm...tomaccos.. - DCdownsizer, on 10/11/2009, -0/+1I hate cigarette smoke but I can read scientific journals and papers and can recognize the difference between highly theoretical computer models and settled science. Nobody's paying me millions of dollars to think and write critically!
Where are the REAL monied interests skewing science? GOVERNMENT money earmarked for global warming studies and "green" energy. What do scientists have to gain by questioning the highly politicized status quo in liberal academic circles? Only cuts to their research grants and the ostricization of their colleagues. - VinceNoir, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Wake up idiots. You are not only the consumer now, but you're the product. They're selling YOU to the highest bidder in a mad money grab. It's time to sour the merchandise for them... (Please note: I'm not a commie or anti-business, I'm anti-greed. If you are a business person and you think greed is good, you need to die in my book. But if you are a reasonable business person who puts the customer over your profits, then you are doing exactly what you should be doing. Kudos to you.)
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Yeah, no rebutles, just straw men. Nice.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@TubaTechno
Anthropogenic global warming is "debated" in the same way that evolution is "debated". As far as whether or not we're influencing climate change, the debate is not amongst scientists, but rather between science and politicians who would rather not acknowledge inconvenient facts. I know the anti-science side likes to portray their claims as being on equal footing and would like to portray this as a debate between scientists, but that's simply a lie, whether we're talking about evolution or global warming. - aristotle1990, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6This global warming scare is very politically charged. If you believe that the government would overblow the Iraqi threat, why not media figures the global warming threat? For an erudite and scientific article not disputing the claim that warming is occuring (merely that it's overblow) see here:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12202044_1 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The US press tends to ignore facts like this because they like to present stories in terms of "two sides", even when there may be more or less than two sides, and especially even when one side lacks all credibility. You won't ever see the headline "World's Scientists Support Evolution, Uneducated and Dishonest Cranks Back Creationism" because that sort of thing doesn't sell papers. Instead, papers tend to spend half their time repeating one side's claims, and half their time with the other side, as if the two sides were making equally valid claims. Facts like this undermine this perception of equality, and so are unlikely to make it in US news markets.
- Moonpig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2In order to attack and discredit the scientific establishment they realized the need to attack on a number of different fronts. If they could discredit the science of global warming it would be easier to discredit the science of cancer research and nicotine addictiveness.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@geekee
FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt
Ok, maybe not fear, but two out of three ain't bad. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Ah, cheers!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5VinceNoir, you sound like an uneducated simpleton. Either that, or you're a teenager and have no experience with interacting with other human beings.
If you want to form a business for the sole purpose of helping your fellow man, go start a non-profit organization. Those do exist, you know. They raise money through things other than their products (like charity, donations, member fees, etc), and then provide a different product/service that helps other people.
If you apply this same strategy to a for-profit business, not a single person will invest in you, and you will be completely and utterly DESTROYED by your competition, who will almost certainly be able to earn higher profits and put you out of business.
Don't believe me? Go ahead, try it. Go small, start a lemonade stand. Buy the most expensive lemons you can get, mix it with Evian water, and sell it at a discount in your attempt to "help" thirsty passers by instead of wasting your time with things like profits and greed. Let's see how fast you'll stay in business.
The purpose of doing, or giving the impression that what you're doing is best for your customer is to make them come back to you and give you MORE money. In other words, this is just an extension of greed, which you so vehemently hate. - piesforyou, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2What about Jelly Babies? Come on man, I need to know.
- LongFong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0To everyone who is slamming VinceNoir:
It is really stupid to disreguard someone simply because they are a college student or are inexperienced in the business forum. With your thought process, we would have to completely ignor everyone but politicians in matters of the political or governing. In fact, under that style of though journalism wouldn't exist.
I think that he was looking towards the Henry Ford style of business, to make the best product you can at the lowest cost, selling it for the lowest price possible, paying your workers as much as you can. However, if you take that statement at face value it is certainly extremely naiive (seeing as how he policed his workers) and it really has nothing to do with this story or anything.
Sorry, I just didn't enjoy watching someone being picked on for giving their opinion. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Vince, the real world is gonna kick your ass when you finally get out of those poli-sci and philo classes.
Good luck, though. Seriously, good luck. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Logical falacy
Guilt by association
http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
Circumstantial ad-hominem This one is used for those doing research using money from oil companies.
http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html - porkstacker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Tabacco". Ummkay.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2To say that global warming isn't being heavily debated is pure *****.
- As paraphrased from Penn & Teller - xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I think the shift of the Earths magnetic poles has caused more flux in the weather than humans, call me crazy.
But of course you can't politically market a global shift in magnetic polarity like you can human guilt. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Leeches are good for me, right? cause my bad blood and all...
- xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Sorry, I just didn't enjoy watching someone being picked on for giving their opinion. "
Welcome to the internet LongFong. - diggAl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Not the same specifics, but more evidence linking the tobacco and global warming deniers is here: http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/feb/business/pt_weinberg.html
Disclaimer: I work on the site that posted this story. Not just posting for hits though. This seems relevant to me. - xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'm sure the reversal of the Earths Magnetic Poles has no effect what-so-ever on our climate, well, obvioulsy not as much impact as Republican driven SUV's right?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_poles_040407.html
The only statement more arrogant was your reply. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"It's all about creating FUD around global warming then trying to throw the "is passive smoking dangerous" debate into the pot in order create confusion and doubt."
How does saying global warming is not a problem create fear? - catholicismwow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Damn, there goes the neighborhood.
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is