MAKING THE MESSAGE: When government and media manipulate information to the public, instilling fear is an important ingredient of an effective campaign.
Image: ISTOCKPHOTO/BELTERZ
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
The assassination of Iranian physicist Masoud Ali-Mohammadi on Tuesday prompted a number of questionable accusations from the Iranian government and media about who was behind the killing, claims that have been countered by sources who knew the victim.
Iran's state-controlled media blamed the U.S. and Israel. And President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in his first public remarks about the incident Thursday, said the murder method was "Zionist," according to Bloomberg News. U.S. officials dismissed these accusations, calling them "absurd." In stark contrast to Iran's media depicting Ali-Mohammadi as a loyalist, anonymous government sources and colleagues said he was an outspoken critic of the regime and suggested Tehran was actually behind the killing. Although a physicist, Ali-Mohammadi was not known to be involved in Iran's nuclear enrichment program.
History is riddled with examples of governments and media spreading information that lacks supporting evidence or is slanted to push an agenda. A recent U.S. example is the Bush administration's rationale for invading Iraq in 2003—that Saddam Hussein's regime was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the nation could be harboring weapons of mass destruction. There was no evidence to support the former assertion and, subsequent to the invasion, weapons were not found.
But government or media messages are only two potential components of misinformation campaigns. It could be said that, in general, the true power of such campaigns lie with the public, or audience, and how thoroughly they accept messages.
To get a better idea of the effectiveness of misinformation campaigns, Scientific American spoke with David Altheide, a sociologist at Arizona State University in Tempe. For several decades, he has been studying the mass media and propaganda. In his books, most recently Terror Post 9/11 and the Media (Peter Lang Publishing, 2009), Altheide explores how politicians and governments use fear and how the idea of terror has become engrained in our society.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]
Could you give an idea of how you would define a government misinformation campaign?
Based on a lot of my work looking at propaganda over several decades, I would define a government misinformation campaign as one in which the government intentionally distorts and/or promotes some very questionable information for public dissemination for a particular purpose. Usually the purpose is to gain support for a policy, an action—and typically this will involve some sort of an international conflict.
Would this be an instance where government groups say the opposite of what they know is true or fill in the truth with speculations? Or both?
I think that more typically it's situations in which the information is partially true and a certain very clear slant is given to it. We've known since World War II and the work by the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels that extreme blatant lies that fly in the face of what an audience directly experiences don't work. So Goebbels really argued that sometimes it's more important not to deny, say, that a building was bombed, but rather to give it a particular spin to, for example, minimize the damage.
Have there been sociological studies to look at how effective different misinformation campaigns are in the public?
Yes, of sorts. The broad category is probably best referred to as propaganda research. And there's been decades of research on that for what sorts of messages, what sorts of appeals, seem to work the best. Often we find that when, let's say, a country is on the edge [of suspecting an enemy] and has had a number of reports—true or false—about experiences involving a threat, then it becomes very easy to sort of sneak in another report about that enemy, and [for it] to be believed.
What do you think are the key ingredients in a successful misinformation campaign? It seems it goes along with the public opinion, plays off of fear, and maybe off of a lack of evidence?
Those are key things, and that [the message] is visual, and that it is repeated [with] some of the same kind of language and discourse—"Here [the enemies] are again. There they go again." It can be very effective.
Look what we've done with health care in this country. We've somehow cast the whole health debate into cost. Whether or not children get health care [depends on if] we can afford it. How things get cast and then ratcheted up as being more important is always the fascinating bit. This is something that strategists, manipulators work at very carefully. We call it framing. How can we frame this issue in a way that will tap into something people are already worried about [such as cost] and that will discredit some other point of view? The cost of a war, however, is almost never an issue because this is something that we just have to do.
Would an example be the Bush administration's campaign that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003?
Yes, that'd actually be a terrific example and something I studied pretty extensively in the book, Terrorism and the Politics of Fear. Basically the real negative image of Muslims…probably went back to the late '70s with the Iranian hostage crisis. But then, to jump ahead 20-plus years, there was a much more direct history and dislike and mistrust of Saddam Hussein and his regime, and we had really been looking for a long time for reasons to try to take stronger military action against him. The 9/11 attacks provided an opportunity to frame those attacks by blaming Iraq in general, and Hussein in particular, and therefore to justify action [by saying that], "In order to defend ourselves, we need to do this."
In your studies, did you look at how people responded to these situations, like the invasion of Iraq, and why they felt the way they did?
By looking at statements people made in the news media, by looking at opinion polls, listening to spokespersons and so forth, you're able to start piecing together the kinds of views that people had. The very broad notion here is that people were operating with such a sense of fear and mistrust of this very broad enemy—the foreigners or what we call in sociology, "the others". [Propagandists don't want us] to see everyone in the world as essentially just moms and dads trying to get by and trying to do what's best for their kids and [that] everybody's struggling. You want to have some real sharp distinctions.
[Then] it became very easy for a lot of people to support military action and then, once that happens, the whole argument shifts. It's no longer, "Are we right in our action?" "Was the original information correct that led us to this action?" It shifts from that to "Well, now we have to support the people that are fighting for us." We have to support our policies in order to keep everybody safe and in order to be good citizens.
See what we're tweeting about
95 Comments
Add CommentWithout Fox News working on at least five hundred susceptible voters in Florida, I doubt Bush would ever have been President.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPropaganda is dirty politics. It should be confronted in a dirty manner. Ancient Rome had a way of dealing with these sort of things. They'd elect a Dictator for a set period of time, during which extra legal actions and even proscriptions would take place. The people who are Fox news would have been thrown off the Tarpeian Rock.
Another great example is the governments of the world selling the need to "do something" about global warming while the proponents in the scientific community are tweaking the data to support the cause.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is your evidence of Fox News working on at least five hundred susceptible voters in Florida? Didn't Gore try to rig the recount by suggesting a recount of only several counties, which just happened to be overwhelmingly Democrat?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisactually soccerdad, governments are only starting to promote this as it's become a significant issue as of late. in the past, the governments were willing to look past it and promote an "everything is fine, let's keep burning oil" attitude much like your own. it started with environmentalists and environmental scientists who looked at data and thought "uh oh, we're in trouble" and started raising alarms. please go suck on your exhaust pipe; you seem to think it's not harmful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother example of "misinformation" is people like soccerdad above, selling a clearly minority (and scientifically unsupported) view of their OPINIONS with loud and repetitive voices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo we ever see people like him back up their empty accusations with provable facts?
The thing that scares me the most is that the majority of Americans do not educate themselves further than what they see on horribly biased shock media sources such as Fox News, who only broadcast news to push their agendas or garner ratings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt truly breaks my heart that such a disruption in logical and intellectual thinking exists and that it has such a huge impact on the ignorant.
Judging by the responses of candide and Philtron, the answer to the headline is "Very!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Without Fox News working on at least five hundred susceptible voters in Florida, I doubt Bush would ever have been President."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCongratulations on showing how effective misinformation can be.
Fact: The media called Florida for Gore when the polls in the panhandle were still open.
Fact: This is estimated to have cost Bush 20,000 votes.
Fact: According to the U.S. Constitution, state legislators choose electors. The moment the Florida state legislature declared Florida's electors for Bush, the election was over and Bush won the state. End of story.
"Fact: This is estimated" - is it fact or estimate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo wonder no one trust scientist anymore this article is entirely opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA big part of the problem is people presenting as proven facts things which are only guesswork or what they want to believe. This is the difference between politics and science. Politicians get away with claiming any wild thing as a fact while scientific results are always hedged around with qualifiers to admit the real uncertainties. Or pundits tell a story about one person and imply that it is a universal experience. If politicians and pundits were forced to be as honest about their knowledge as scientists are, people would not be getting conned as much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen when the general public gets conned, they are blamed instead of the con artists. Like the real estate bubble. Ordinary people told that they could afford a house when the lender knew very well that they could not. The loan gets sold off to another ignorant person and the lender makes out while everyone else loses. Then the person who borrowed money gets blamed.
Why is there so many studies on how to con people but none on how to get people to identify these guys?
The manufactured doubt industry has grown-up since the PR campaigns for tobacco and asbestos, and today is in full-blown, anti-science mode with huge funding of the conservative stink tanks like the George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP, by the fossil fuel industry, generating misleading science and false controversy to protect the profits of their clients who manufacture dangerous products.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe religious DENIALISTS continue to parrot all of this mis-information and dis-information from the manufactured doubt industry, unleashing their standard package of tricks learned from decades of serving the tobacco industry. Many of the same experts who had worked hard to discredit the science of the well-established link between cigarette smoke and cancer, the danger the CFCs posed to the ozone layer, and the dangers to health posed by a whole host of toxic chemicals, have been hard at work to discredit the peer-reviewed science supporting human-caused climate change.
The history of the Manufactured Doubt industry provides clear lessons in evaluating the validity of their attacks on the published peer-reviewed climate change science. One should trust that the stink tanks and allied "skeptic" bloggers such as Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That will give information designed to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry.
Just incredible how people think. Talking about republicans and democrats... when in FACT both parties are controlled by the same people, and no matter what party wins, the agenda will ALWAYS be the same. ALWAYS!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI disagree here: "
Are there groups of people who are immune to misinformation or can this really affect everyone?
It affects everyone."
No it doesn't. Affect almost everyone. But a fell people trained themselves to read the misinformation (all news media) and know what it is, and what is the real intention of it.
My advice is to disconnect itself form all kinds of news media. Once you have a fresh mind, you can start READING and watching documents that can give you a grasp of what is really going on.
People have to study the past, because the past holds the information that can free your mind. Once you're in "sync" with the mindset of the people that holds the power (the real one man, not the puppets; Obama or Bush! argh) you'll start to see many signs that always there but you were incapable to see it before, and start asking the real important questions.
In a nutshell, people want power. You can have it by two means: using force and/or monetary. Brutal force have been used for more than two thousand years. And at the end, didn't work. Now monetary power is way more powerful, because you can create domesticated slaves. This is: people are slaved, but they don't know they are. They THINK they have a choice (R/D), but they don't.
Today's moto is enslavement by debt! The wars are a mere way to make more debt, and create more money. There are those that believe that these days wars are fought over a piece of land, or something that this land holds, when in fact, very very few are fought for that, and most are started with the sole purpose of weakening "rogue" nations (nations that will not do as they are told), and enslavement of the people (all nations end up in debt).
I might sound a bit crazy here, and probably paranoid, but if I tell you there is 0.1% of chance of your car explodes once you turn the key, or 0.01% of chance that you pick up a carton of milk that has poison in it, would you turn that key or buy that milk? I guess not. So why not deeply study the subject? It's a joke to ask "How Effective Are Misinformation Campaigns to Manipulate Public Opinion?". They are VERY VERY effective!
So I suggest people start researching from old news. Three century old news. Then start building up until you reach today's news. A good start is this documentary: The Money Masters. It can be found @ youtube.
drafter:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"No wonder no one trust scientist anymore this article is entirely opinion."
------------
Hardly opinion, since it asks the big question: "How Effective Are Misinformation Campaigns to Manipulate Public Opinion?"
Then it goes on to state:
"History is riddled with examples of governments and media spreading information that lacks supporting evidence or is slanted to push an agenda. A recent U.S. example is the Bush administration's rationale for invading Iraq in 2003—that Saddam Hussein's regime was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the nation could be harboring weapons of mass destruction. There was no evidence to support the former assertion and, subsequent to the invasion, weapons were not found."
Hardly opinion as you would like to believe, but facts behind the manufacturing and manipulating of intelligence through a great PR campaign to sway public opinion. One of the best sources is FAUX NoNooz, and their great paid propagandists, spewing the usual conspiracy theories and tiring rhetoric only for highly-partisan political purposes!
Oh, I ran out of characters. Anyway, research what that documentary say's and that will be an awesome start for those thirsty for truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPS: HOW HILARIOUS IS A SITE THAT HOLDS TONS OF MISINFORMATION ARTICLES ASK THEIR READERS HOW EFFECTIVE MISINFORMATION IS. PATHETIC!
brainguy:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There are those that believe that these days wars are fought over a piece of land, or something that this land holds, when in fact, very very few are fought for that"
-----------------
Aaaah...don't kid yourself, and use your head for something more than a resting place for your hat! We've been fighting WARS over natural resources for decades, and the future looks the same -- with WARS over water and food instead of finite fossil fuels!
@lakota2012
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Aaaah...don't kid yourself, and use your head for something more than a resting place for your hat! We've been fighting WARS over natural resources for decades, and the future looks the same -- with WARS over water and food instead of finite fossil fuels!"
You're missing the point here lakota2012. People want power, not money! Money provide merely the means! When I say people, it is not me, or your, or bill gates. Read "people" as the one that hold our fate.
PS: Loved your comments, and I think you have a good head, just as mine. And both are awesome places to rest hats (as well). I'd love to live chat those issues with ya sometime.
Misinformation campaigns are very effective in manipulating facts and public opinion. Look at other aspect which your mentally sick and partial blind method has ignored. Zionist media campaign in US. The rogue and lawless state of Israel which is the only country occupying its neighboring territories is glorified as a hero or victim. The campaign is led by sick AIPAC loby and supported by immoral congress and senate. Tabloid US media FOX, CNN and NYT are filthy cheereaders. Actual victims fighting for their independence are labeled as terrorists. When is your morality going to be aroused to write on this double standard of US media.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOddly enough, the article never mentioned the use of fear in promoting Global Warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTony Watts was originally a believer in Global Warming until he started checking the facts and found that the evidence was incomplete. Saying that a man who drives an electric vehicle is a shill for the oil companies is a pretty hard sell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of Watts' main researches has been an independent review of the most advanced temperature measurement systems in the world and the results are not good. A large majority of the United State's monitoring stations are not reporting the correct temperature due to problems with placement. The bias is positive increase in temperature. Unlike Dr Mann and Hadley Centre, his data is online and available for inspection. Unlike Al Gore, he will speak with individuals who disagree and members of the press.
Anyone is welcome to visit Watts' work and judge for themselves - http://www.wattsupwiththat.com
They can even read why I am a skeptic at his site -
http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/14/i-am-a-skeptic/
"Tony Watts was originally a believer in Global Warming until he started checking the facts and found that the evidence was incomplete."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what? Anyone can make unsubstantiated claims. I read the articles of actual climatologists who have published peer-reviewed papers in their fields. What are _this_ guy's qualifications which tell me that I should take him seriously?
Well, Jürgen, why not go to his site and read his CV rather than just accept my word for it. Heck, you can even ask him if you feel you need more details. I provided the URL already.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile you are there, you should check out the results of the on-going audit of the American temperature monitoring stations.
Oh and by the way, just be cause something is peer-reviewed, does not make it a 'truth'.
skep·tic - from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine.
Try it, you might like it.
"Well, Jürgen, why not go to his site and read his CV rather than just accept my word for it. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, apparently he was a _television_ meteorologist.
...
I am not impressed.
"Oh and by the way, just be cause something is peer-reviewed, does not make it a 'truth'."
True, but a peer-reviewed publication really is the absolute minimal standard in the sciences if you expect anyone else to take you seriously.
Jürgen:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWatts' site doesn't win an award for best science blog because it presents a biased-review of the state of the science. It is a place where true believers and skeptics of man-made global warming are welcome to debate the science at it happens. I am sure you will be welcome there to discuss any peer-review article you have read.
My original point was that Watts is not a shill for the oil companies. Nothing you have contributed has refuted my refutation.
And exactly what are you credentials? Atmospheric sciences? Art? Political Science? Chemistry? Basket Weaving? Are you sufficiently trained in the sciences to really understand the material you are reading?
There are any number of generally accepted scientific theories that were originally laughed at by the ruling peer-reviewers and ended up published in obscure science journals.
For the boys and girls out there with their thinking caps on, here are a few to look up: symbiogenesis, continental drift, Helicobacter pylori, Mendelian genetics and prions
(Speaking of prions, did you know that it has now been demonstrated that prions actually evolve? Amazing ! This is about to turn the entire debate on which came first, protein or nucleic acid, in origin of life on its ear. But that is what science is all about - turning itself on its own ear. Science is about embracing change.)
As the recent emails from East Angelia University demonstrate, peer-review fails when there is an agreement amongst the reviewers to exclude non-conforming science from the peer-review journals.
I am certainly not saying that peer-review is a bad system, but like any gate-keeping system, it fails when the gate-keepers allow their biases to subvert the process.
Speaking of bias, too bad for us skeptics that EAU and Hadley Centre deleted the original temperature data because they lacked the space to store it and felt they no longer needed it because their answers were assuredly correct. I would have liked to have the opportunity to analyze the original data free of any statistical 'tricks' used to adjust the temperature record.
Now back to the original topic of the article. You would have to agree that fear of this or that event is a major component of the message thrown out by the believers in Man-made Global Warming. I can list pages of the benefits of high CO2 and a warm planet . In fact, it is likely that the overall quality of life (including human) will improve in a warming world. And considering the modern interglacial is approaching its end (a truly catastrophic event for most of the life on the planet), a warm world is certainly better than a snowball. But do the true-believers ever discuss these benefits or it is always doom and gloom?
Any attempt to inciting fear to change the direction of a social trend should red-flag to anyone who considers themselves an educated, critical thinker. Wouldn't you agree?
As a literate individual trained the sciences, I tend to discount any meme that uses fear of a future event to motivate a society into action. That included Man-Made Global Cooling in the late 70s and early 80s and Man-Made Global Warming in the 90s.
"Watts' site doesn't win an award for best science blog because it presents a biased-review of the state of the science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo who, exactly, did hand out this alleged "Best Science Blog" award? Was it a panel of experts, and if so, who were they?
"I am sure you will be welcome there to discuss any peer-review article you have read."
I just might take you up for that when I am less pressed for time.
"And exactly what are you credentials? Atmospheric sciences? Art? Political Science? Chemistry? Basket Weaving? Are you sufficiently trained in the sciences to really understand the material you are reading?"
I have a diploma in physics and a PhD in Materials Science. Not climatology, but it's sufficient to understand the gist of most scientific papers and it does give me practical experience in the scientific method and scientific methodology.
Does Mr. Watts actually have a scientific degree? And if so, where did he get it? His website didn't say...
"There are any number of generally accepted scientific theories that were originally laughed at by the ruling peer-reviewers and ended up published in obscure science journals."
But even in those cases the people who wrote these articles were still accomplished, working scientists.
"I can list pages of the benefits of high CO2 and a warm planet . "
And I can list pages of the harm it would bring. How about giving your references?
"That included Man-Made Global Cooling in the late 70s and early 80s and Man-Made Global Warming in the 90s."
Funny thing - when _I_ checked the scientific databases about climatology papers published in the 1970s, the overwhelming majority discussed global warming, not global cooling.
As to the Florida vote, I thought the recounts showed that Gore had won. Regretably the result came out too late to be of any use additonally they were published in the afternoon on 9-11 and were drown in the media response to what had happened earlier that day...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd helped fuel the conspiration theories...
Jürgen -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's great to discuss the issues with another scientist. But I hesitate to stray off the topic of the original article, which was about the use of fear to influence public opinion. Before I got side-tracked, I was interested in discussing the use of fear in promoting man-made global-warming. I also noticed you didn't respond to my comments on that topic.
As I see it, the science of climate change has been heavily corrupted by the politics of climate change, making it increasing difficult to determine the answer to the fundamental question: To what degree does humanity affect global climate.
I am a skeptic because when I exclude all the other nonsense of the effects of global warming and focus solely on that question, I find the evidence inclusive that we are significantly affecting the global climate via the production of CO2 or any other 'green house' gas.
It nearly universally agreed amongst atmospheric scientists that as atmospheric CO2 concentration doubles, there is an geometric reduction in the effectiveness of CO2 to 'retain heat' in an atmosphere.
In some studies, the results indicate that the increase in temperature is near zero at present concentrations when CO2 is doubled and other studies indicate it still has a significant effect.
You can substitute any of the GHGs for CO2 here.
Further more, the rise in surface temperature reported by several authorities is not seen the satellite measurement of the lower troposphere. This difference has still not been adequately explained by the claim of calibration errors.
Global CO2 continues to rise, but global temperature is not or is decreasing, depending on the data set used.
There are several other things such as the change in the PDO phase from warming to cooling about 1998 that also obfuscate the problem.
When all is said and done, I don't feel there is enough evidence to answer this central question with the sufficient confidence need to re-engineer entire economies and societies.
I doubt we are going to convince each other to on this forum, but I would still like to see your list of atmospheric science articles from the 70s discussing causes of man-made global warming.
If you don't have access to "ISI Web of Knowledg2 (my favorite database of scientific articles), a Google Scholar search will do. The following on "Global Cooling" from 1970 to 1979 is fairly indicative:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://tinyurl.com/y9ft4y3
Despite searching for "Global Cooling" instead of "Global Warming", the majority of the articles discussing climatic changes discuss the latter, and any cooling processes seem to be discussed mainly as a Northern Hemisphere event. Thus, I have to agree with RealClimate.org that "Global Cooling" was mostly blown all out of proportion by Newsweek and others, and thus does not represent the actual scientific debate at the time.
I really do not see this "climate of fear". If anything, the mainstream media are far too dismissive and too prone to giving air time to self-processed skeptics like Christopher Monckton who are no scientists but lobbyists, and who do not even make the slightest pretense of working scientifically.
And as for this comment:
"When all is said and done, I don't feel there is enough evidence to answer this central question with the sufficient confidence need to re-engineer entire economies and societies."
The thing is, these economies and societies are in need of re-engineering anyway. The current economic model which assumed continued access to cheap oil is clearly unsustainable, and will weigh down like a millstone around the economies of those subscribing to it - especially in the case of the United States. Those societies who are willing to reinvent themselves to get by with far less energy while maintaining their high standard of living will do far better in the long run than those who will just continue to do business as usual.
Jürgen:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs we stray off the science of climate change and blow into the politics thereof, let me say I see an attempt to influence the public's opinion using a steady parade of the potential catastrophes that await the world if we don't stop man-made global warming. If you want, call it an over-application of the precautionary principle.
Anyone who questions the dogma that global warming is man-made suffers ad hominem attacks rather than a logical dissection of their arguments. To my face, I have been called a climate criminal. In the UK, a power company actually encouraged children to become Climate Cops and turn in their parents.
While their might not be a climate of fear, there is certainly a climate of hysteria.
Too often I have heard from other intelligentsia that the world needs to be re-engineered and the threat of the consequences of man-made global warming is a good lever to accomplished that goal. I just can't bring myself to believe that the people should be lied to in order to bring about a change.
We are back full circle to the subject of this article: Using lies or situational framing to manipulate the populace into a particular behavior.
I believe that a society should be willing to reinvent itself, not manipulated into do so using distortions.
What do you believe?
Think harder, look broader. As long as you think you have a choice you will be happy. As long as there is a lotto ticket available (Strange, why is gambling banned so often?) you have hope. As long as you argue politics, the deeper you bury your head in the sand and hear only that which you wish to hear. Dare I say in a nation that shouts we are free, you are not? The real concern is who controls your choices, yet lets you believe they are your own choice. How many times do you hear, voting for the lesser evil? The bigger picture is far more insidious, but why dont you investigate that yourselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Too often I have heard from other intelligentsia that the world needs to be re-engineered and the threat of the consequences of man-made global warming is a good lever to accomplished that goal."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMainstream media coverage is one thing. But when it comes to scientific debates, I see it the following way:
If one side includes the vast majority of the scientists working in the field of climatology, and the other side has almost nobody actively working within this field, then I know which side I am inclined to trust. Assuming that a whole field of science is part of some alleged conspiracy is a bit much for me to swallow.
Jürgen:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you worked in atmospheric sciences you would be aware that a number of researchers are keeping their mouths shut out of a fear of loss of funding for taking a skeptical point of view.
Remember the key question here is to what extend can humanity affect the global climate. All the rest is window dressing. Most of the zillions of climate scientists and environmentalist are not involved in answering that question, but their research funding is dependent on the answer blaming humanity.
To learn if humanity is causing global warming, focus on the measured (not modeled) CO2 factoring research.
If humanity is not affect global climate to any significant degree, then if the world is warming, we had better learn to adapt rather than waste a lot of resources trying to stop.
There is no great conspiracy at work but simply a confluence of individual self-interests.
Hot off the presses Jürgen! Be careful who you trust.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
It is not about the window dressing. Focus on the CO2 forcing factoring.
DeeNorris--
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this----------
Tony Watts is your typical high school graduate, with absolutely no relevant scientific education, much like another big mouth on FAUX NoNooz -- glenn beck, king of the conspiracy theories in his most anti-science rants!
The self-taught - who've always graded their own tests, as it were - frequently don't realize what they don't know.
Jürgen Hubert:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, apparently he was a _television_ meteorologist.
...
I am not impressed.
-------------------
Me neither, since he is merely a high school graduate, with absolutely no scientific background whatsoever! For crissakes, he didn't even now how to spell "meteorologist," and then all of a sudden the local TV station needed one!
The self-taught like tony watts - who've always graded their own tests, as it were - frequently don't realize what they don't know.
List of 400 Global Warming Deniers, Debunked
Inhofe's "scientists" include economists, the retired, TV weathermen, mathematicians, amateurs and industry spokespeople
Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-scientists-46011008-4#ixzz0d65NT2Uh
It should be clear to any critical thinker that Watts is an illusionist. He is not interested in data or data analysis, only on casting doubt on well established science. The surface stations may not be perfect, but they still provide useful information that can be confirmed by independent proxies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo be blunt, I think it's fair to characterize Watts as an amateur hack. Basically he takes photos of temperature stations that look like they're in bad spots, and he does some piss-poor analysis of the data, and that's about it. Tamino takes Watts' amateurish data analysis to town in many entries on Open Mind, most of them entitled "How Not to Analyze Data, parts 1-4".
http://tamino.wordpress.com/?s=watts
This is really a moot point. We've shown here that the surface station data is accurate countless times. NASA takes urban heat island effects into account by various methods, such as comparing urban station data to nearby rural station data.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/featur…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc…
All you have to do is look at the data to realize that this is a total non-issue. Look at the supposed 'good' stations (red) vs. 'bad' stations (green):
http://www.inturnsoftware.com/downloads/…
The final nail in the coffin of this argument is that the satellite data agrees with the surface data:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/0…
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
I think anyone who cites Watts or surfacestations.org needs to do some research of their own instead of being mesmerized by some pretty pictures that really don't tell you anything.
Well, one thing is sure, there is no shortage of people that have opinions about people that have opinions!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJürgen Hubert:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Does Mr. Watts actually have a scientific degree? And if so, where did he get it? His website didn't say..."
--------------
Nope! He's just an anti-science, high school graduate like glenn beck, that enjoys conspiracy theories just as much!
Good ol' tony watts has had absolutely no science training!
DeeNorris: 3:12 AM
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Oddly enough, the article never mentioned the use of fear in promoting Global Warming."
---------------
DeeNorris:
"But I hesitate to stray off the topic of the original article, which was about the use of fear to influence public opinion."
-----------------------
Hmmmmm....maybe you forgot it was YOU that strayed off the topic at 3:12 AM this morning, and just had to put in your two cents about tony watts, the high school graduate that has had zero scientific training, obviously has never published a peer-reviewed scientific paper because of his background, and only does what he does for the notoriety like glenn beck!
@DeeNorris, you are unbelievable. You have the audacity to accuse science of being corrupted by politics and then use a blog to back up your claims. Please look up "confirmation bias".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"&influence the public's opinion using a steady parade of the potential catastrophes that await the world if we don't stop man-made global warming" and that would be an example of you spinning the data to promote your viewpoint. Another way to look at it would be informing the public of the likely consequences if we don't change. Is it scary? Yes, that's the point you idiot. Global climate change is a problem not because it will bring us all peace, harmony and happiness; it is going to have serious consequences. If your doctor tells you that you have cancer and that you might die is that propaganda too?
"I believe that a society should be willing to reinvent itself, not manipulated into do so using distortions." Of course you believe that, as long as you are given complete discretion to decide what a distortion is and what a fact is. Fortunately for everyone you dont have that authority. Science bases its findings on facts not blogs.
You are anything but a sceptic. You are paranoid and ignorant and are desperately looking for anything to validate your world view. Try reading something that doesnt only agree with your particular opinion. Try applying the same rules to your own idiotic musing that you apply to the scientific community.
Misinformation can be carried out on two fronts,suppresso veri, suggestio falsi (Suppress the Truth,Suggest the Falsehood)Goebbels led by Hitler was a past master on both the fronts at the same time,Jews were the cause for Reich's ills(Suggestio falsi),the Third Reich are resettling Jews (supresso veri) and he has been successful .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMisinformation is resorted to by insecure rulers or out of necessity to hide the real intentions as with Bush stating Iraq had WMD.
A refined form of misinformation is labeled as Diplomatic language.
Misinformation has come to stay and media is also no exception.
Misinformation can be carried out on two fronts,suppresso veri, suggestio falsi (Suppress the Truth,Suggest the Falsehood)Goebbels led by Hitler was a past master on both the fronts at the same time,Jews were the cause for Reich's ills(Suggestio falsi),the Third Reich are resettling Jews (supresso veri) and he has been successful .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMisinformation is resorted to by insecure rulers or out of necessity to hide the real intentions as with Bush stating Iraq had WMD.
A refined form of misinformation is labeled as Diplomatic language.
Misinformation has come to stay and media is also no exception.
Misinformation can be carried out on two fronts,suppresso veri, suggestio falsi (Suppress the Truth,Suggest the Falsehood)Goebbels led by Hitler was a past master on both the fronts at the same time,Jews were the cause for Reich's ills(Suggestio falsi),the Third Reich are resettling Jews (supresso veri) and he has been successful .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMisinformation is resorted to by insecure rulers or out of necessity to hide the real intentions as with Bush stating Iraq had WMD.
A refined form of misinformation is labeled as Diplomatic language.
Misinformation has come to stay and media is also no exception.
@robert schmidt:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat claims did I make and where did I specifically use a blog to back them up?
At best I said that I find the research on CO2 forcing to be the central issue to answering the core question – To what degree is humanity affecting global climate? I then stated my evaluation of that research as being inconclusive. Since my degree is in Atmospheric Sciences, I feel world view is pretty balanced on this topic since I have the ability to reach my own conclusions directly from the source material rather than rely on the media or the IPCC.
Oh, if you are referring to my link explaining why I am a skeptic, you obviously didn’t bother reading the link. Out of kindness, I will provide it again:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/14/i-am-a-skeptic/
BTW, you forgot to call me a climate criminal!
----------------------------------------------------------
@lakota2012:
All I said was that Watts is not a shill for the oil companies. If I remember correctly, it was you that made the claim originally.
I also said in support of refutation that he drives an electric car and his site won an award for the best science site. Both true.
I said he has been conducting a survey of the surface temperature monitor stations in the US and had found a number of placement errors that cause a positive temperature bias. Also true. I then said that all his data for this project is available openly for other to check. Still true.
If you don't like Watts' site, bring it up with him rather than rant at me. All I did was enable the readers here to judge for themselves instead of listen to your propaganda.
----------------------------------------------------------
Back to the use of fear, intimidation, marginalization to press manipulate public opinion of man-made global warming.
I find it particularly interesting that the tactic of marginalization is fully at use in the politics of man-made global warming. In the war on terror, anyone who didn’t accept the administrations early claims of Iraqi WMD was marginalized by labeling them an un-American, paranoid, conspiracy nut. I don’t see a difference when people who are skeptical of man-made global warming are labeled deniers (makes one think if holocaust deniers, doesn't it?) and said to be paranoid, illiterate or criminal.
DeeNorris:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"All I said was that Watts is not a shill for the oil companies. If I remember correctly, it was you that made the claim originally."
--------------------
WRONG! I never said the high school graduate with absolutely no scientific education was a shill for BIG OIL, so I take offense at your poor memory accusing me wrongly!
Personally, I don't care if he drives a nuclear-powered Hummer, he's an undeucated blogger that has taken advantage of weak-minded people on a politically-motivated topic, and is certainly part of the manufactured doubt industry and misinformation campaign.
"Best Science BLOG?" -- don't even get me started on that!
Seems as if you're easily impressed by charlatans, but don't feel alone today, since the manufactured doubt industry has run a misinformation campaign that would even have amazed goebbels.
Instead of reading BLOGS and other politically-motivated sites that agree with your preconceived OPINION, try some challenging science with real scientists for once like: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ that has typical answers to all that nasty propagandist spin.
Since you're so convinced that the hacked e-mails have been the "smoking gun" proving a global warming hoax, start here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html
DeeNorris:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It nearly universally agreed amongst atmospheric scientists that as atmospheric CO2 concentration doubles, there is an geometric reduction in the effectiveness of CO2 to 'retain heat' in an atmosphere."
----------------
HARDLY, but maybe in your parallel universe!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-for-positive-feedback.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-albedo-effect.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Evaporating-the-water-vapor-argument.html
DeeNorris:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this----------
It is absolutely ridiculous to even 'think' that a high school graduate BLOGGER can start a webpage with pretty little colored surface stations, and bamboozle intelligent people!
This is really a moot point. We've shown here that the surface station data is accurate countless times. NASA takes urban heat island effects into account by various methods, such as comparing urban station data to nearby rural station data.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/featur…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc…
DeeNorris:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If you worked in atmospheric sciences you would be aware that a number of researchers are keeping their mouths shut out of a fear of loss of funding for taking a skeptical point of view."
"There is no great conspiracy at work..."
----------------
Hmmmm.......unless you have proof of that silly statement that glenn beck always spews, I'd have to believe it's just another one of his conspiracy theories at best!
@lakota2012:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you look at the studies by Charnook & Shrine, Kondratjew & Moskalenko or Lindzen estimating the Clear Sky Greenhouse Effect from Doubling CO2, you will begin to see what I am talking about.
In these three studies, they show that doubling CO2 does not double the value of the change in temperature and as the CO2 concentration increases, the value of the change in temperature for each doubling of CO2 concentration gets smaller. When you plot the estimated temperature against CO2 concentration, the resultant curve starts getting pretty flat about right about 400ppmv.
Any professional database will pull up the studies for your review.
Besides, 2012 is coming, so I am sure once the universe ends, none of this will matter. So let us agree to disagree.
Be seeing you.
DeeNorris:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In the war on terror, anyone who didn’t accept the administrations early claims of Iraqi WMD..."
---------------
Aaaah....so now we see your politicization.
So tell us, how did that search for fantasy WMD work out for the American citizens? How much has that boondogle cost?
Like I said, goebbels would be amazed at the misinformation campaign that the last rove administration ran, as well as the currently running manufactured doubt industry!
The fact that "Global Warming" has somehow been morphed into "Climate Change" and now the hype is turning to one of any type of "Climate Change" being terrible and evidence of man's original sin shows how utterly stupid and bereft of science the debate has become.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read an article recently about a woman who was suffering an emotional collapse because Copenhagen failed miserably. The article was much more interesting as a psychological study of how people react when a religious belief is found to be false. Instead, MSM attempted to dress the article as an indictment of those who killed Copenhagen.
Oh!! The Humanity!!
DeeNorris:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The theory of anthropogenic carbon dioxide as the cause of the latter 20th century warm period was widely accepted by the scientific consensus until it was falsified by protracted global cooling due to reductions in total solar irradiance and the solar magnetic field."
[The opinions expressed in this post are that of the author, Dee Norris, and not necessarily those of the owner of Watts Up With That?, Anthony Watts, who graciously allows me to pontificate here.]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/14/i-am-a-skeptic/
---------------------
Ooooh...so you're a global cooling fan......HA! HA!....especially since 2005 was the warmest year and 2007 & 2009 tied for second. Apparently facts go right over your head, as the manufactured doubt industry purrs along in your parallel universe!
2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
http://www.skepticalscience.com/2009-2nd-hottest-year-on-record-sun-coolest-in-a-century.html
Is global warming still happening?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm
Social scientific research makes it pretty clear that FOX "News" viewers are the most misinformed of consumers of various news sources:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php
DeeNoris, there's a serious difference between discussing real science, which is what many of us are doing, and using rhetoric, which is what you are doing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour stance of polite interest may be well-used to nullifying opposed debators, but in this situation it is little more than patronization. We don't care how smoothly people can talk, we care about facts. You have presented one blog website hosted by a man with extremely questionable credentials in order to support your claims. This is not enough to satisfy any argument in a science forum. It is akin to the practice of network news groups using personal accounts instead of statistics to make a point - an obvious dodge.
If you want real information you're going to have to go to real sources. If you're convinced those sources are all part of some global conspiracy to decieve the entire world (something that Ifind very hard to believe since it's hard to get even ten people to keep a secret this long), well that's too bad, because scientific peer review is the only system of checks and balances we have that keeps hand-waving blowhards at bay. It may not be perfect but it works pretty well. Certainly it's a lot more credible than a series of blog posts.
@Galaxy Man,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI certainly didn't use Watts site to justify my position the inclusiveness of the studies on measured CO2 forcing. In fact, I didn't provide any source information on my position until this morning in reply to lakota2012. And that was limited to the author names of three studies that deal with the CO2 forcing.
Considering I have been called paranoid, and a host of other marginalizing things, I think that my restrain and trying to remain polite should be commended rather than, well, marginalized. No place have I marginalized anyone who holds a different opinion from my own. But I notice that you took no offense at the invectives hurled my way, now did you?
I wanted to discussing the use of fear to promote man-made global warming, not global warming itself, but I have to suffer the slings and arrows of happening to hold an opinion that differs from other people. My how history repeats itself.
I don't expect anyone to accept my opinion and I am quite content to wait out the next couple of solar cycles (if Cycle 24 ever starts, that is) for public opinion to turn. IMHO, the worst that the politics of man-made global warming will do is wreck the global economy faster than it is already going.
This was a thread about propaganda and public opinion and therefore facts are harder to come by as it relates to a soft science.
I have been watching people paint all sorts of motivations behind what I post which is fairly useless because no one knows me. Even more odd, I have been fairly open with my focus to determining the answer to the core question underlaying the hypothesis of man-made global warming. I am a skeptic... if the studies on measured CO2 forcing become conclusive in my opinion, I will naturally support that conclusion. As I have said... all the other stuff, from PDO and solar cycles to melting glaciers (that aren't really melting as fast as the IPCC says) to sea level rise is simply window dressing to me. None of it establishes the role of human activity in changing global temperature.
To affect global temperature, humanity has to alter the planetary energy budget about 1%. So far, I don't see it.
Now if any one wants to civilly discuss the use of propaganda in the battle over man-made global warming, I will happy to reply. Ad hominem attacks will be result in that individual being politely and totally ignored.
Have an extra special day!
Shoshin-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hadn't read about the woman you describe. Do you have a source to that article? Thanks
I have seen trend to morph Climate Change into Climate Catastrophe in the media and some public figures. If that is not framing as something to fear, I don't know what is.
Ph.D., you hit it! Right on the "sweet" spot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo need to discuss this any further.
DeeNorris:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Besides, 2012 is coming, so I am sure once the universe ends, none of this will matter."
------------
Aaaah....so you truly believe in conspiracy theories like beck.
Dr. Gavin Schmidt has said that Lindzen agrees with about 90% of what other climate scientists are saying, yet the last 10% is sufficiently different to label him a contrarian.
In a biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007, Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies."
Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services and his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17
DeeNorris:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If you look at the studies by Charnook & Shrine, Kondratjew & Moskalenko or Lindzen"
---------------
I see, you 'think' I need to research more skeptics and contrarian views, but you don't want to be bothered reading links I've given to you debunking all your 5th grade science from anti-science people like tony watts.
As I said before, you really need to get out more often, and check out real scientific data and information on sites other than those that meet your preconceived ideology.
@DeeNorris, "IMHO, the worst that the politics of man-made global warming will do is wreck the global economy faster than it is already going." I'm sorry did you say you were getting a major in hypocrisy? Please let's get this straight. You wanted to come here and discuss how the government and scientists have used fear to sell the public on a scientifically baseless theory of anthropomorphic global climate change, while at the same time you believe without question the fear mongering of the far right who claim that addressing climate change will cause an economic apocalypse? And you wonder why you are being marginalized?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is an idea, why don't you study how the right has used propaganda to frighten us from taking action, at the risk of devastating our environment, for the sake of maintaining the status quo and their personal wealth? Then I'm sure you'd find people here willing to participate. Or is that a little too close to home?
The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Florida Supreme Court had ordered "counting of the legal votes contained within the undervotes in all counties where the undervote has not been subjected to a manual tabulation." The U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court and stopped their recount via an unsigned "per curiam" opinion in Bush v. Gore, with three Justices (Rehnquist joined by Scalia and Thomas) concurring in a separate opinion. Four Justices (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) each wrote their own opinion with various combinations of the other three joining.[6]
The media recount study found that under the system of limited recounts in selected counties as was requested by the Gore campaign, the only way that Gore would have won was by using counting methods that were never requested by any party, including "overvotes" ballots containing more than one vote for an office. While some of these ballots recorded votes for two separate candidates, a significant number (20 percent in Lake County, for example) were cases of a voter voting for a candidate and then also writing in that same candidate's name on the write-in line. A judge supervising the recount told the Orlando Sentinel that he had been open to the idea of examining the overvotes, and had been planning to discuss the matter at a hearing when the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the recount. According to Mickey Kaus of Slate.com (emphasis in original), "If the recount had gone forward Judge Lewis might well have counted the overvotes in which case Gore might well have won."[7]
My reading of history is that, when the dust settles, the "official" story in democratic nations is generally closer to the truth than all the versions hawked by people who prattle about "propaganda." I recall the horror stories about the Soviet Union, which I learned to dismiss as "propaganda," only to learn that the reality had been far worse. Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, we really did land on the moon, 19 terrorists really did bring down the World Trade Center and global warming is still real. In Haiti recently I have seen the media engage in exactly the same reprehensible second guessing and criticism of relief efforts that they engaged in after Hurricane Katrina.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDeeNorris:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I wanted to discussing the use of fear to promote man-made global warming,"
------------------
Come now, it is only the global warming skeptics that have been trying to use those terms of "alarmism" referring to the general consensus of scientists showing graphs of rising CO2 levels, rising temperatures, rising sea level, receding glaciers, melting polar regions, etc... that call it "fear" when a prediction is extrapolated from both the mounting physical evidence and the data. It just happens to be the denialists that have a need to promote global cooling and stagnant sea level despite the facts, only to justify their position.
BTW, what exactly did you call the endless stories about fantasy WMD, mushroom clouds and jumping terror alert levels if it wasn't FEARmongering by the bushies?
DeeNorris: "IMHO, the worst that the politics of man-made global warming will do is wreck the global economy faster than it is already going."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this----
robert schmidt: "I'm sorry did you say you were getting a major in hypocrisy? Please let's get this straight. You wanted to come here and discuss how the government and scientists have used fear to sell the public on a scientifically baseless theory of anthropomorphic global climate change, while at the same time you believe without question the fear mongering of the far right who claim that addressing climate change will cause an economic apocalypse? And you wonder why you are being marginalized?"
---------------------
Yep, you've gotta love the true hypocrisy there as well when it comes right down to FEARmongering!
These DENIALISTS continue to rant against an army of extremists hawking climate change as the greatest threat ever to our society and way of life, huge tax increases for families and businesses, and their FEARmongering has spewed the usual "Chicken Little" tales of the sky is falling and our economy will be destroyed forever!
Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.
Dee Norris:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2010/01/19/moderator-of-united-church-brought-to-the-brink-by-climate-change.aspx
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was surfing the National Post a bit further and here is another interesting article re: the implosion of the AGW belief system.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/20/dealing-with-the-copenhagen-deniers.aspx
I especially like the comment by Fran 39 that follows this article. He or she nails the development of the AGW as an example of a media/special interest group driven mass movement. Scary how gullible we all were.
“When hopes and dreams are loose in the streets, it is well for the timid to lock doors , shutter windows and lie low until the wrath has passed. For there is often a monstrous incongruity between the hopes, however noble and tender, and the actions that follows them. It is as if ivied maidens and garlanded youths were to herald the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
“People who see their lives as irremediably spoiled cannot find a worth-while purpose in self-advancement...Their innermost craving is for a new life – a rebirth – or failing this, a chance to acquire new elements of pride, confidence, hope, a sense of purpose and worth by an identification with a holy cause. An active mass movement offers them opportunities for both...” [ Is this Mr. Gore?]
“ It is true that in the early adherents of a mass movement there are also adventurers who join in the hope that that the movement will give a spin to their wheel of fortune and whirl them to fame and power.”
Eric Hoffer, 1951 – “The True Believer – Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements”
Admitting that Bush deceived the public to go to war is remarkable. It reminds the criticism to the Mcarthysm when it was over. However, implying that everything that "enemies" like Iran say is a lie still leaves time-bombs ticking. USA is one of the countries with the longest history of brainwash of its own audience and the spectacularly horrible role played by the movies like "Independence Day", the (apparently innocent) "Neverending Story" and "Air Force One" in preparation for the "next wars" has been missed completely by everybody. The true patriot is the one capable of standing the whole truth about his or her own country and try to turn things into the right direction. Michael Moore is setting the path, but there is still a loooong way to go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thing that I thought was frightening is a technique that has been used in marketing. The buying off of public opinion by using average people as "plants" into open forums and discussion groups. They are paid to give favorable opinions about whatever the clients are selling. It can be surprisingly effective when everybody you meet online- people you have come to think as similar to yourself- seems to believe that Up is Down and War is Peace and all the things you know to be true is ACTUALLY the opposite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi agree tha the war on terrorism is propoganda tha the american goverment use to colonlise anew countries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGuglielmo Tell:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael Moore is the best that you can come up with? Sad. Moore is nothing more than the archetypical "Progressive Socialist" hypocrite. He peddles stories of the problems with the capitalist system while growing rich because of it.
Perhaps you should hold Bono up as an example on responsible citizenry as well? He urges Americans to pay more taxes to help the poor, then relocates his business empire to Holland to evade Irish taxes. Hypocrite.
Or how about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.? He travels to Canada, bemoans the poisoning of river systems, and then when his claims are shown to be utterly false, he does not even bother to defend his statements or retract them.
These people are mere entertainers and trained monkeys; you would be better served by following the precepts of the 2-D characters on South Park, at least they are honest enough to mock everybody.
the war on terrorism is likly to fail because nearly all the infromation tha are used by usa govermenr is no audited well, that means all of such infromatio is propoganda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe IPCC's 2035 prediction about Himalayan glaciers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe moral of the story seems clear - stick to the peer reviewed scientific literature. This is not to say peer review is infallible. But as a source for climate science, there is no higher standard than rigorous research based on empirical data, conducted by scientific experts and reviewed by other experts in the field.
This leads to an important question: what does the peer reviewed science say about Himalayan glaciers? The ice mass over the Himalayas is the third-largest on earth, after the Arctic/Greenland and Antarctic regions (Barnett 2005). There are approximately 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas. Each summer, these glaciers release meltwater into the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra Rivers. Approximately 500 million people depend upon water from these three rivers (Kehrwald 2008). In China, 23% of the population lives in the western regions, where glacial melt is the principal water source during dry season (Barnett 2005).
On-site measurement of glacier terminus position and ice core records have found many glaciers on the south slope of the central Himalaya have been retreating at an accelerating rate (Ren 2006). Similarly, ice cores amd accumulation stakes on the Naimona'nyi Glacier have observed it's losing mass, a surprising result due to its high altitude (it is now the highest glacier in the world losing mass) (Kehrwald 2008).
While on-site measurements cover only a small range of the Himalayas, broader coverage is achieved through remote sensing satellites and Geographic Information System methods. They've found that over 80% of glaciers in western China have retreated in the past 50 years, losing 4.5% of their combined areal coverage (Ding 2006). This retreat is accelerating across much of the Tibetan plateau (Yao 2007).
The IPCC error on the 2035 prediction was unfortunate and it's important that such mistakes are avoided in future publications through more rigorous review. But the central message of the Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the IPCC AR4, is confirmed by the peer reviewed literature. The Himalayan glaciers are of vital importance to half a billion people. Most of this crucial resource is disappearing at an accelerating rate.
Posted by John Cook
http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-2035-prediction-Himalayan-glaciers.html
DeeNorris:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"While you are there, you should check out the results of the on-going audit of the American temperature monitoring stations."
--------------
On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html
Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
Shoshin:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Or how about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.? He travels to Canada, bemoans the poisoning of river systems..."
-------------------
More from the Daily Post or is it the National Enquirer this time?
While Kennedy has done extensive work with Riverkeeper and now the Waterkeeper Alliance as an attorney specializing in environmental law, I could find no information about the slanderous attack you made, again as usual, with no citation or link to your tabloid fantasy.
Shoshin:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I was surfing the National Post a bit further..."
------------------------
No wonder where you get all your racy tabloid fantasies blended in such a neo-conservative tone -- the National Post from Toronto -- which continues to lose money – financial analysts estimate annual losses at about $15 million – and rumours persist that the Aspers will close down the Post due to its lack of profitability.
Figures............
2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
The skeptic argument "It's the sun" is both the most used skeptic argument and the most visited page on this website. So with NASA GISS updating the surface temperature record with completed 2009 data, I've updated the comparison between sun and temperature. While 2009 is the second hottest year on record (tied with 2007), solar activity has fallen to its lowest level in over a century.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/2009-2nd-hottest-year-on-record-sun-coolest-in-a-century.html
Lakota2012:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh.. I must have hit your hot buffoon on having the unbridled audacity to criticize a Kennedy. I could care less whether he is a lawyer, doctor or Indian chief. He makes unsupported statements gets a sound bite and buggers off. Just like any other trained monkey. Pardon me if I don't genuflect.
I've followed your other comments as I can't believe how vapid they are. But you are now on my ignore list. But I know I won't be on yours, you crave the attention.
"He makes unsupported statements gets a sound bite and buggers off. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-------------
Hmmm....just like you, but not before a few ad hominem attacks and unsupported propaganda from the National Post!
Very
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting discussion so far. I do think misinformation campaigns work, for it is much easier to be led along little by little, than in one fell swoop. The consequences of (dramatically) changing one's mind, are that most folks experience discomfort. (We were gullible or lied to...) Gradually taking in information that reinforces what we already believe, information that supports the status quo, that doesn't force us to disrupt our beliefs, - is much easier.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe current misinformation campaign being waged by some American Doctors "working" in Africa is a perfect example. Condoms used properly, can effectively reduce the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. Some doctors, are not using their knowledge and influence on behalf of Africans, by encouraging use of condoms as an effective risk minimizer in a country that lacks sanitation and medical care. Instead these few doctors are using Africans as study subjects in the transmission of HIV, and trying to correlate HIV with a man's circumcision status.
This ONE study, conducted as a so called "randomized controlled trial" was done on different groups, with different religions, had different degrees of medical counseling, etc. It has been subjected to substantial and valid criticism, as to it's methodology and it's conclusions.
Doctor's at the CDC were asked why the same kind of trail could not be repeated here? -They replied that conducting such a trial in America would be "unethical." Why then, was it conducted in Africa? Africans don't matter?
They halted the trial early, by circumcising all the remaining men, a clear way of ending any possible continuing study. Such study would likely show no benefit or net STD harm from circumcision.
The Ethics of circumcision itself, as removal of sexually important tissue has never been addressed by these doctors.
Now comes the study showing (horrors!) different bacteria live on the penises of circumcised and uncircumcised men. Wow. Bacteria must be really scary. "Anerobic" bacteria even. "Anerobic" aren't those the ones that cause botulism? Scary stuff. They talk about "Langerhans" cells, something I never heard of, -so they must be well informed? Look again.
This is a attempt to "normalize" the American obsession with infant circumcision, to manipulate opinion, protect doctor's profits in this area, and export the procedure to a vulnerable desperate continent. A Perfect example of Propaganda
The fact that only "radicals" are concerned with the Ethics, says a lot about American Doctors.
I believe that the science of persuasion and manipulation of the public mind runs much deeper and is far more sophisticated than this researcher lets on. An article like this one is likely disinformation itself, giving the idea that such techniques are only marginally effective, when in fact their effect is devastating and pervasive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGawd, I love reading this stuff. Good thing I'm not prone to depression or the like or I'd have blown my brains out long ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's my two cents.
Ph.D seems to be the only one who gets it. While the rest of you are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the monolithic bloc that is the folks who REALLY rule, are laughing their fannies off, slapping each other on the shoulder for their acumen in fostering "democracy", the only truly revolutionary style of rule in which the slaves actually think they've a hand in their exploitation and subsequent mulctings.
I know, I know, I sound like a socialist, or a conspiracy buff, or any one of a mind-boggling variety of "types" disseminated to keep you focussed on the trees, not the forest.
I'm so glad I'm an old man. I suppose it's only fair to say, I will indeed laugh heartily, when your children get chipped and end up in work settlements.
Good luck to you all, flapping your jaws at each other.
Gawd, I love reading this stuff. Good thing I'm not prone to depression or the like or I'd have blown my brains out long ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's my two cents.
Ph.D seems to be the only one who gets it. While the rest of you are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the monolithic bloc that is the folks who REALLY rule, are laughing their fannies off, slapping each other on the shoulder for their acumen in fostering "democracy", the only truly revolutionary style of rule in which the slaves actually think they've a hand in their exploitation and subsequent mulctings.
I know, I know, I sound like a socialist, or a conspiracy buff, or any one of a mind-boggling variety of "types" disseminated to keep you focussed on the trees, not the forest.
I'm so glad I'm an old man. I suppose it's only fair to say, I will indeed laugh heartily, when your children get chipped and end up in work settlements.
Good luck to you all, flapping your jaws at each other.
"No wonder no one trust scientists anymore..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is exactly the problem. You can't see beyond his examples to the method behind them because you don't agree with his political views. People will use examples from their own point of view...But what if both of you are biased by misinformation??? Does that change the fact that it is being used against you...NO!
"No wonder no one trust scientists anymore..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrikker:
That is exactly the problem. You can't see beyond his examples to the method behind them because you don't agree with his political views.
--------------------
No, the problem is that science should not be politicized!
The author of this article stated that Bush invaded Iraq because he claimed they were connected to 911. Bush NEVER MADE ANY SUCH CLAIM. Bush rational was that Iraq still had 1. Weapons of Mass destruction (they didn't but wanted the world to believe they had.) 2. Iraq was in open violation of the UN demands 3. Iraq was in open violation of pre-existing peace treaty 4. Iraq was supporting terrorism 5. Putin gave Bush information to the effect that Saddam was planning terrorist acts on US soil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe LIE told by Democratic propaganda, is that Bush made such a claim. Bush never did.
An example of misinformation is that the wild horses need saving. First of all, they're about as wild as my dog. They are on birth control meds and are hand fed during the winter. They are not an indigenous species. They proliferate like rabbits, and it is for their own survival that they are rounded up by the BLM. They damage wild habitat worse than any other species, especially clean water. "saving" wild horses is a federal water grab, to remove cattle from ranges with private water. Environmentalist programs are now 100% governmental movements, wake up people. Even vegetarians should beware the consequences of governmental ownership of water. Who controls the water controls your destiny. T. Boone Pickens? The gov't is in his pocket, like the other billionaires.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow Pete's a guy that has his facts straight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's the words out of Bush's own mouth spoken December 14, 2005 on the eve of the Iraqi election:
We removed Saddam Hussein from power because he was a threat to our security. He had pursued and used weapons of mass destruction. He sponsored terrorists. He ordered his military to shoot at American and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones. He invaded his neighbors. He fought a war against the United States and a broad coalition. He had declared that the United States of America was his enemy.
Over the course of a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply with more than a dozen United Nations resolutions -- including demands that he respect the rights of the Iraqi people, disclose his weapons, and abide by the terms of a 1991 cease-fire. He deceived international inspectors, and he denied them the unconditional access they needed to do their jobs. When a unanimous Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to comply with that final opportunity. At any point along the way, Saddam Hussein could have avoided war by complying with the just demands of the international community. The United States did not choose war -- the choice was Saddam Husseins&.
At the same time, we must remember that an investigation after the war by chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer found that Saddam was using the U.N. oil-for-food program to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions, with the intent of restarting his weapons programs once the sanctions collapsed and the world looked the other way&.
As I stated in a speech in the lead-up to the war, a liberated Iraq could show the power of freedom to transform the Middle East by bringing hope and progress to the lives of millions&. History has shown that free nations are peaceful nations. And as Iraqi democracy takes hold, Iraqi citizens will have a stake in a common and peaceful future."
Come on folks (Scientific American), you are spouting your own disinformation!!
It's a fact, the "us and them" mentality is all over the world, and seems to be a part of our genetic makeup.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExtremely effective in creating scenarios.
Pete at 01:56 PM on 01/25/10
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBush rational was that Iraq still had 1. Weapons of Mass destruction (they didn't but wanted the world to believe they had.)
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Ah, Pete... you're fishing here. What is your proof that they 'wanted the world to believe they had WMD'?
I'd really like to see that. Thanks in advance...
lestan:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"As I stated in a speech in the lead-up to the war, a liberated Iraq could show the power of freedom to transform the Middle East by bringing hope and progress to the lives of millions"
------------------------------
Aaaah....is that the same speech that predicted the American invaders would be greeted with flowers and chocolates?
You and pete are the proof that misinformation campaigns are very effective in manipulating public opinion, and that FAUX NoNooz syccophants are still guzzlin' the Kool-aid.
Pete:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The author of this article stated that Bush invaded Iraq because he claimed they were connected to 911. Bush NEVER MADE ANY SUCH CLAIM."
-----------------------------
Hmmm........ you're proof of exactly how effective misinformation campaigns are, and how they manipulate public opinion -- especially by repeating the same LIES!
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.
Such information would've provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush's main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. In fact, no evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and Saddam's regime.
A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html
Definition of parroting:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The religious DENIALISTS continue to parrot ..."
Repeat ad-infinitum.
Anyway I find it odd that this writer is interested only in complaining about religious denialists.
"The final nail in the coffin of this argument is that the satellite data agrees with the surface data:"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut you see, we are discussing propaganda. One writer announces information he believes to be correct and which you believe to be incorrect; while you publish data that you believe to be correct but others consider incorrect.
Only in your mind is the last nail driven. The citizens of this nation have a right and a duty to decide what they are going to do and they will decide when the last nail is driven in the coffin of this argument.
The guest being interviewed identifies FEAR as a powerful motivator of belief. This is why we see so much emphasis on global warming; by itself it is almost a non-issue, 1.7 millimeters of sea level rise per year for 150 years or so and then it cannot rise any higher, before then or at that time will be another ice age which in my opinion is a much more dangerous situation. The reader called "Trafalgar" thinks that the seas will boil off into vapor, like Venus, and is terrified. He will vote to send 100 billion dollars to Africa to fix it. This distant potentiality hides the more immediate urgencies which are considerably more certain. We have immediate food and energy problems. Let's send 100 billion dollars to Arizona and California for huge solar farms. Nowhere in our Constitution are we obligated to prevent the tide rising in Bangladesh in the next 150 years, particularly if by so doing we cause our own national extinction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYea the same can be said with print media such as the New York (TASS) Times. The union between politics, journalism and education can be summed up as worse than any plight that has struck mankind to date. "The perpetual ignorance from cradel to grave"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this