Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

PR Firm Behind Al Gore YouTube Spoof? 777

mytrip writes to tell us ABC News is reporting that a supposed amateur video posted to may have actually been designed and posted by a Republican public relations firm called DCI. From the article: "Public relations firms have long used computer technology to create bogus grassroots campaigns, which are called 'Astroturf.' Now these firms are being hired to push illusions on the Internet to create the false impression of real people blogging, e-mailing and making films."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PR Firm Behind Al Gore YouTube Spoof?

Comments Filter:
  • Obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Silverlancer ( 786390 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @06:13PM (#15856505)
    This falls into the category of "duh" for me. Who else would sponsor such a thing? Maybe the oil companies?
  • {old,new} news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @06:16PM (#15856514)
    Political hacks have been sponsoring spin in books and the "news" media since forever. What's new here is that they now see the blogosphere as important enough to merit attention.
  • by wizbit ( 122290 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @06:23PM (#15856535)
    And if any PR company produced that, they're seriously over paid.

    Afraid you're missing the point. YouTube is largely community-produced content, often full of drunken dancing / buffoonery and clips from TV shows, etc. This clip was designed to "fit in" and look as amateurish as the rest of the tripe on YouTube to pass the smell test for most of the content there.

    I'd say they did their job brilliantly.
  • by Pantero Blanco ( 792776 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @06:29PM (#15856548)
    Bingo. It's a campfire with no soldiers around it, designed to make one's forces look much more numerous than they are.

    Of course, if they make it look too stupid, it just reflects badly upon their side...
  • Continuation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spikexyz ( 403776 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @06:33PM (#15856565)
    This is a continuation of the oil industry and friends' campaign of "we can't argue the science anymore with out looking like morons, so we'll just call people names". It's like the bully in the school yard who knows he's wrong so he'll just kick and scream.
  • by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @06:35PM (#15856574) Journal
    You know, I can understand complaints of rejected stories when they were submitted weeks or months before... But 24 hours? Give me a break.

    So, the editors (using that term loosly here) probably got 1000 submissions of the story, and picked the one they prefered, instead of just the FIRST ONE, which probably wasn't yours (but somebody else before you) anyhow.

  • by Roger Wilcox ( 776904 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @06:46PM (#15856605)
    The real troubling thing here is that major news outlets including The Wall Street Journal, ABC, and even our beloved Slashdot are playing right into the hands of Exxon, DPI, and whoever else is behind the video.

    By reporting about this incident, these outlets are providing the video a vast amount of exposure that it otherwise would not receive.

    I'd bet anything that WSJ didn't stumble upon this story randomly - someone at DCI surreptitiously helped them along because DCI knew that they could get media outlets to unwittingly distribute their propaganda.

    And at the end of the day, it's still considered good PR for all parties involved - Exxon got their point out to millions of viewers, DCI got paid, and ABC/WSJ/Slashdot did a good job of uncovering the "truth" of the situation, which pleases their readers and viewers just as much as any other story.

    All of this is just an elaborate game to get you to view an anti-Gore advertisement.

    Sad that this is how the media works today.

  • by Pantero Blanco ( 792776 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @06:48PM (#15856616)
    The way I see it, each party is as bad as the other. One's just better at it than the other one. Both try to exploit human characteristics in order to gain and hold power.

    "Look at these poor people being oppressed! If you let us do X, thereby strengthening our power, we'll help them!"
    "You're being oppressed! If you let us do X, thereby strengthening our power, we'll help you!"

    Variations on these lines have been used by both the Left and the Right for decades. They've probably been used for millenia, whenever there has been a political divide. The "oppressed people that need saving" are generally actually being oppressed, but the result is always more power for the government, in the form of increased taxes, more spy powers, or laws that serve their ends.
  • by noamsml ( 868075 ) <noamsml@gmail.3.14com minus pi> on Sunday August 06, 2006 @06:53PM (#15856634) Homepage
    Instead of making anything resembling a valid argument countering those in "an inconvenient truth", they resort to trying to discredit Al Gore by telling people it's "uncool" to be too intelligent and politically proactive, and that people should submit to brainless mass entertainment instead.

    I'm aware of the psychological roots of this method, but I still find it detestable. Instead of arguing like an adult, the oil firms reduce themselves to the political equivalent of taunting the guy who gets high grades and/or is knowledgeable about many subjects because he's a "nerd".

    Come on, oil companies, argue bravely and responsibly. If you think Gore is wrong, show us the proof. Don't just close your ears and shout "la la la la, I'm not listening!"

  • by unity100 ( 970058 ) * on Sunday August 06, 2006 @06:58PM (#15856644) Homepage Journal
    This is not 'public relations' or not 'lobbying' - this is PAID propaganda. And this particular one, is what is actually lying about some person to demean him/her - the owners of this firm need to be sued, and to hell that is, and should be expelled from public life.

    This is NOT democracy. Anyone who tells that this is democracy, are probably other paid propagandists.
  • by praksys ( 246544 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @07:14PM (#15856690)
    With trademark violations the key question is usually whether the use of the trademark creates a false impression that the product originated with the trademark owner. The non-comercial nature of this video, and the way in which the trademark is used is unlikely to create that sort of impression, so no trademark violation here.

    The image is also protected by copyright but the copyright owner says: "Permission to use and/or modify this image is granted provided you acknowledge me and The GIMP if someone asks." The key bit here being "if someone asks".
  • by WiFiBro ( 784621 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @07:20PM (#15856703)
    The big deal here is the dishonesty.

    Trying to make it look as if there is a grassroot movement.

    It's like the prefab letters ( m) from soldiers in Iraq, in local newspapers.

    It's like producing thousands of letters-from-the-public to look to be genuinely written by granny's. ("In 2001, the Los Angeles Times accused Microsoft of astroturfing when hundreds of similar letters were sent to newspapers voicing disagreement with the United States Department of Justice and its antitrust suit against Microsoft. The letters, prepared by Americans for Technology Leadership, had in some cases been mailed from deceased citizens or nonexistent addresses. [3]" - [])

    It's like writing that Indians will be oh so happy with GMO cotton ( s&id=31418), while it failed and ruined poor farmers (

    That's LYING and CHEATING for profit. That's the problem.

  • Au contraire... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cowboy76Spain ( 815442 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @07:20PM (#15856705)
    If the article was just a link to the video, your post would be true. Someone would click the link, see the video and think that it was funny and (at a subconscient level) see Gore as a political who cannot be trusted (because the depiction of the video gets to the mind, even if realizing it is a joke, because it shows that people does not like him and are very vocal about it).

    But if you link to this video while telling the whole story, then the user does not see a video mocking Gore, he/she sees a video created to deceive them, created by a firm and falsely posted as Jhon Doe... as the receptiveness of the people changes, the thing that they see differs completely.
  • Re:CMD vs DCI? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Peyna ( 14792 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @07:21PM (#15856708) Homepage
    If I, as an average citizen, espouse the opinion "Al Gore is a boring, irrelevant blowhard", I am being honest, but once I do something like rise to the presidency of my company or amass more than a million dollars in personal net worth, suddenly a statement like "I think Al Gore is a boring, irrelevant blowhard" is disingenuous?

    Because the average citizen is a disinterested party. The head of a company that pumps billions of tons of carbon into the air (directly or indirectly) has a lot more to lose (short term, we all lose long term) if Al Gore is right.
  • Re:{old,new} news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FFFish ( 7567 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @07:25PM (#15856722) Homepage
    What's new here is whether we let them get away with it. "It" being the use of negative campaigning as a means to deceive the uninformed audience.

    There is opportunity here to inform the cow-like public that they are being manipulated by assholes. US elections have become a race among liars and crooks. Time to demand better, partly by taking responsibility for one's own role in the process.

    If enough of us take the time to care about the social quality of the candidate, we can have a system of honest, compassionate, competent people who are in it because they want us all to do well. A rising tide floats all boats: the greater the common good (ocean), the greater the individual good (your boat).

    The only way to have long-term generational success is to ensure we make sure everyone has the opportunity for good health, good education, good standards, and good safety.
  • by cowboy76Spain ( 815442 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @07:27PM (#15856730)
    In reality, the point is mocking about Gore and his ideas to make people thing that they ideas are ridiculous just because they come from him. Like when Charles Darwin was caracterized as a monkey when people started fighting the Evolution theory; it was easier to discredit Darwin with those jokes than rebating the scientific arguments.
  • Re:Justified? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PieSquared ( 867490 ) <isosceles2006@gma i l .com> on Sunday August 06, 2006 @07:43PM (#15856765)
    Also, Michael Moore isn't the democratic party. the GOP is the republican party. This story is "The GOP is spreading propoganda" not "one republican is spreading propoganda" Big difference.
  • Re:Disclosure? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ragica ( 552891 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @08:03PM (#15856832) Homepage

    Try googling carbon-neutral gore [], and hang your carbon filled head in shame. The man is more consistant and does more to act on his convictions than probably anyone here. (Of course if you still are buying the "invented the internet" misquote there's not much chance you're looking for real information.)

    One thing I'm curious about though. What do you people who spout this non-sense think Gore's motivation is? Trying to drum up business for his fat-cat environmentalist friends that he's in the pocket of? Surreptitiously trying to destroy the United States, covert operative for The Terrorists that he is? Ah no, i remember now. Sorry, I'd forgotten the 2000 election smear campaign. He's just simply a raving lunatic (raving in a wooden, personality-less sort of way, that is, of course).

    Sigh. Go see the movie. At least you'll have some idea what you're talking about then. (Of course it will do no good to mention that scientists [], all except the one prominently being funded by the oil companies, seem to think the movie was pretty much, with just a few quibbles, completely accurate.)

    Well, sorry to have bothered you. I'll let you get back to your stem-cell research now.

  • by Carewolf ( 581105 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @08:03PM (#15856833) Homepage
    Where the did the grand parent paint the oil companies as "pure evil". He asked them to argue their point instead of making ad-homin attacks. The best defense here of course is that the oil sector in general sponsors "research", and that it is only oil-company fan-boys who makes stupid videos like this and South Park's manbearpig episode.

    Unfortunately this news story if correct disproves that defense.
  • by Mr2001 ( 90979 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @08:23PM (#15856878) Homepage Journal
    And just to play devil's advocate: why does everyone revolt so badly when our work is not being credited? We collectively abuse lot's of other licenses, whether music, software etc.

    Because taking credit for another person's work is fraud. It's as close as you can get to actually "stealing" information, taking it (or at least the credit for it) away from its author. Sharing music, on the other hand, doesn't involve deceiving anyone about the origins of the music, unless you're intentionally mislabeling the files. I believe deceiving someone about the authorship of a work is far, far worse than simply disregarding the author's wishes about how it may be distributed, and I believe a lot of slashdotters agree.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06, 2006 @08:26PM (#15856885)
    Reminds me of an old saying: If the facts are on your side you pound the facts; If the facts are not on your side you pound the table.
  • by nEoN nOoDlE ( 27594 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @08:42PM (#15856943) Homepage
    I'd like to know how the PR firm infiltrated all of these blogs to even get the movie seen. I saw it on Fark and when I watched it, I was wondering why the hell the thing even showed up there. It's technically awful, it's not funny, the pacing is slower than An Inconvenient Truth (which is hard to do for a 3 minute movie!), and basically didn't have any merit to it whatsoever besides the message that Al Gore is boring. Why would it be posted to all of these popular sites?
  • by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @08:49PM (#15856953)
    Adding another $4 at each pit stop isn't just robbery, it is rape.

    To make matters even more decetful, these rapist advertise everywhere, then argue that if we don't like it we can walk to work.

    The oil companies aren't forcibly raping us. We're bending over, spreading our cheeks, and taking it without lube from them!

    We drive unnecessarily huge, inefficient cars. We live in comparatively big houses which are often poorly designed (read: no passive solar heat in winter, no convection ventilation in summer) even if well insulated. We oppose the construction of new nuke and hydro power plants: not in my backyard! We commute to work by car from 40 or 50 miles away. We don't complain when our employers put up a new headquarters in the middle of nowhere. We haven't electrified our railroads in order to move freight without using oil.

    This isn't rape. This is a consensual masochistic activity on the part of the US.


  • Many Republicans are extremely corrupt, and are willing to do anything to get what they want. Read more about it: Armed Madhouse [].

    Do you think that the violence of the U.S. government will end the 3,000 years of violence in the Middle East?

    Are you willing to pay to occupy Iraq so that supplies from the second biggest reserves of oil in the world can be restricted, thus driving up the price of oil?

    Can people who gladly pay to kill other people be correctly called Christians?
  • by clambake ( 37702 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @09:02PM (#15856986) Homepage
    Come on, oil companies, argue bravely and responsibly. If you think Gore is wrong, show us the proof. Don't just close your ears and shout "la la la la, I'm not listening!"

    It's not that THEY think Gore is wrong, they KNOW he is right. It's that they want YOU to think he is wrong. Otherwise it makes no sense not to just lay the fact smackdown on him from the start. This kind of thing is just to "convince" people who are already sort of in the mood to be contrary anyway who will then go and make a lot of noise and thus turn the debate into, "Oh, don't worry, it's just those two crackpot extrememist groups at it again... Boy it's hot, pass me another gin and gasoline please".
  • by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @09:07PM (#15857002) Homepage
    Al Gore talks the talk but by no means does he walk the walk.

    There are many people out there who 'walk the walk'. However, you are never going to hear from them because they live frugally on their farms and don't have access to the media that Gore does.

    Yes, Gore is a politically active member of the American upper class. Like most other members of the American upper class, he uses lots of energy. Unlike them, however, he also works to get the message out about global warming. In return for his hard work, he gets called a hypocrite, while his equally energy-using do-nothing peers all skate by without a second look. No good deed goes unpunished, of course... but I for one am glad that someone with the resources to make a real difference also has to balls to do so -- even if it does mean taking flack from the peanut gallery.

  • by hawkeesk8 ( 682864 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @09:08PM (#15857004) Homepage
    The big deal here is that campaigns on MoveOn *ARE* grassroots campaigns. They are by real people and organizations *NOT* for-profit businesses! It corrupts democracy.
  • Re:{old,new} news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Reaperducer ( 871695 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @09:12PM (#15857013)
    If enough of us take the time to care about the social quality of the candidate,

    For those of you too young to remember, that one of the big issues during the 1992 campaign. Republicans said that Clinton didn't have the character to make a good president, and Democrats kept pounding home that, "character doesn't matter," making the Republicans out to be old-fashioned 1950's squares who didn't understand that running the country doesn't take integrity.

    Fast-forward to a post-Lewinsky world and neither side seems to give a crap about the integrity of their candidates.
  • Re:{old,new} news (Score:2, Insightful)

    by not already in use ( 972294 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @09:13PM (#15857016)
    The cow-like public is perfectly happy believing whichever bias news source they prefer. Generally, people tune into whichever Newscast will further enforce their preconceived opinions, rather than trying to get information in which to base an opinion on.
  • Re:{old,new} news (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Aokubidaikon ( 942336 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @09:21PM (#15857026) Homepage
    The only way to have long-term generational success is to ensure we make sure everyone has the opportunity for good health, good education, good standards, and good safety.

    Welcome to Europe!
  • Re:Obvious? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Golias ( 176380 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @09:40PM (#15857066)
    Every college newspaper in America has job openings posted around election season offering to pay you to pretend to be a motivated volunteer cold-calling and canvassing for the Democrats or various 527 groups. How is it news that the Republicans also astroturf?

    Unless you've been incredibly naive, that is.
  • Democrats and Republicans are in on the mess that our political system is in. It is rather naive and narrow-minded not to acknowledge this.

    Changes will have to address the failures of democracy, in its present form, and look at more sane alternatives such as decentralized self-government and the over-encroachment of goverment in the daily lives of citizens.
  • Re:Disclosure? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06, 2006 @09:54PM (#15857098)
    like matching European and Asian fuel efficiency and investing in something other than coal power
    Would nuclear power be one of those options? Not according to Al Gore's 2000 Presidential bid (nor Kerry's).

    This is what drives me crazy about the DNC. The Democrats will complain like crazy about Global Warming and making a change, but block the technology that could single handedly drop emissions in the country more than anything else.

    But then my alternative is the Republicans who see no need to worry about CO2 emissions whatsoever. But they will build nuclear power plants.

    So who will have a greater effect on reducing CO2? Right now I'm leaning towards the Republican side because economics will reduce oil consumption, and we will have nuclear plants. With the Democrats we would have better cars, but nothing would be done about the huge amounts of CO2 emitted by coal and gas plants.

    Theoretically with both the RNC and DNC we could have the best of both worlds. But in reality, we get the worst. (sigh)
  • by dangermouse ( 2242 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @10:11PM (#15857138) Homepage
    Gore's movie had his name all over it. He's been completely open about his motivations and his support, and sourced the claims his movie made. If it's one-sided, it's because the subject matter is factual and he's not lying.

    These people pretend to be someone else while they snipe at Gore and his movie. They don't debate or argue his claims, they don't find fault with his methods or supporters-- it's pure assassination, and they do it from hiding.

    If you're sure you want to draw a lesson here, please do. I suspect you're too busy cheerleading to do so.

  • by glomph ( 2644 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @10:13PM (#15857144) Homepage Journal
    I love the head-in-the-sand morons who deny reality. Just keep repeating the Big Lie, like our moron-led government does now about so many things, like the WMD idiocy. And "9/11" has gone from a tragedy for a few thousand people, to an excuse to bankrupt the country, discard the US Constitution and Amendments, and move the USA from the most-admired to the most-loathed country on Earth. This is not just bombast, I travel overseas about half the time, if you go around starting wars for no reason, and deny obvious facts like manmade global warming, people tend to mistrust/hate you. What a surprise!

    War is Peace. Hate is Love. Oil Companies are a LOT richer than they were 5 years ago. All is well.
  • Re:Obvious? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Roody Blashes ( 975889 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @10:25PM (#15857173) Homepage Journal
    I like how when things like this show up the rethuglicans always spin it as "oh, we didn't do anything bad. THEY do it too!". But, of course, what the thugs did is always about one hundred times more morally bankrupt than what the dems did.

    See, the problem with dems paying kids to push their talking points by phone is that it's telemarketing, and people hate telemarketing.

    The problem with thugs paying a PR firm to produce a smeer video full of false information under the guise of gentle jesting by a person who is in no way, shape, or form even remotely like the company that actually made the video is that it's deceptive on every possible level and treats potential voters like idiot sheep who can be led about like brainless imbeciles by whatever pretty pictures and funny words can be put to celluloid (or bits, in this case).

    But, yea, those two things are exactly the same. Oh. And the republicans are "for the working man". And millionaire party snob Bush is a real folksy guy. Uh huh.

    Hello toto. That one must've been a F5!
  • by eraser.cpp ( 711313 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @10:37PM (#15857199) Homepage
    Documentaries are not limited to films created by national geographic, they can be (and hundreds are) political.

    There are not two sides to scientific fact. Even a minor amount of research on your part will reveal that there is no myth or debate over global warming occuring, and /very/ little over the cause of it. Scientists have since moved on to discuss what to do about it, and the world would benefit from people actually researching the facts instead of spewing baseless doubt over the conclusions they've drawn.
  • by vought ( 160908 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @10:38PM (#15857206)
    I could point out issues like the oil companies are making only 9 cents per gallon of profit which would put them in lower area's of margin with industry

    Yeah. I mean, how many other industries make only nine cents per unit profit, while selling hundreds of millions of units a week?

    Oh - and your little oil industry pity party forgot one thing - there are many, many products made from oil. Fuel is one of the less profitable products per volume, but it is profitable - most other products made from petrochemicals have far higher rates of profit for the oil companies - but no product makes them more money than fuel.

    I fucking hate people who throw little pity parties for the poor people in the petrochemical industry who make nine cents a gallon on every single gallon of fuel every single person in the world uses. I mean, that fuel is only necessary for, uh, everything. Getting to work. Getting food on the table. Getting ANYTHING.

    Poor bastards only making nine cents every time some H2-driving idiot goes 8 miles.

    Poor folks in the oil industry only making $2.00 every time you fill up. Except they actually making another ten-twelve cents per gallon, because in many cases, they own the franchise the fuel is sold at.

    Poor oil companies! What will they ever do? How about diversifying, and spending those nine cents per gallon on finding a way to put themselves out of business?

    But that's too hard. So the ExxonMobil CEO goes home worth 400 million at retirement (with all six chins and bad tooth). It's too tough to back off of the multi-billion dollar quarterly net profit in order to be responsible corporate "citizens". Too tough to ally with humanity instead of the Republicans.

    Only nine cents a gallon, hunh? Somebody call the Waaahmbulance - I think I'm gonna cry for the poor souls!
  • by dangermouse ( 2242 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @10:50PM (#15857241) Homepage
    Your point was that there is some sort of equivalence between Gore's actions and DCI's actions. I understood that, and now you've reiterated it. Guess what? You're still wrong: There is no such equivalence.

    Gore's "one-sided view of the 'facts', presented as truth" was an argument. That's how you make an honest argument: You draw a conclusion from facts, you present the facts that support your conclusion along with your sources for them, and you do it under your own name and with your own motivations on the table.

    Flinging snarky personal insults while pretending to be someone else is not argument, and it's not honest.

  • huh? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @10:53PM (#15857247) Journal
    Let's see, multibillion dollar commercial firms using whatever method they can to get their (anti-Gore) message across?

    How is that news?

    Next thing you're going to tell me is that Mr. Gore made this movie all by his poor little self, without the backing of multimillion dollar enviro-conglomerates? Or perhaps a handy billionaire or two, who might have a vested interest in attacking the current administration?
    (And please, if you believe that Greenpeace & Co. don't have an agenda, just don't even bother posting. Just hit 'cancel, I'm naive'.) What's so ironic is that it was MR GORE's administration that refused to sign Kyoto. Anyone remember that?

    Anyone got any idea who paid for "An Inconvenient Truth"? Or did the crew just make it out of the goodness of their hearts?


    One side spends millions (ok, I've seen the movie...maybe tens of thousands) of dollars to make a pure propoganda movie that would make Leni Riefenstahl wince with it's unsubtlety, and the OTHER side is 'evil' for having its own propoganda campaign? Could we mod this story -1, hypocritical?
  • Re:{old,new} news (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Bing Tsher E ( 943915 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @11:17PM (#15857313) Journal
    Actually, it just makes nutty single-issue fanatics look ill-humored.

    The parent comment above illustrates this.
  • Re:{old,new} news (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rix ( 54095 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @11:22PM (#15857325)
    I'm willing to bet that Bill Clinton has more integrity than you do. Who polishes his nob is no ones business but those involved. Sexophobes included.
  • Why Not? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Casshan-Robot Hunter ( 705420 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @11:26PM (#15857334)
    ...I mean, Al Gore was behind that science spoof, 'An Inconvenient Truth'
  • by dangermouse ( 2242 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @11:28PM (#15857341) Homepage
    Yes, I'm asserting that Gore's movie is not propaganda.

    When you base your argument on facts, and you present the facts that support your argument, and you provide the sources for those facts, and you do it under your own name, you're not just propagandizing.

    When you take baseless jabs at the other side, without bothering to argue the facts or the other side's reasoning, well, then you are just propagandizing.

    It takes either shameless disingenuousness or ethical bankruptcy to claim that Gore's methods and DCI's are the same. Whichever afflicts you, I hope you get over it. I just wanted to make sure that your post didn't go unrefuted, so I'm done here.

  • Re:Obvious? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FLEB ( 312391 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @11:41PM (#15857360) Homepage Journal
    Why in the world would the "oil companies" give a rat's ass about "man made" global warming in the first place?

    Solutions to the problem often cut out oil usage. No problem, no solutions, no oil-cutting needed.
  • by a voice in the crowd ( 559942 ) on Sunday August 06, 2006 @11:47PM (#15857370)
    I for one find the whining about fossil fuel burning and climate change to be the same sort of sad, illogical drone as that emanating from Kansas on the topic of evolution. The inability for the reader to understand the science means that magical forces must be at play..

    The simple fact is the sun is a variable star. The earth has been both hotter and colder than it is currently, all without the intervention of man. Lets remember that you get what you pay for. Pay for a bunch of yes men academics to produce papers saying what you want isn't the same as real science.

    With a the warmer periods provided by the higher output in the suns cycle you get the following:

          - forests and grasslands will be dryer which lead to more fires, which in turn increases C02 levels
          - higher ocean temperatures result in die backs of plankton and other temperature sensitive fauna, which in turn reduces the amount of CO2 absorbed by the ocean leaving the gas in the atmosphere
          - changes in heat absorbtion by the land affect the weather patterns
          - decrease salinity of the oceans resulting from increased rainfall impacts ocean currents and large scale weather patterns

    Bring on the heat. I've got central air.

  • by jpardey ( 569633 ) <> on Monday August 07, 2006 @12:02AM (#15857403)
    Perhaps the whole "We need your help" is more a way to make people think they are involved in the political process, rather than a fundraising method. Of course corprate donations are much bigger, and tax dollars support some political activities (or do they? I might be wrong). Almost like rich musicians pretending to "keep it real," these appeals for aid would make parties seem more homely.

    Also, who knows, maybe the video was put up by Gore to increase publicity... but I highly doubt it.
  • Re:Obvious? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Swift2001 ( 874553 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @12:07AM (#15857411)
    That's exactly the point. The whole reason they do this is for deception. You're supposed to think, "Oh, it was on YouTUBE. People must really think Gore is stupid." Well, Exxon and the Republican Party think that, but this thing is a fake.
  • Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by biendamon ( 723952 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @12:18AM (#15857431)
    How is it news that the Republicans also astroturf?
    Might it be because the callers you're talking about identify themselves as either members of the Democratic party or employees of a 527? And that those calls are not astroturfing?
  • Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DeadChobi ( 740395 ) <> on Monday August 07, 2006 @12:25AM (#15857443)
    Remember that anything is justifiable in the cause of The Party. Deciet and treachery are made acceptable because they believe that their goals are noble. In a way it's just as despicable as invading a soverign nation to depose a despot. The Party wouldn't accept that as just, but did it all the same. Frankly I think that the fact that they think they can lead us around by our collective asses using our own information-sharing technology speaks volumes of their morality, or lack thereof.
  • by D. Book ( 534411 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @12:26AM (#15857445)
    Exxon got their point out to millions of viewers, DCI got paid, and ABC/WSJ/Slashdot did a good job of uncovering the "truth" of the situation, which pleases their readers and viewers just as much as any other story.

    Whether that's true or not, I see a deeper effect that works to serve their interests. These sorts of stories reinforce the cynicism people have about politics, which instead of getting more ordinary people to demand their voices be heard, has lead to a disengagement from the political process. The younger generation particularly seem to respond to politics with sarcasm or a helpless attitude - things can't be changed, it's pointless to try (though a possible subtext is that this is a hedonistic generation giving itself an excuse to focus on more selfish pursuits). By contrast, corporations are overwhelmingly engaged, with a record number of lobbyists involved in the policy making process.

    In other words, it's turned out that it's in the interests of the establishment to encourage public cynicism about politics. Paradoxically, efforts ostensibly intended to "open the public's eyes" can result in more people looking the other way.
  • Re:Obvious? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pizzaman100 ( 588500 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @01:10AM (#15857522) Journal
    And the republicans are "for the working man".

    No, they are "working for the man".

  • by Guuge ( 719028 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @01:41AM (#15857569)
    The only thing that's really shocking is that people on the 'global warming is real' side think that the people who disagree with them are 100% dupes, and/or manipulative and evile types.

    Okay... and how did you reach this conclusion? I've seen Gore's movie and I can assure you that it does not accuse you personally of being manipulative. Of course, when a Republican PR firm releases a video that poses as an amateur work and makes personal attacks against Gore and says that everyone who agrees with him is an idiot, it's only logical to assume that the firm is being manipulative. Do you disagree?

  • Re:Obvious? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @02:47AM (#15857731) Journal

    It seems like the problem is either that the dems didn't think of it first or thier pissed off because it could potentialy be more effective. Lets see, in both case we have political parties or groups formed by political parties designed to get around campain finance laws attemtping to influence public opinion thru deceptive actions. Just like the Gore/Nader vote swap/stuffing scandle back in 2000 and again in 2004. Even though the video was poking fun of Gore in a way that isn't mildly convincing as to the real truth of his cause, the left is afraid it might lead voters like idiot sheep (or was it imbeciles?) to the polls to vote however the magical imaging machine showed them to. Good thing Mikey moore wasn't consulted before production of this piece.

    Oh yea, and democrates are for the working man, just look at all the good nafta did. And the folksy President Clinton must have been a good card player, In one hand felling your pain, in the other setting your job up to shiped out of the country, Bottom line; each slure for a politition can generaly be slung at both major parties. It just apears to be worse when it isn't your guy.
  • Re:{old,new} news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by niktemadur ( 793971 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @03:09AM (#15857780)
    Absolutely. Amen to that.

    While republican pundits and gop congressmen were tearing their own shirts in self-righteous indignation over the result of an $80 million investigation over real estate deals (a stained blue dress), the rest of the world didn't snicker at Clinton's peccadilloes, they in fact snickered at "the ridiculousness of those american prudes, so hung up about sex".

          And then, the ringleader of the impeachment movement, Newt Gingrich, resigned his post on the eve of Larry Flynt publishing in Hustler the nine extramarital affairs Gingrich had been involved in during the previous twenty years.
          And then, Gingrich's replacement, Robert Livingstone, who promised to continue the good fight for morals, integrity and decency, withdrew when Mr. Flynt uncovered one of his extramarital affairs.
          And then, the largest mouthpiece against Clinton's sins, thrice-divorced comedian Rush Limbaugh, is caught with industrial quantities of OxyContin and, later, unprescribed Viagra while returning from a caribbean vacation.

    These hypocritical imbeciles are seen as 'martyrs' and/or 'heroes' in republican twisted family values circles, while Clinton is viewed as The Devil Himself. Yeah, right.

    What many people do not get is that Clinton did not parade a stained blue dress in front of all the american public, children included, republicans did. Clinton did not flaunt and wave the image of a soaked cigar in front of the american public, republicans did. And then they tore their shirts in moral indignation at how the minds of children are being poisoned with decadence and depravity.

    Under republican so-called standards of decency:
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and that would be Bill Clinton.
  • Re:Obvious? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xenobyte ( 446878 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @03:52AM (#15857845)
    The oil companies and right-wing have poured millions for many years into discrediting global warming and environmentalists in general.

    Now, I don't particulary support the oil companies (don't even own a car, and I even walk most places as 'suggested' in this spoof) but I think the global warming scare has been blown so much out of proportion that it has begun to look a lot like a religious cult where facts and reality has stopped being important at all, and the core idea is bigger than anything.

    Nobody stops up anymore and questions anything. It is now considered a fact carved in stone that global warming occurs, that it is entirely man-made and that the right action by man absolutely will fix everything. It is heresy to even consider that some or all of the effects seen might be the result of some natural process not understood completely. It is downright blasphemy to even hint that the suggested actions intended to fix things actually might make things worse (due to lack of understanding of the deeper issues).

    I think it's time for some serious de-programming here.
  • Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NeutronCowboy ( 896098 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @04:22AM (#15857875)
    And like a lot of other people, you seem to not be able to grasp the difference between an up-front presentation about things that are happening right and a personal attack where the author is hidden.

    It is quite clear that you have no idea what propaganda actually is, and therefore simply label everything propaganda. Congratulations - you're at best an idiot, and at worst, morally bankrupt (to pick up the terminology of another poster). Yup, this was an insult. Yup, it was who me said it. Wanna take a wild guess and say what the difference between my post, "An Inconvenient Truth" and this little YouTube video is?
  • get a clue (Score:5, Insightful)

    by m874t232 ( 973431 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @06:50AM (#15858042)
    My point is that neither side has a monopoly on being good or being evil.

    No, historically and over the long run, neither label, "Republican" or "Democrat", has had a monopoly on being good or evil: evil people, corrupt people, and incompetent people are attracted to power, whatever label it happens to fall under. It just happens to be that in 2006, they seem to have taken over the Republican party: incompetent foreign policy, abusing the tax system for social engineering, vast expansions of the federal bureaucracy, costly and ineffective wars, violations of human rights, intrusive government, bad economic policies, cronyism, and widespread instituionalized corruption, to name just a few. This administration and this Congress are one of the worst we have ever had in US history, and the damage they are doing to the US will be felt for decades to come.

    And if you're saying "no, no, the other party doesn't agree with me on ____", you should find out why. If you can't find a reason why someone disagrees with you, save they're evil, you really need to open your mind.

    I don't know about the GP, but it's no mystery why Republicans disagree with me: the party is dominated by people who are incompetent, power hungry, and, at times, simply corrupt. And since they have excellent PR people working for them, plus wealthy funders to pay for PR, they can convince enough people to vote for them to remain in power. The real problem isn't that there are evil Republicans or that they have power, but that people like you are stupid enough to vote for these kinds of people. I mean, assuming you're somewhere in the 40k-200k income bracket, you're so dumb that you let the current government talk out out of many thousands of dollars that they collect in taxes from you and funnel to their political buddies, and you don't even notice it.

    Republicans brought an end to slavery in America.

    Yeah, if only anybody could bring those Republicans back. Unfortunately, today's Republicans are the antithesis of that; they have simply latched on to the name in order to give their agenda an acceptable veneer.
  • Re:{old,new} news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @08:43AM (#15858285) Homepage Journal
    Democrats kept pounding home that, "character doesn't matter,"

    That's the narrative of the '92 election put forth by the Republicans. While I'm sure in this vast country you can probably find a Democrat that uttered these words, this was just a Republican talking point, a straw argument they attributed to their enemies so they could manipulate the opinions of their base. Looks like it worked in your case.

    A more representative Democratic viewpoint on character is this: character matters, but it's complex. Good people do bad things some times. Democrats believe in mitigating circumstances and allowances for human weakness. Republicans do not. Thus, in the Democratic view, a good man man might cheat on his wife in a moment of weakness, but he wouldn't bring up divorce when his wife while she was in a hospital bed recovering from surgery. The difference is character: in one case it's a common place flaw, in the other it's wanton self centeredness. The Republican viewpoint makes no allowance for circumstance of human weakness. It's wrong to cheat on your wife, so that's bad. It's unfortunate, but sometimes necessary to discuss divorce, so that's OK.

    Yet, the standard issue Republican viewpoint on character is more rotten than merely misguided.

    We would do well to remember what a Republican politician who sets himself up as a role model is: a politican. It only makes sense to heed this if you think politicians are suitable ethical role models. They're not. There's too much temptation. I'd even rather set up athletes as role models than politicians.

    The reason Bill Bennett gets heat over his gambling problems is because he does not live up to his own professed standards, nor does he alter those standards in light of his personal experience. He remains a self-righteous scold who plies his self-appointed trade as arbiter of moral virtue as a weapon against people who disagree with him. Same with Rush and his drug problems.

    You've given us the Republican view of the Democratic view on character. Now let me return the favor.

    From the Democratic standpoint, the Republicans view of character consists of burdens they place on others and not themselves, of standards they impose on others with no intention of living up to themselves. It's a logical outcome of a political philosophy forged to defend the special privileges of the powerful and wealthy. In the Vietnam era, it promoted the benefits of anticommunism and wartime spending without the burden of fighting the war. Now, it's the future burden of deficit spending for war profiteering, and the liquidation of the nation's social and economic gains for current profit. Capital is, after all, mobile. Those who make their living from it can exploit the homeland and move the fruits offshore, the way corrupt oligarchies did throughout the twentieth century in countless third world countries.

    Now, if the Republicans get to define "character" then I'll stand up and say "Character (as defined by the Republicans is a political ploy. It does not matter."
  • Re:Obvious? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Haeleth ( 414428 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @10:13AM (#15858707) Journal
    Nobody stops up anymore and questions anything. It is now considered a fact carved in stone that global warming occurs, that it is entirely man-made and that the right action by man absolutely will fix everything. It is heresy to even consider that some or all of the effects seen might be the result of some natural process not understood completely. It is downright blasphemy to even hint that the suggested actions intended to fix things actually might make things worse (due to lack of understanding of the deeper issues).

    Hardly. What people actually believe is that global warming appears to be occurring, that it appears to be influenced by human activity, and that the right action by man might slow it down or reduce its effects. It is unhelpful to stubbornly reject the evidence as insufficient without suggesting what evidence you would consider sufficient (short of New York sinking below the waves). It is downright irritiating to insist that no action should be taken until we have a complete understanding of the entire situation (which, according to the less optimistic projections, will not happen until long after it's too late to do anything).

    And strawman arguments like yours are not helpful. It's very easy for you to brush off anyone who has been convinced by the scientific evidence for human-influenced global warming as "brainwashed" or "deluded". But hyperbole is not reality, and saying people believe things they don't believe does nothing to advance the debate.
  • by contrar1an ( 976880 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @10:29AM (#15858809)
    I will take a shot :) I will respond with questions of my own.

    1. Where does the CO2 come from? We know our cars produce it. But, in what proportion compared to breathing, forest fires, cows, etc. Wikipedia ( says that CO2 causes between 9% and 26% of the greenhouse effect. They also say:

    "There is considerable debate ast to how much human activity can be attributed to the Greenhouse effect, since at most, mankind contributes only 3% of the total increase in atmospheric CO2" In other words, the CO2 is rising, but 97% of the rise isn't related to human activity.

    2. Where does the CO2 go? We know trees, grass, etc consume it. But, in what proportion to algae, etc. In the end, I wonder what the net loss of CO2 consumption is from deforestation. I couldn't find anything on this one.

    3. It isn't realistic that we will stop driving, flying, and using electricity any time soon. What is a reasonable expectation of CO2 emission reduction?

    You didn't blame the oil companies, but I've seen it as a common theme in this thread. So, forgive me for adding it to this reply. But, the oil companies aren't to blame (conceding for a moment that blame is to be had). It's us. I drive, I fly, I use electricity. And so do the rest of you. Blaming the oil companies is just a cop out.

  • by iceperson ( 582205 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @10:44AM (#15858901)
    Let me start by saying that I don't think it's climate change skeptics you want to hear from so much as "human induced climate change skeptics." Just because a person doesn't believe that humans are having a significant, or even measurable, impact on global temps does not mean they don't believe that the global temps are rising. "Don't believe me that all scientists are united on the side that it's climate change exists? You don't have to. Pick up ANY scientific journal -- Nature or Science are rather dense for non-scientists, so try New Scientist or Scientific American or any one of countless others." I'm old enough to remember when they are ALL in agreement that we were coming up on a new ice age (way back in the 70's.) "Who on Earth is paying scientists to produce evidence showing that climate change exists? No-one stands to benefit in the least. Are these strange people paying the entire, vast scientific community around the world? Is this some sort of global consipracy?" Are you serious? The more "evidence" there is of global warming the more money is given to "environmentalists". That compounded with the save the whales, newts, bermuda grass, or whatever other FotM endangered species there seems to be that many people who study these fields come into them with is more than enough to bring their results into question as far as a lot of people are concerned. And this is from someone who won't even consider a vehicle that isn't ULEV-rated, never leaves the light on when they leave the room, and goes out of their way to conserve. I want cleaner air/water for its own sake. Believe me, if you can't convince people that clean air/water is a noble enough cause to get them to change their behaviors then you're surely not going to get them to change by simply repeating that it's hotter and it's all our fault.
  • Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by inKubus ( 199753 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @10:46AM (#15858910) Homepage Journal
    In my opinion, there are 3 major groups of people in America.

    1. The Chicken-Hawks. Creators of Freedom Fries and the stupid flag thing, they love Jesus, NASCAR and War. Their patron representatives are the conservative republicans. Side-effects of this group include abortion bans, the military-industrial complex, the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and the Iraq War. They are scared of, and I quote: "Ragheads, Niggers, Jews, Wetbacks, and 'terrorists'".

    2. The Lefties. Creators of the "War on Globalization" and Greenpeace, they love Wicca, Soccer and War. Their patron representatives cannot get elected right now, or ever. They relegate themselves to and protests. Side effects of this group include Wiretapping initiatives, the rise of the Neo-Cons in '00, coffee houses and the Canada thing. They are scared of Militant Christians, logical debate, and growing up.

    3. Everyone Else. Creators of the economy, common sense, the space program, etc., they love to worship whatever they worship in moderation, football and baseball, and Peace. Side effects of this group include a strong American economy, foreign policy that is just the right balance between isolationist and imperialist, and the 50-50 distribution of votes in the last election. These people are having a hard time deciding who they trust, so they vote almost at random based on maybe one hotbed issue that is different for each of them. They are afraid of Chicken Hawks and Lefties.
  • Re:Obvious? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by phaggood ( 690955 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @11:00AM (#15858980) Homepage
    > his economic policiies were a such a disacster that we are still recovering from them today.

    I'm just praying for my great-great-grandkids, who'll be selling apples and pencils out of tin cups trying to recover from the econominc non-policies of the current CNC.
  • Re:get a clue (Score:2, Insightful)

    by qurk ( 87195 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @01:37PM (#15860000)
    I can't speak for the original poster, but a lot of people don't vote because the issues that both parties run on are in general, retarded. In some states you are lucky to have a candidate who stands up against the racist Marijuana Prohibition of like 70-80 years ago, and in fact both the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate both support the completely hideous policy. So who is dumb? Voting for someone who doesn't really have a moral leg to stand or, or say voting for someone of whom, of like 40,000 issues you may agree with him on 21,000. As for the other policies, voting for him or her is actually against your best interest. I feel that the current "one vote, one candidate" system is fundamentally outdated and absurd considering that you end up putting someone into office who just does whatever the Republican or Democratic party wants, not neccessarily voting for what you or the other people who voted him in wanted, or even on the issues they said they were supporting during the election.

    In any case, I may be wrong, but didn't more people vote for Kerry than for any other presidential candidate before the 2004 election? It just ended up that more people voted for Bush in this election. Bush won fair and square, but I don't think that making a broad general attack on Democrats, calling them stupid for not getting out and voting really helps the debate any. I'm not one of the people calling Democrats the same as Republicans, I'm just saying both are equally retarded, as is our current system of voting. So do we even have a 50% turnout on voting right now? So if the Republicans put Bush into power again in a "landslide" and a "mandate", that means that what like 26% of the eligable voting base agrees with some of the issues that Republicans claim to care about, and that's a huge mandate. Right.

    I mean when you go to a football game and you have all these people in the stadium cheering for the same team, you don't check with the guys sitting next to you to make sure that they are of the same party as you or you hate their guts. IT'S RETARDED TO LUMP 40,000 ISSUES AND SPLIT IT UP INTO 2 PARTIES, BOTH OF WHICH ARE COMPLETELY FULL OF SHIT.
  • Re:get a clue (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Barlo_Mung_42 ( 411228 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @02:00PM (#15860154) Homepage
    The gp was on target but left off one thing. The Republicans have managed to convince a large number of gullible people to vote against their own best interests on "religious" grounds. Now that's dumb.
  • Re:Obvious? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shadowlore ( 10860 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @02:54PM (#15860542) Journal
    I agree. The oil companies and right-wing have poured millions for many years into discrediting global warming and environmentalists in general. This has been profusely documented.

    Yeah because Gore and his family have never been tied with big [] oil [].

      The history of the Gore family and Occidental Petroleum have been intertwined for generations. Al Gore Sr. was such a loyal political ally that Occidental's founder and longtime CEO, Armand Hammer, liked to say that he had Gore "in my back pocket." When Gore Sr. left the Senate in 1970, Hammer gave him a half a million dollar a year job at an Occidental subsidiary and a seat on the company's board of directors. Money from Occidental and its subsidiaries formed the basis of the Gore family fortune.

    But it is not only the land of Indigenous Colombians that Occidental is drilling against the wishes of the residents and indigenous inhabitants. In late 1997, Al Gore supported the federal government's three and a half billion dollar sale of the Elk Hills oil field in Bakersfield, California, to Occidental Petroleum. This was the largest privatization of federal property in US history. Occidental's plans to drill for oil in Elk Hills will disturb traditional burial sites for the Yokuts indigenous peoples of southern California. At stake are at least 100 ancient sites in the Buena Vista Lake region where Yokuts peoples once lived.

    Yeah, it's OK to drill on ancient burial sites, but not a remote arctic wilderness. The difference? it wasn't Occidental wanting to drill in ANWR.

    Face it: all the power-mongers are tied to each other.

    And let us be perfecty honest here. Most global warming advocates do need "discredited" as they are flat out wrong. For example when they claim there is "universal consensus" and that "all scientists" agree. Or they claim there is nothing we can do to stop it, that it started a hundred years ago, and so on. Extremists on both sides need to be kept in check.

    And most of the vocal environmentalsists are really concerned about doing things for the environment, they are about changing how YOU behave. They don't go for changes that are not invasive but yield high results. Where is Al Gore when efforts to increase tractor trailer weight limits are underway? These changes would increase net efficiency as well as safety on the road. But it is a cheap change. It is a conservation change that doesn't make you the consumer "stop and think" about what good people they are for making you do this. Nevermind that it would be the equivalent of going from 5 MPG to 12.5 MPG. Yeah a ~40-60% drop in trucking industry isn't worth making political hay over since it doesn't make people give anything up.

    And therin lies one of the big problems with government politics. If it isn't controversial, it doesn't get press. If it doesn't get press, the politicians are much less interested in it. All of them.
  • Re:get a clue (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CAIMLAS ( 41445 ) on Monday August 07, 2006 @03:17PM (#15860712) Homepage

    I don't know about the GP, but it's no mystery why Republicans disagree with me: the party is dominated by people who are incompetent, power hungry, and, at times, simply corrupt. And since they have excellent PR people working for them, plus wealthy funders to pay for PR, they can convince enough people to vote for them to remain in power.

    Unlike the bastion of liberal justice, the Democrat party, with stalward heroes like:

    - Hillary Clinton, wife of the corrupt ex-President who committed treason for campaign contributions
    - Ted Kennedy, drunkard, thief, murderer
    - John Kerry, lying hypocrite, war profiteer, politically wed (quite literally), all-around sleaze bag

    Need I point out to you that taking things that are not rightfully your's is considered theft, and as this is the modus operandi of the Democrat party (and increasingly so, the Republican party), both are, by definition, "evil"?

    Both parties are full of shit. You "my party is better than mine" types make me fucking sick, because they're both pretty fucking bad.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07, 2006 @05:26PM (#15861661)
    >> " I'm old enough to remember when they are ALL in agreement that we were coming up on a new ice age (way back in the 70's.)

    I remember the media blowing out of proportion a couple of wacky scientists and a couple of hard winters. I don't remember every scientist that looked at the issue saying that we were going into an ice age. In fact they had a lot of scientists that disputed the claims by this tiny minority.

    The media blew out of proportion the cold fusion issue a few years ago too. One lab in the world said they could perform cold fusion and the media became a circus around them. The rest of the worlds scientists were saying, "Ummmm, this needs to be confirmed by independent labs." Which they attempted to do and failed because of flaws in the original experiment.

    I really wish the media would wait until the scientists came up with a consensus on research before making wild claims on either side.

    Unfortunately for your arguments, it is the consensus by 99.9% of all scientists on earth that there is global warming and that the global warming is being caused by human activity. How do we know this? Because they have built very accurate forecasting models based on the facts that humans are releasing green house gasses into the environment. These models have been very accurate in predicting global temperature gains the past few years. Scientists using a sun changing temperature model have not been accurate in predicting the actual temperature changes we are monitoring.

    It is not the scientists that are heavy handed propagandists. The Bush administration has been caught time and time again trying to change NASA reports and silence our own scientists in regards to this matter, because a few politicians and vested interests find the truth to be inconvenient.
  • When you call me "dumbass" THAT is ad-hominem.

    So ... do you pass up my offer to buy you an ENTIRE BOOK filled with refutations of your arguments? It's much cheaper for me to buy you a book than spend time teaching Yet Another person basic economics. Let me try teaching you just one thing, to see if there's any hope for you. The reason the economy can expand infinitely in a finite world is because people value things relative to other things. Let's say that I have a USB cable and want an Ethernet cable, and you have an Ethernet cable and want a USB cable. We swap. No new thing has been created. Finite number of atoms. Yet you are more wealthy because you assign a higher value to your new ownership of the USB cable. I am more wealthy because I assign a higher value to my Ethernet cable. We have expanded the economy. Each of us is richer (by a very small amount, of course) and no new atoms have been needed. You can repeat this process forever; the economy expands infinitely in a finite universe.

Disks travel in packs.