It is interesting to see that the denial machine is still running well. This is an absolutely classic example of how it works too, look at the little blurb with the link:
An Inconvenient Ruling for An Inconvenient Truth
By Brandon Keim October 11, 2007 | 12:17:08 PMCategories: Climate, Government
A British judge has ruled that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth can't be shown in schools unless accompanied by materials explaining the film's inaccuracies.
Somebody reads that and they see get the impression that the film is inaccurate. If you read the judge's decision you find that he lists 9 points he disagrees with but uses the term "broadly accurate" to actually describe the film. Yes, that is a direct quote from the judge.
I seem to remember Gore touching on the denial machine in the movie but it is something that people seem reluctant to really consider. The same people who were involved in the cigarette industry's maneuvers ten years ago are the people leading this "skeptic" movement. Pinhead even pointed it out 2 pages ago and everyone still missed it. The PR company in charge of it is the same, the polling consultant is the same guy and even some of the oft quoted scientists are the same. How can a guy who stood up and said "cigarettes are not addictive and pose no serious health risks", be considered a reliable source for cookie recipes never mind something this important!
Anyone else love irony? There is a wicked little chunk of it buried in our discussion here. Swags pointed out Crichton's book State of Fear which is a pretty decent little read, I'd recommend it as well. Now to be fair to Swags I don't think he brought it up to use specifically as a counterpoint to Gore's movie but fear mongering is something people trying to get emissions changes done are accused of regularly. Especially Gore. There is a far better book recently published about using fear based arguments to shape political discussions. It talks about how fear really works, how it shapes our memories and discussions and using recent political events shows how it is done. It talks about why it is a bad strategy from a public good perspective as well. An excellent read called Assault on Reason written by .... wait for it ..... Al Gore.
Really though it doesn't even matter what happens with the global warming debate, our ability to have a decent public debate has been destroyed. The lesson to take away from this is that if you need to do something in the public interest that's going to cost somebody with deep pockets some bucks, you're boned. These guys are so good you don't stand a chance. We can look at the current debate as an example, try this little thought exercise:
We're a group of people who have all had the benefit of a decent basic education just because of where we live. We come together because of our hobby which surely isn't rocket science but I think we can say that if you're reasonably successful with a reef tank you're probably not a moron. None of us are climate scientists either so we're pretty much basing this decision on the credibility of the people making the arguments.
Everyone can agree with that right? Okay here goes.
On one hand we have the largest international scientific consensus in human history and on the other we have an Exxon-paid-for speech by the "smoking doesn't hurt you" guy.
I mean really, WTF? How is this an even sort of difficult call? As a former and much embarrassed by it fence sitter I urge you all to look at the people who are pushing this skeptic junk, it will really open your eyes.
|