------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[Patred_Cow]

The corruption lies not in blatant fabrication, but in intentional misrepresentation of available data. The media is 'used' as a tool to proliferate this ruse. The GW scientitians use this median with much greater effectiveness than any corporate spinster

Precisely my feeling, blatant fabrication of data is not a major issue and I haven't claimed that it is. I rate deliberate misinterpretation of data as the greatest issue. The media does all sorts of things and lacks the understanding to be used reliably in this way, it is dangerous nonetheless because of its lack of comprehension. I am yet to meet a 'scientitian' but maybe they are corruptive masterminds, who knows? You have no evidence to support the assumption that scientists are lying to us to achieve some outlandish goal. The media does what it thinks will make it money, this makes it a poor medium for any scientist no matter what their intentions might be.

I am unaware of a perceived integrity of these organisations, what I do see is a misconceived perception of a lack of integrity. People doubt because they see science as unreliable due to the creative freedom scientists grant the media with respect to their research.

I fear that the next step in this is a push towards legislation outlawing opposition to the prevailing view.point..I have heard it proposed. Given the alarming centralized control wielded in scientific circles, the ingredients are present for an elite few to control what we hear, believe and are able to discuss. At the moment they have the lion by the tail. I am just suggesting the we break free of the grip and pounce.

I fear that conspiracy theorists and environmentalists have a lot more in common than I thought. Science is not about controlling opinion, it is about allowing opinions to wander and change in response to evidence. People seem to fear what they don't understand, my point here is that we should improve their understanding to remove their fear.

[August]

http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/Fo...pic.php?t=4410

Helsinki: October 2004: “Limits to Ignorance: The Challenge of Informed Humanity”

“The wealth, volume of information produced has grown enormously over the past few decades. Formerly isolated information today is ever more connected. This globally networked information is ever more easy accessible to a growing number of people world-wide. Standards of education, mobility and cosmopolitanism of the middle class in industrial societies, as well as emerging developing countries, have grown enormously in the past few decades. The volume of information and the range of media have also increased considerably, making information readily accessible to an increasing number of people. Yet in Yet and despite of higher standards of education and almost unlimited access to information, the world is still beset by the well known challenges, such as grave environmental risks, a growing gap between the rich and poor, and conflicts between different cultures. The course of humanity has not changed, even though an increasing number of people have all the informational resources needed for responding to the situation. The crucial question for the future of humanity is whether we learn to understand the challenge of sustainable development implicit in this issue in time. What are the thingsis (sic) needed for changing ignorance and the lack of vision into global responsibility and awareness? How can we motivate the middle-classes and other responsible actors to make the commitment to achieve global change?

So, in summarising, what we want to bring up into public discussion is The Annual Conference of The Club of Rome will focus on this the contradictory development (sic, sic): On the one hand we recognise an increasing flow of information that may potentially provide us with more knowledge about the world around us. On the other hand we also identify a growing information overload causing confusion and disorientation and an increasing tendency on misuse of information and information channels, obscuring the premises of the public and private decision-making and increasing to public ignorance.”

El Hassan Bin Talal (President of The Club of Rome)
Markku Wilenius (Chairman: Finnish Association for The Club of Rome)

- —

This brilliant (but highly disturbing) question, which was cast upon this world by The Club of Rome in 2004, remains unresolved. Today, it can seem to me like the most difficult part of the equation is the part which involves the mainstream media, which in part (let’s admit it) serves to protect the political / economic / social / cultural establishment of each and every sovereign state (country) in which it is at work. I mean: think about it: “the misuse of information and information channels.” Hah! To which purpose? Oh, that’s definitely hard to tell.

A disturbing fact is: this question raised by The Club of Rome has not, to my knowledge, been referred to openly by any media group in this world. Just you google it, and you’ll easily find that I’m probably right. The next question will be: “Why? How come?”

The “thingsis” this elitist group of scientists and heads of state were searching for, back in 2004, is, I believe, what we are about to find (or “found”) these days, here in cyberspace (”the internet” or “the blogosphere”). I can only hope that the freedom of opinion and expression that has evolved here, over the past few years, is one that can be protected for the future. I don’t know whether or not it will be wise of me to hope that the mainstream media will one-day follow suit, and allow concerned citizens to be concerned with topics that might offend the established political-economic elites of our societies, also in print.

Another challenge which remains, is this: for how long are the poor, underprivileged masses of the developing world going to have to wait before they get the opportunity to take an active part in the on-going communication revolution of our times?

It’s a necessity, I believe. We could discuss a topic like “the democratization of knowledge” perhaps? And call it a possible way out of the ignorance mess that we’re currently faced with?

- —

“I know what I want, but I just don’t know how I’m a-gonna get it.” ~ Jimi Hendrix

[screener]

Originally Posted by Patred_Cow

Precisely my feeling, blatant fabrication of data is not a major issue and I haven't claimed that it is. I rate deliberate misinterpretation of data as the greatest issue. The media does all sorts of things and lacks the understanding to be used reliably in this way, it is dangerous nonetheless because of its lack of comprehension. I am yet to meet a 'scientitian' but maybe they are corruptive masterminds, who knows? You have no evidence to support the assumption that scientists are lying to us to achieve some outlandish goal. The media does what it thinks will make it money, this makes it a poor medium for any scientist no matter what their intentions might be.

I am unaware of a perceived integrity of these organisations, what I do see is a misconceived perception of a lack of integrity. People doubt because they see science as unreliable due to the creative freedom scientists grant the media with respect to their research.

I fear that conspiracy theorists and environmentalists have a lot more in common than I thought. Science is not about controlling opinion, it is about allowing opinions to wander and change in response to evidence. People seem to fear what they don't understand, my point here is that we should improve their understanding to remove their fear.

paradox, I am astounded and amused. It is not my experience that anyone has the spin capability of the corporate sector. Talk about your elite few, now that group sure fits the bill doesn't it?

Most of the media certainly does act in a manner which will give it it's best financial return. I hope no one here thinks that pro environment groups have the money necessary to corrupt CNN etc. away from their bread and butter and cheese and jam and cake for that matter.

There is a magazine called Adbusters published in Vancouver BC that discusses the trends in advertising, has been for the last ten years or so. The power of the big advertisers and their clients and the media at swaying public attention towards obsene consumption, and therefore a lot of our environmental problems including ghg's, peak oil, waste, etc.

I wish the opposition had a milliportion of what is spent by our publicly minded corporations. I think given the disparity in the struggle socially and environmentally driven people are doing quite well. Not well enough but not bad.

[Paradox]

Regardless of global warming, rising CO2 levels threaten marine life:

Tundra disappearing at rapid rate:

Britain pushing for Security Council climate debate

[Patred_Cow]

Regardless of global warming, rising CO2 levels threaten marine life:

Tundra disappearing at rapid rate:

Britain pushing for Security Council climate debate

...ok, very nice articles, make a lot of important points, most of which we've all seen before. I'm not sure if you intended to make a point with respect to recent posts by providing these links, if so I don't really see how? Otherwise as I said they're reasonably interesting articles.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by screener

paradox, I am astounded and amused. It is not my experience that anyone has the spin capability of the corporate sector. Talk about your elite few, now that group sure fits the bill doesn't it?

Oh, come now Screener, my banter cannot come as that much of a surprise I actually think science, through press releases and blogs is very effective at influencing the media. This is where I often see political activism. I personally view this as unethical.

I wish the opposition had a milliportion of what is spent by our publicly minded corporations. I think given the disparity in the struggle socially and environmentally driven people are doing quite well. Not well enough but not bad.

There is no doubt that the journey has only just begun. We just need to be cautious of wolves in sheep's clothing. Fringe groups will attempt to obtain power riding on the coat-tails of climate-change and many of them will not have our interests in mind.

~Paradox

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Patred_Cow

...ok, very nice articles, make a lot of important points, most of which we've all seen before. I'm not sure if you intended to make a point with respect to recent posts by providing these links, if so I don't really see how? Otherwise as I said they're reasonably interesting articles.

No points, just articles.

[Skeptic]

Simple said :

We have to dare to think differently and cooperatively in a way that profiteering and personal fortune is taken out of the equation.

That approach is instantly doomed to failure. People do not want to make big financial sacrifices. They will make small one - such as paying a wee bit more for green electricity. But they will resist mightily anything that has a substantial effect in reducing standard of living.

If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, you have to find ways that permit the continuance of high standard sof living. This can be done. It will take a few decades. However, as I pointed out, those 3 to 4 decades can continue burning gas and oil, since that resouce will be burned anyway. Over that period, we develop methods that do not require coal. Here are a couple of examples.

Biofuels from cellulose. Long term, ethanol derived from corn and sugar cane will not be enough, and will result in more deforestation to get more such crop land. However, we can genetically engineer micro-organisms to make cellulose digesting enzymes, producing sugars for ethanol. Since cellulose can be obtained from almost any plant crop in large amounts, that is a much better solution.

New generation nuclear power. Already we have a new design reactor (Uranium pebble bed) which literally cannot go into melt-down. Better methods of handling nuclear waste. Nuclear can provide all the electricity an energy hungry world needs for at least the next 1000 years. We will have to extract Uranium from lower purity ores. However, the trend to extraction from lower purity is a long term development in all mining sectors. There is enough fuel for 1000 years.

I could go on. The long term 'solution' to CO2 emissions is NOT some kind of mass sacrifice and rejection of economic development. We have much better options.

[imported_topaz1968]

First, I want to admit I have only read parts of this post as I have never had enough time to make it through even most, so I hope I am not sounding like an idiot chimming in, just want to add to what Skeptic said

Skeptic I wonder why you didn't mention the biggest and cleanest options before things with such obvious environmental problems such as bio fuels and nuclear power? I mean if we are going to replace a really big environmental problem let's learn from our mistakes. I think the big push should be in solar, wind, hydro, and hydrogen from water (created with electricity from the previous choices). The others will no doubt be part of the solution, but I hope a small one. Cars can be created now to run on all of these types of power as well. In fact today on the Science channel I even saw that they can now create a car that runs on compressed air too! (Now that is cool)

[screener]

[quote="Skeptic"]Simple said :

We have to dare to think differently and cooperatively in a way that profiteering and personal fortune is taken out of the equation.

That approach is instantly doomed to failure. People do not want to make big financial sacrifices. They will make small one - such as paying a wee bit more for green electricity. But they will resist mightily anything that has a substantial effect in reducing standard of living.

Skeptic.... with a doom and gloom attitude like that I can see how it would be difficult for you to see the alternative to your approach. Conservation of energy is not synonymous with reduced standard of living. I think it is too early to conclude that people will not make a major financial sacrifice to enhance our future.

The people who will resist mightily are the ones who are currently getting obscenely rich selling us a plasticized lifestyle.