I sat next to Stephen Lewandowski at dinner last night. Dr. Lewandowski is a Professor of Cognitive Psychology at the University of Bristol. He has compared the 21st century’s two (so far) overwhelming and utter failures of journalism – the runnup to war in Iraq, and climate change.
If you’re in a rush, make sure you read the last paragraph.
Stephen Lewandowsky in the Guardian:
“Iraq is developing a long-range ballistic missile system that could carry weapons of mass destruction up to 700 miles.” Iraq is progressing towards “dirty bombs that spew radioactivity, mobile bio-weapons facilities, and a new long-range ballistic missile.” An Iraqi defector “tells of work on at least 20 hidden weapons sites.” It is an “undisputed fact” that September 11 attacker Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officers in Prague.
Those claims appeared in mainstream newspapers during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. All those claims were false. The nonexistence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq immediately prior to the invasion and the absence of links between Iraq and al-Qaida eventually became the official U.S. position with the Duelfer Report and the report of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
A decade later, those media failures are relevant not only because of the war’s six-figure death toll and because the Iraqi per capita GDP has so far failed to return to prewar levels, but also because they remind us that the media, including highly reputable newspapers, can sometimes get things quite wrong.
A similar media failure is arguably under way this very moment with regard to climate change. The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded with near certainty that human economic activity is responsible for ongoing global warming, and some of the largest insurance companies on the planethave blamed the increase in losses from extreme weather events to climate-related disasters.
This has not kept some newspapers from reporting that Arctic ice is “recovering“, a rather adventurous claim in light of the fact that the Arctic has lost 40% of its ice cover since 1980 and that ice extent is now lower than during several millennia preceding 1980. A recent quantitative analysis of climate coverage in the Australian media confirmed thatmisreporting of the science is widespread.
There are some interesting similarities and differences between the media failures involving Iraqi WMDs and climate change.
One notable difference between pre-invasion reporting on Iraqi WMD and climate change is that, in contrast to the near-hegemony of war-supporting reporting (at least in the U.S.), the public has a broader choice now when it comes to climate change: While there is a large supply of disinformation that threatens the public’s right to being adequately informed, there is also no shortage of actual scientific information, both in the mainstream media and beyond.
The diversity of sources empowers the public to select their information wisely, but it also provides a playing field for the dominant influence of people’s cultural worldviews or “ideology”, which can override even education. People whose core personal values are threatened by possible responses to climate change, such as a price on carbon or regulatory measures, are known to rely on media sources that are more likely to create confusion about climate change than disseminate scientifically accurate information.
Worldviews may also explain another cognitive difference between Iraq and climate, which concerns the asymmetry in the evaluation of evidence in the two cases. In the case of Iraqi WMDs, we now know that the media—and politicians among the “Coalition of the Willing”—used weak and insufficient evidence to call for a pre-emptive war against a largely imaginary risk. In the case of climate, by contrast, a mountain of scientific evidence pointing to a risk far greater than that posed by Saddam Hussein is ignored, and mitigative action refused, on the basis of similar worldviews.
There are also similarities. In both cases, a link can be drawn between misinformation and the likelihood of warfare. Together with colleagues, I reviewed the literature on this relationship in a recent paper using the Iraq War and climate change as case studies. We report a reasonably clear link between the acceptance of misinformation and support for the Iraq War, both before and after military action commenced. In one U.S. study, belief in misinformation—that is, the existence of WMDs—was the most powerful predictor of support for the Iraq war. Belief in WMDs quadrupled the likelihood of support for the war.
There is also increasing evidence of a link between climate change and violent conflict, with a recent study suggesting that the risk of violent conflict may increase globally by upward of 30% by 2050 if human-caused warming continues unabated. The link between climate change and conflict is of a statistical nature and not entirely certain, but it should alert us to the possibility that any further delay of climate mitigation, whether based on dissemination of misinformation or other factors, may cause unnecessary future deaths.
Another ironic similarity is that the same newspapers and the same journalists who beat the war drums a decade ago are now also frequently misrepresenting the risk the world is facing from climate change. After WMDs failed to materialize in post-invasion Iraq, this led to occasional anguish among journalists who regretted that they used “‘evidence’ now known to be bogus” to push for war. The lethal fallout from misinformation a decade ago primarily affected the people of Iraq. The fallout from misinformation about climate change is likely to affect us all.
Lew’s main failure is his inability to join the rest of the human race he’s so keen to label and box in.
Then there’s the rest. He’ll be a figure eliciting much perplexity in all histories of science.
So many words; so little meaning.
He’ll be a figure eliciting much perplexity in all histories of science.
This, of course, will depend entirely on whether he’s right wrt what he’s saying about AGW. I think the perplexity will be about other people when AGW turns out to be a problem after all.
Another “Le Roi, C’est Moi” comment from O-Log. I can see him now, holding his perfumed hankie under his nose to mask the dreadful aroma of the masses (particularly those that don’t share his narrow world view).
Is O-Log so personally acquainted with Dr. Lewandowski that he can call him “Lew”? And why is O-log so dismissive of a man who speaks so much truth?
I’m just a dumb old guy, but I fail to see how Dr; Lewandoski is “so keen to label and box in the rest of the human race”. Can anyone explain what O-Log is talking about there? Can O-Log?
I think this piece is right on target and quite thought-provoking. Peter was right to point out the last paragraph for particular scrutiny.
We need to look further into why the press is failing us. IMO, they are now “bought and paid for” just like the legislators. Their failures are in that sense deliberate. Eisenhower spoke about the dangers of the military-industrial complex over 50 years ago. We didn’t listen, and now it has extended its tentacles into all facets of life, particularly in the area of controlling and distorting the information flow. War and denying AGW while continuing to burn fossil fuels are both profitable for the corporations and the plutocracy. And profits and the bottom line trump everything else. Treat the citizenry like mushrooms and you can even get away with it.
“Can anyone explain what O-Log is talking about there?” Not really. However, WUWT honored Dr. Lewandowsky with his own tag (and the nickname Lew). Although esteemed in the real world, they clearly explain their very dim view of Lewandowsky’s (irony alert) “shoddy science”.
The last paragraph is certainly true for the Mail’s (global warming has stopped) David Rose.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/08/david-rose-climate-science
Yet he got his 20 pieces of silver, and obviously won’t have any regrets.
Andy- other than the rag he writes for, I haven’t found the silver source yet. You have any insights? Brings up another destroyer of truth. During the 60s, US intelligence sent people to write for mags to influence public. An outright campaign of deception. Still happening?
Fortranprog – congrats. Nice link. You have just pointed out (via Monbiot) other causes of media failure. Not sure if they are new or increasing. Ironic that Monbiot has changed his stance against nuclear after GW. Clearly, the nuke industry has a spin on that, just like we have “clean coal”, and oil industry greenwashing. Yeah, they are greenwashing on one hand while lobbying to kill renewables on the other.
First of all personal attacks on this thread will automatically destroy the attacker’s argument.
Secondly as I was saying Lew is a living paradox, the guy that comes from a village and tells you “every guy that comes from my village is a liar”.
If he were honest or maybe intelligent enough he’d explain first how these “cultural worldviews”, “ideology” and “cognitive differences” apply to himself. Instead he refuses to correct what everybody knows was incorrect in one of his papers, and goes positively bonkers trying to do remote psychology via the internet.
“….personal attacks will automatically destroy the attacker’s argument.”
So when you wrote of Lewandowski that his “main failure is his inability to join the rest of the human race” you presumably knew that we would automatically disregard the rest of your post.
Well, I certainly did.
Philip64 – you may want to read all comments before adding your contribution. My statements were built to replicate Lew’s behaviour, and if you see the flaw in them, you will have to see the flaw in his.
So, let me see if I got this right. O-Log feels a need for attention today, so he burdens us with all this arcane and inane blather? Rather than forthrightly make an argument against “Lew’s” ideas, he creates puzzles and plays guessing games with us? I see one HUGE “flaw” here, and its name is OMNOLOGOS (which handle only grows in pretentiousness every time it appears).
But O-Log IS succeeding at his task of distracting us from the topic at hand—-Lewandowski’s excellent insights on the difficulties of communicating about climate science and the failings of the “press”. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would say that O-Log is a paid denier troll and the person who signs his checks is named Koch, and that Koch is getting his money’s worth here.
Funny that. I speak of problems with Lew’s scientific insights in the comments section of a blog post about Lew’s scientific insights, and you try to construct an argument to show I have “distracted” from the main topic.
Now I understand why you seldom strive to contribute any argument, and prefer to waste your time in sterile personal attacks.
Ho-Hum.
Still waiting for you to do more than “speak” of Lew’s alleged failings. Let’s hear it—-exactly what did he say that you object to and why do you disagree with him? And try to focus—it’s all about YOU, not me.
Let me see if I’ve got this right? Rather than simply stating his arguments against what Lewandowski says, O-Log gets carried away with his pseudo-intellectualism and constructs an arcane and inane word puzzle for us?
Yes, we all see a “flaw” here, and its name is OMNOLOGOS (which handle grows more laughable and pretentious every time it appears).
How do you square this:
“First of all personal attacks on this thread will automatically destroy the attacker’s argument.”
with this:
“Secondly as I was saying Lew is a living paradox, the guy that comes from a village and tells you “every guy that comes from my village is a liar”.”
It may prove difficult to make your point on personal more ironic than.
Congratulations John. That’s my point. Game set and match for me.
Now you ask Lew…
Congratulations, Omno. You’ve managed to lose a game only you were playing.
Now you ask yourself.
This is more serious than you think. Psychol guys have been ruining lives for a dozen decades (even longer if we consider the phrenologists). Lew is just one in a long series of single-minded activists trying to improve the human race by not applying their own theories to their own thoughts.
Is that hypocrisy, or insincerity, or egotism…who knows…you managed to see how illogic were my two statements. Let me know when your senses will come around again and you will understand how flawed Lew’s point is.
And I am not even talking about his insane writings on conspiracy theories.
Anybody interested in examples, google “Dr Alfred Siegfried” and (separately) “Truby King”
Phrenology and eugenics? Surely you can work in a third smear?
Your senses still MIA. Come on John, they were fully working this morning GMT, what’s happened since then?
John says “Phrenology and eugenics? Surely you can work in a third smear?”, and O-Log responds with condescension and dismissiveness? Yep, more “Le Roi, C’est Moi”.
Perhaps O-Log can explain to this dumb old guy what the connection is between eugenics and Lewandowski? The “phrenology” dig makes one wonder if O-Log has perhaps had some bad experiences with “psychol guys”? It wouldn’t surprise me—-he reacts badly to all our efforts on Crock to help him with our “remote psychiatry”—-I’m sure that in his all-seeing, all-knowing mind, anyone who tries to point out his logic fails is only worthy of scorn.
Perhaps O-Log is “not applying his own theories to his own thoughts”?. Or maybe he is demonstrating for us his own “hypocrisy, or insincerity, or egotism”? Who knows? I’m afraid O-log’s senses “have been MIA” since his very first comment on this thread. Or perhaps his narcissism is out of control this AM (GMT) and he is just so in need of attention that he he is making outrageous “look at me” remarks and thereby wasting our time. SBAN, O-Log!
Lew is an activist with very strong ideological tracts. He says in his scientific work people of that kind are not using science. He wouldnt even consider the possibility that his own ideology makes his own work possibly non-scientific.
It’s just what other psychologist have done in the past. They identified pet ideas such as shapes on the head, or making sure childrens were taught harsly from birth, or the destruction of traveling families, and passed them off as the latest science. These were done all for the betterment of humanity, a goal I’m sure animating the psychologist who has flown to a geophysical conference.
I still don’t see an answer to my question about why EUGENICS was thought to be significant by O-Log—so significant that he wasted our time by sending us off to TWO meaningless links to two long dead crackpots.
O-Log’s “senses” are definitely missing today, as he talks to us about “childrens (sic) were taught harsly (sic)” (??), “traveling families” (“gypsies”?), and “shapes on the head” (did he mean “bumps”?). If one were to practice some “remote psychiatry”, one would say he may even be disassociating.
O-Log snarks yet again with “These were done all for the betterment of humanity, a goal I’m sure animating the psychologist who has flown to a geophysical conference”. Yes, O-Log, it may be hard for you to understand since you are so wrapped up in yourself, but a psychologist who studies people’s behavior regarding AGW denial IS helping humanity by sharing his insights with the geophysical scientists. If you ever really looked at anything on Crock or other sites, you would know that many scientists (Mann and Hansen, among others) are coming to understand that we are engaged in a psy-war with the deniers and the Kochs et al who fund them, and that just laying out the scientific facts isn’t enough—-that scientists must become better communicators. And being a good communicator requires that one understand what goes on in the minds of the “audience”. For an all-seeing, all-knowing individual, you seem to be quite unaware of that.
And what OTHER psychologists did in the PAST? What connection does that have with Lewandowski TODAY? More desperate thrashings by O-Log.
In closing, to paraphrase a bit, “O-Log is an activist (paid denier?) with very strong ideological tracts (sic?). O-Log won’t even consider the possibility that his ideology makes his comments non-scientific (and at times, nonsensical)”.
I cannot make any simpler, I am sorry
1. Lew says ideology trumps science
2. He is strongly into ideology himself
3. I mention psychologists who have in the past ruined the lives of countless people, all for the betterment of humanity on the basis of pseudosciences – note that each of them used a different pseudoscience, so the trouble is not eugenics per se
4. Lew is a psychologist and is working hard for the betterment of humanity
This does not mean that Lew’s is a pseudoscience. However, either he starts explaining how he manage to get scientific results despite his own ideology, or his words are self-contradictory.
Just what JHS said replying to my comment-challenge.
I’m sorry, O-Log—-I don’t want to drive you further into a disassociative state, but none of that makes any sense except #4. You make many assertions about the person you call “Lew” (IS he you good buddy?), but really offer nothing beyond unsupported opinion.
You really don’t seem to be yourself today. Why don’t you take the day off? We will understand.
Your canned replies could be posted about anything, i.e. contain no information. I understand you have no way of defending your heroes.
As I said, O-log is disassociating. We should all pray for his quick recovery.
Do say “phrenology”. Don’t say “recursive fury”.
O is angry that Lew’s mirror is so perceptive. Wind him up, watch him go.
John Harvey Samuel and old guy – do you really want to plumb the depths of an arcane mind? I just did that with king dube. This topic is an automatic for knowitall – semantics. You are trying to understand illogic, it’s impossible. Just don’t feed the trolls. There. I feel better already. For trolls, the subject is the troll. Topics and threads irrelevant. Let him talk to himself for awhile. After all, that’s what he does when he talks with you, as you have noted.bits not as serious as you think. It’s less serious. It’s nonsense.
Go on, Christopher and everybody else. I actually kind of enjoy it seeing my nth argument remain unchallenged as you guys repeat the same old pattern, first trying to get at a personal level (the mark of the loser) and then complaining about a “troll” that obviously isn’t (I am the only one who has talked about Lew all the time).
The only problem is that things are getting too easy (see how JHS fell for my “illogical” comment).
Well, I can now reveal why I posted so much on this site. I have collected enough information by now. For example during the last three months, dumboldguy has posted 156 comments, for a total of 4,781 words. I have identified two original thoughts and fifteen ideas copied from other web sites. The rest were complaints about this or that person (me and davidburton, in 97.7% of cases, with the occasional Murdoch – not much on the Koch Brothers though, maybe he is a plant after all).
This clearly demonstrates to the world that dumboldguy is correct on the first five letters of his moniker (I am against age-related prejudice, and nobody can say if he’s a guy or a gal or, as the saying goes, a dog).
I shall shortly publish the result of a similar analysis on Charles Zeller and John H Samuel.
You’re correct about out “troll buddies”. I have started to ignore the Dubious one’s repeated nonsense. We have tried too many times to get him to make sense and it’s time to ignore him.
Stonehead seems to have stopped coming around. Perhaps he has looked in a mirror and seen how “ugly” his commentary has become.
Then there is the All-Seeing All Knowing One. He apparently is not going to stop, so I guess we’ll have to watch him perform his “logic tricks” for a while longer.
Watching Omno trip over his intellectual shoelaces has an appeal. 🙂
I do look forward to his presenting his analysis to a reputable journal. :-))
Bwahaha and LOL (briefly). O-Log’s droll sense of humor appears at last in a full-length feature!
He is “revealing to us” why he posts on this site! NOT to learn and discuss topics related to AGW and AGW denial, but to “collect information” on those of us who DO come here to do that and object to his getting in the way. Yes, that’s more evidence that what O-log posts here is really “all about him”, but we knew that already, didn’t we?
He has jokingly PFTA (Plucked From Thin Air, for those unfamiliar with the acronym) some numbers, which anyone who has been paying attention will recognize as untrue. I won’t waste the time to count any of them, but I am sure that I have made many more than 156 comments, and I DO laugh at the “4,781 words” in particular. How did O-log count them? By the old “make four lines on a pad and cross them for five” method? And he wants us to believe that?, and that he didn’t miss any or double count some? Exactly 4781!!! How droll.
And only TWO original thoughts? Grossly understated, O-Log. Good humor and satire skirts much closer to the truth than that. I have thought of many times that number of original, imaginative, and often “elegant” INSULTS to lay upon you and th other members of The Three Stooges (Omno, Dave, Stonehead, and The Dube). And before Omno says that’s FOUR Stooges, please remember that at least one forgets to show up every time a Stooge meeting is called.
And FIFTEEN ideas ‘copied’ from other web sites?. A meaningless number, since I began life as a blank slate and have “copied” all that I am by learning from the accumulated store of human knowledge and my interactions with it and other humans. Omno, of course, is the “Immaculate Genius” who arrived full blown on Earth with all the “geniosoty” we see him display here on Crock. Deja vu and Le Roi, C’est Moi all over again, as Yogi would say.
The PFTA figure of 97.7% of my “complaints” directed at you and daveburton is closer to the correct percentage, in that you and dave are two of the most “deserving” individuals on the site ( I would estimate it to be more like 91.7%, though. There are few other candidates for complaints among the ~1370 subscribers to Crock. Only FIVE that come easily to mind. Stonehead and the Dube are comparative newcomers, although their willful ignorance IS spectacular and they have gotten much attention for that. E-Pot, although rather obsessed and sometimes narcissistic like you are, sometimes makes some sense. Yes, in my mind, you and Dave are the deliberate “complaint magnets” here (and you both seem to love it, don’t you? SBAN, etc.). I will continue to oblige your need for attention.
Omno says “With the occasional Murdoch but not much on the Koch Brothers though, maybe he is a plant after all”. That is a nice demonstration of a propaganda technique. An actual troll suggesting that someone else is one—displace, project, deflect, divert, sow doubt—very good. In actuality, the comment I made very recently may be the ONLY time I’ve mentioned Murdoch by name, and I have mentioned the Koch brothers, and their “ilk”, Koch-funded deniers, and Koch funded denier groups many times. Go back and really count the instances. Your attempted lie and reversal of truth will be obvious.
This essay clearly demonstrates to the world that O-Log DOES have a sense of humor, stunted and childish though it may be. I DID grin a time or two as I read it, but I would suggest that O-Log NOT give up his day job and attempt to replace Jon Stewart on the Daily Show.
“I shall shortly publish the result of a similar analysis on Charles Zeller and John H Samuel”, says O-Log. I’m sure they can’t wait to hear your “analysis”, O-Log—-I hope it’s as “awesome” as what you said about me.
oh boy oh boy oh boy
dumboldguy, it’s been your time to fall for it.
All I did was imitate what Lew did for “Recursive Fury”: write a totally ethics-free remote psychological analysis of a stranger (in his case, many) who didn’t even know he was being analyzed, all of it based on completely invented data plus a sprinkle of absolutely unwarranted innuendos.
I surely didn’t think it was _this_ easy to “gotcha” you guys. It’s the second time in just a single day.
I repeat…nothing in my previous comment between “Well, I can now reveal…” and “…and John H Samuel” is true (apologies dumboldguy for having inserted your name there). There is no “science” at all and a science publication that would publish any of that should be ashamed for eternity.
Just like the shame that should and surely will fall upon the (truly) dumb people who published “Recursive Fury”.
Now, why would Peter keep company with a person who behaves like Lew regularly does, I shall leave as an unanswered question.
“oh boy oh boy oh boy” says O-Log. Is he actually crowing there because he thinks he has put something over on me? As usual, he is so wrapped up in himself that he fails to really read and understand other peoples’ posts. Did he not read the very first part of my comment, in which I indicated that I knew his whole piece was a sorry and juvenile attempt at a joke? Lord love a DOZEN ducks!
I answered his attempt at humor point by point just to show how sorry it was, and to offer him some advice on how to improve his skills in humor writing. He would benefit from visiting The Onion as well.
O-Log says “dumboldguy, it’s been your time to fall for it” and “I surely didn’t think it was _this_ easy to “gotcha” you guys. It’s the second time in just a single day”. Those two statements are just more proof of his narcissism, lack of self-awareness, and general cluelessness, which he reinforces by adding:
“I repeat…nothing in my previous comment between “Well, I can now reveal…” and “…and John H Samuel” is true (apologies dumboldguy for having inserted your name there). There is no “science” at all and a science publication that would publish any of that should be ashamed for eternity”.
Guess what, O-Log? WE ALL KNEW ALL OF THAT (except perhaps for the other Stooges—they are as clueless as you). The only apology you need offer me is for taking up space with your self-centered blatherings on a website that I enjoy visiting.
O-Log goes on and on about how brilliantly he has “imitated” Lew. Sorry, O-Log, but you are again just a legend in your own mind. We still await some specific instances and analyses of Lew doing what O-Log accuses him of. He would rather play games than address that—-shades of daveburton.
=The diversity of sources empowers the public to select their information wisely, but it also provides a playing field for the dominant influence of people’s cultural worldviews or “ideology”, which can override even education.=
If you haven’t noticed, the educated middle class is the target audience for free market propaganda. And often free market ideology is instilled into the educated middle class via obscure maneuvers of modern day robber barons.
At my university, WVU, the Koch brothers have lap dog professors that preach free market propaganda to the business and economics students. One such fella, a man my conservative brother had for class when he was completing his economics degree, is flush with Koch brothers cash, at one point admitting that if it weren’t for the fossil barons, the university – a public university – would have to get rid of 2 econ professors and 2 fellowship positions. Thus far about $500,000 of Koch money has made its way into the university, and has returned a few ‘studies’ and a book on how regulation is making WV a poor state, claiming that deregulating coal mine safety would actually decrease accident rates.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/1044:koch-brothers-fueling-farright-academic-centers-across-the-us
And let’s not forget the Koch brother’s father was heavily against the republican president Eisenhower’s promotion of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 which created the United States’ Interstate Highways. I think he even called the president a communist for promoting the Act. Just think of all the huge corporations and even the Koch’s own oil sector that benefit from the Highway Act. You’ve got to be pretty radical not to want a freeway system…
A good article that parallels and supports what Lewandowski said. The author uses the world “backfire” in its simplest sense, but there is a psychological phenomena known as the “backfire effect” that is significant to the discussion of communicating climate science to the public. It appears most often in conservatives (see The Republican Brain by Mooney for details), and simply put is the tendency for people to “dig in their heels” and hold more strongly to their beliefs, even when the science is clearly against them.
Ooooops! I was referring here to the article that topspin linked, not Andrew’s. Andrew’s comments are significant, and call for a separate reply.
Andrew – it’s really bad when they start corrupting universities. Brainwashing for hire. It’s a war over minds. Any student protests or dissension against the bs?
Hi Christopher –
Not that I’m aware, but I graduated in 1998, and haven’t really looked back since. When i was there i had no idea that GHG driven climate change was happening or who the Koch brothers were. I also didn’t read the paper, knew nothing of politics other than that there was some general, undefined corruption happening that was of no concern to me, knew nothing of financial markets, the economy, or anything else substantial.
I remember during my first semester I took some applied calculus class in this beat up building that was probably half a century old where there was no air conditioning; most of the campus buildings were of similar condition: a bit run down on the inside. Then in my second or third semester, I took some statistics and economics classes in the economics building which was brand spanking new, architecturally beautiful inside and out, and had a state-of-the-art lecture hall with super-comfortable seating. Was it the Koch boys doin’? I have no idea.
Anyway, it wasn’t until I got rid of my TV about 2, 3 or 4 years ago (can’t remember), and ditched my dial-up internet for high-speed, that I started my true education of the world. I still never read the news or cared much about markets, etc., but i recall thinking that i should pay more attention to climate/environment type information, just as a hobby, so I watched a TED video of a climate geo-engineering university lecture.
In the video, the professor’s non-verbal communication was stark: the guy was scared out of his f-ing mind and angry. After that, I was addicted to finding out what was happening….
Andrew – ” middle class is the target for free market propaganda ” . Truth. The term free market is a misleading term to mask our advertisement brainwashed consumerism. Bernays is consumer brainwashings evil genius. As Koch bros buy universities and pbs, mfrs buy media. We seldom see the water we swim in. You have noticed. Welcome Neo. Life’s a beach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
Yeah, all this manipulation really got going when the propaganda machine took an American middle class, that was originally against entering WWI, to a state of blood lust in several months time, publishing made-up stories about German’s abusing children and the like. Years later, Hitler took note of how well the propaganda had worked on the Americans, and sought to replicate its success on his own people, hence all the fanfare, showmanship, etc. of the Nazis.
The Bernays bacon example in the link hits home, because just the other day my father was telling me, after we had eaten a huge breakfast at a diner, that when he was a kid, in the 1940’s-50’s, in a small coal town in WV, it was common knowledge that consuming ‘generous’ portions of food (overeating) was considered a ‘healthful’ behavior.
There was a good article by a psychologist in New Scientist recently about the challenge of communicating climate science.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929360.200-climate-science-why-the-world-wont-listen.html#.UqmWBtIW3BM
The journalists write what their owners want them to write
Exactly, and we all know what the Murdochs of the world want them to write. Is everyone aware of the how the Kochs have been attempting to buy up newspapers or at least gain major influence? Although it hasn’t been discussed much in the MSM, several liberal-progressive activist networks have conducted petition campaigns against those efforts.
Two of the quotes in the article do indeed come from David Roses’s reporting from an interview with a Iraqi defector (and he does have a known ability to put words in other people’s mouth- see Judith Curry) a third from a lady who after much controversy is now with Fox News (however is quiet about AGW) the final quote a bit harder to trace the origins but confirmed by Colin Powell. There are several prominent pro war journalists who now are anti-climate change. One person that strikes me above all others is Rupert Murdoch, his media empire was very strong in whipping up war sentiments and support around and before 2003, and now the same outlets continue spreading anti AGW/CC miss-information. Suddenly the James Bond Tomorrow Never dies movie (with the evil media mogul Elliot Carver) doesn’t seem so far fetched any more.
I just watched a pbs interview conducted by Judy Woodruff on the budget compromise. One repub, a lackluster dem, and the heritage foundation. Any one see any Koch bros influence in that? Same thing about a year ago on energy, different interviewer. Right, left, wacko right. The wacko right claimed Germany was making more coal plants and emitting more co2 post fukushima. Fact challenged. Mike Royko said of Murdoch, as m began buying chitown papers, ” No self respecting fish would allow itself to be wrapped in that newspaper.” Gotta love a guy like Royko.
Oldguyfox – we haven’t heard from stone head since his one point in central England doesn’t match co2 record challenge. I don’t want to jinx myself, but I think he might have understood that. So it’s back to WUWT to get more ammo for him. Omni doesn’t need WUWT, he’s a wind up doll and information is not necessary, because semantics and himself are the subject. He can talk to himself. Doobie is still trying to figure out why the center of the earth is always warmer than the surface if there is an energy source inside. When you tell him, he goes back to, ” I forgot to say the earth is turning the corner”. Doobie, like superman, has an alter ego, Ralph Wiggums. Stopped conversing with omni when I realized I was attempting to teach probability to someone who had substituted his own magical thinking for a science education. It was pointless. Still is. You can’t teach someone that already knows. I have learned by responding to them, but I would rather learn in a slightly more erudite company. Liked your Leroi cest moi comments.ngave me something to research and think about. You referring to what the French phrase means or the cartoon? See what Andrew and I discuss about Bernays.
I wasn’t aware of a cartoon. The reference is to what Louis XIV said about himself—“The King, it is me!”. (He also said “L’etat, C’est moi” as did Napoleon).
Since his reign of 70+ years is the longest in European history, he DID have a point, although the term is usually used to show dismissiveness for mere mortals.
O-Log is ,merely a pretender to the “throne” (or maybe he’s the court jester?—I get so confused), although for attitude, he is right up there with Louis, and for delusions of grandeur with Napoleon.
What do you think about this David Rose affair. Same journalist who falsely promotes Iraq war promotes global cooling trope. Not sure what his problem is. Could there be corporate or government plants? Lomborg just replaced a decent journalist. Gotta wonder.
David Rose is a charlatan, and his favorite The Mail is a rag—much of the garbage in the right wing denialist circular firing squad comes from The Mail.
His arguments have been refuted and debunked many times, but he just won’t quit throwing horsepucky that won’t stick against the wall. Reminds me of daveburton.
Btw, I may have a ways to admit my weakness to the power of troll blogging. I just replied to king dube on peters next post about the Canadian book junking, the stupid it burns. Guess what. I already predicted what he would say. Too easy. Stuck on knowitall? Give up. Not worth it. There is no content and nothing to learn. Don’t feed him. I never talk with him. It’s a soliloquy. Once in a while about him. But it’s bboooorrring.