Politics
Politics
Out of context: Reply #26547
- Started
- Last post
- 33,471 Responses
- deathboy-1
yuekit. this might be interesting to you. i cant agree with his blind R&D spending but he makes interesting points and arguement of cases not really spoken strongly about in media and presents an interesting argument to the case of if you will spend there why not spend it here for better value.
- I think you have to put it in context that this guy is actually a well known climate change skeptic. He admits it's happening but dismisses the idea that thereyuekit
- will be serious consequences. Which is fine but you have to ask why does Reason (funded by the Kochs brothers who own largest private oil company and also fundyuekit
- climate change denial groups) only interview someone like this? Wouldn't it make more sense to talk to a scientist representing the majority view?yuekit
- i thought he articulated the that manmade change is strong in his belief, question the effects of spending and trying to curb it, where that money was betterdeathboy
- spent on projects that have more direct effectdeathboy
- i think koch brothers have a bad rap, but really reason is one of the last non emotionally triggered media outlets.deathboy
- i see some hidden ads, and buzzfeed styled headlines here and there but i guess thats what you have to do to stay in businessdeathboy
- i only look at the worth. the interview style, if you know gillepsie hes not about hand outs, and yet he interviewed the guy on a topic cleanlydeathboy
- other media outlets woudl try to force their bias or opinion, make it entertaining, is there a pro cliamte scientist that can prove their model with 0 doubtdeathboy
- im sure they would interview them. probably have. but one thing i like about reason is its not about filling space with idiots like MSMdeathboy
- judge the content not the support. koch brother philanthropy is wide from nova to hospitals.deathboy
- the whole we do this for poor nations thing reminds me of as friends rust song called Born with a silver spoon up your assdeathboy
- actually i take it back the song im thinking of is. we on next level shit and line "Don't tell me what I need until you've needed anything."deathboy
- which is to say how we think we know who we see as poor and needy need is absolutely incorrectdeathboy
- Reason isn't all bad but expecting them to be fair on this issue is like expecting RT to criticize Putin.yuekit
- The Koch Brothers have spent by some estimates $100 million to convince people climate change is not real.yuekit
- but i thought u would like it because he remind me of a half way between what we think. A compromise of sorts.deathboy
- id tell u if I suspected an unfairness. they are pretty independent. and they have been managing their integrity ok compared to other pubs.deathboy
- not that you'd believe me thinking bias, but has anything i ever written made you believe i chose bias over truth. Real is all i care about, intentions be damnddeathboy
- i disagree with ronald bailey on climate spending who i also agree with on other subjects. who is a big contributordeathboy
- what soured me on the kochs is they didnt come out to support johnson. at the end of the day im sure they knew it was a lost cause and money wasted, but it wouldeathboy
- d have been nice, but if you also read koch writings, wether practice vs pen, the words are gooddeathboy
- and the money they spend are far more productive than the soros typesdeathboy
- and it just hit me they spend money to think climate change isnt real? sauce?deathboy
- I just don't think you can ignore the fact that the entire U.S. conservative movement has been subjected to this huge propaganda campaign (ironically what theyyuekit
- i only see arguments about economic movements on climate change and how they dont work.deathboy
- but will they spend it here and bomb it then there instead of spend it there? or will they just not spend it? what do you think db?uan
- falsely accuse the other side of).yuekit
- Just one example:
https://www.theguard…yuekit - i think all of america has been subjected to PR campaigns, conservative, and left. and most people just fall in line.deathboy
- uan i dont know what you are asking. bombs were never in the dialogue. it was more about about dirct and measureable spending where people ask for it, especialldeathboy
- y amongst poorer nations we are supposedly helping but ask for other thingsdeathboy
- i really hate labels conservative. left, and what not yuekit, becuase you see no matter which poltician stand with the term fold instantly popular opinon shiftdeathboy
- i use them simply as poltiical philosophy generalization. I think there is a war to paint so called conservatives one waydeathboy
- This is very well documented attempt to influence people on a specific issue. It's like tobacco industry paying PR groups to say smoking doesn't cause cancer.yuekit
- another to paint lefts the other way, and i cant help but think its only to fake a choice of the same thing. remember romneycare, calling out obamacaredeathboy
- where is that money US is not spending on climate protection going now? (that was my question)uan
- It would be great if people were not so tribalistic but they are. And the oil industry took advantage of this to brainwash conservatives into thinking climateyuekit
- change is not real, specifically because it benefits them financially. That is a pretty commentary on how easily people are manipulated but I don't see how youyuekit
- interesting article, id have liked to read his reseaarch if the link worked. i will play devil advocate in an age of climate change paid pro matirial is it notdeathboy
- can draw any other conclusion. We can see they are spending hundreds of millions on this, and almost every U.S. conservative media is now a climate skeptic.yuekit
- ok to pay for a defense material. ill admit without seeing his research this look like paid disinformation, but that is the market of climate changedeathboy
- and goes to show how much money that market can bedeathboy
- That is one small example, overall the Kochs are estimated to have spent around $100 million. And similar by Exxon and Chevron.yuekit
- UAN, beat me probably some goddamn dumb wall, but it wont help create a shitty global carbon cartel market. opec was shit enough.deathboy
- skeptic is not bad. skeptic challenges. challenging from baseless idiots with no idea is different howeverdeathboy
- There is also an even bigger organization called Donors Trust, which is completely anonymous and has spent half a billion on climate change denial propaganda.yuekit
- but most of those people hardly talk of real things. its media filer, time filler. i only cnn and what not in bar. I might find a really good article once a mondeathboy
- But how much has green technology lobbied and spent on climate change. Its trillion dollar market with no end in site because no goaldeathboy
- not to negate your example of cronisim but want to highlight it goes both ways. i find both teribledeathboy
- i dont know we have same goals different means, at least you dont get all identity emo with views. hopefully sharpens both views or opens ideasdeathboy
- Yeah but the minor detail here is that one side is trying to solve a problem while the other is deliberately trying to mislead people.yuekit
- Exxon for instance knew climate change was real 40 years ago and still spent millions to convince people that the opposite was true.yuekit
- https://www.scientif…yuekit
- The kind of equivalence you're drawing would be like saying on one hand tobacco companies lied to people, on the other hand health companies stand to profityuekit
- from helping people quit smoking.yuekit
- i dont see it that way. we know we are in a climate warming model. ice cores seem to show that. in the seventies climate datas became hot with little understanddeathboy
- it was time of global cooling and the industry began to invent itself. I find spendin money to sway public perception is typical PRdeathboy
- i assume most of us are in advertising and understand PR. combat large public think to save companydeathboy
- there is defensive PR and offensive PR spending though. I find offensive as thr aggressor and worse kinddeathboy
- Most PR is not a deliberate attempt to mislead people that could result in death and destruction.yuekit
- You could compare it to tobacco industry, or food industry paying off scientists to say sugar is not dangerous.yuekit
- i think most of the exxon is very new knee jerk pr reaction to a very old style of pr.deathboy
- out of curiosity what are you margins on climate change yuekit? 50% costs on everything for a 100 years? what is acceptable?deathboy
- how far is too far? being a individualist i never want to set a price. but you want change, and change cost so how much are you thinking is acceptable?deathboy
- They literally propagandized the public and the government into not acting on a problem that could permanently degrade or ruin the world's environment.yuekit
- how much Y for X amount of degrees should people be willing to spend on climate change?theory one thing but how bout practice.deathboy
- climate change will eventually ruin our environment. it was determined before we existed. i see exxons move to counter a new pr fearmongering threatdeathboy
- remember all climate science in not empirical and is predictive which hasn't panned out. you hav ea risk manager who sees the potential response to thisdeathboy
- you go defensive, seed info you want that protect your interests. seed ideas any alternative is false. this is normal behavior, despite frowned upondeathboy
- because now you have to try and determine what is truthdeathboy