Would this be from the Petition Project?Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn
Would this be from the Petition Project?
The reason it then gets expedited up to 'hoax' level is you then have the President and his cronies tweeting and releasing world wide statements that this is indisputable fact. That there are no areas left to dispute the evidence. Despite the agency admitting themselves "yeah it's kinda rough round the edges". Does the president or many of the news agencies that led with this world destroying news then reel it back with as much coverage when the details are challenged? So what happens is this then becomes the truth in society's mind. It's well known that many people will not read too far below the headline and that detailed analysis of these scientific findings are not included in most MSM articles. So it is indeed a huge problem that inconsistent data then becomes actual fact in the world, with no effort made at all by those with the capability to spread the balanced and whole information around.
And this works both ways, i naturally become amused that people think there is such a thing as the mainstream media, especially when so many media outlets are constantly competing and sniping at each other anyway.
My natural position is that I take nothing on trust, but neither conversely do I automatically believe the opposite is true.
Of course climate change gets politicised, both the republicans and democrats are considered part of the elite but there's clearly not a consensus between them on climate change.....Bush consistently either refused to comment or remained sceptical on climate change whilst in office. The Obama administration are clearly more sold on it, the Tories in the UK are totally split on whether they believe it or not so this suggestion of the over arching envelope pushing on behalf of government and big business clearly treads water.
And when you can't get politicians in the same country to agree, there is no global consensus.....and that's why in America under Obama there has been at attempt to sell clean energy (which ended up in the ridiculous Solyndra debacle) and on the other side of the world you have China whose economy is based on industry that has a large carbon output, when China has the power to collapse the US Economy, at what point can you put leverage on them to do anything about stopping it.
Ultimately the only way you can see if there is a marked difference being made, is for global carbon production to exponentially decrease, but as i've said consistently that no global pull to make such a thing happen.
No, that's my own summary based on what I recall from my reading at the time. But even if it was lifted directly from the Petition Project (which I didn't know about until you mentioned it), the methodology used by the frauds is not disputed. It's the findings that are disputed, discredited if you want to be fair about it.
I don't reach any conclusions on complex issues based on a single source. That would be stupid and worthless.
Für eure Sicherheit
Why? There is.
The mainstream media (more accurately the legacy media) is distinct. Mainstream media is centralised, well funded, has a high profile on one or more of the traditional distribution mediums and is associated/ regulated and has credentialed access. I don't think there's any confusion.
Für eure Sicherheit
In terms of it all distributing exactly the same opinion i think there is plenty of confusion, and all too often citing the Mainstream Media tends to be a way of dismissing that which we don't agree with.
I'm not attributing it to you, but so many debates i have with so many other people often end in stating that a source of information has a clear agenda and then linking me to an alternative source which makes extraordinary claims with an even more clearly defined agenda and than cite that as something which is worth believing.
Therefore this regard of it as like a gestalt being, doesn't cut much with me. Yes it's far more institutionalised, but it's just as capable of both reporting thoughtful information and peddling nonsense as any alternative source.
The mainstream media as in, the most popular outlets on TV, online and in print, the ones that circulate to the vast majority of society. The methods in which most people gather their information about the world around them. I'm not sure how in any way that is disputable. What they say about each other is irrelevant because when it comes to headlines like the one we are talking about here, then all of them run with based from the perspective - that is absolutely true. Politicians can debate and discuss it which ever way they wish but how this is reported and released to the general public is the issue here. Incomplete facts or theories are jumped upon when introduced by many doubting the Government overseers but yet stuff like this becomes rooted in fact across society. Obama and his administration may have different views to Bush or Trump but they are still confirming incomplete information from a bias perspective, not offering a rounded view that there are many caveats attached to it. If there was no global 'consensus' then the Paris agreement wouldn't keep being shoved front and centre as the saviour to us all. The message being sold here is that all major nations agree that something needs to be done. But seriously, how can it ever be enforced? It's a meaningless piece of paper that can disposed of in a change of administration. Trump potentially could shred it apart, will there be sanctions or penalties for doing so? Not on your life. So while the headline is one of 'Eco Harmony' to save the planet, it's a shallow display of unity. But the general public won't see it that way because of how they access their news (see beginning). I do enjoy your constant sniping at China and Russia as the evil, dark enemy, while finding justification wherever possible for this side of world which is just as corrupt. It's an odd stance to make.
I don't think i was sniping at China, i'm stating that it has an economy that is dependent on industry that has greater Carbon production (people bemoan how it dumps steel on the market, but actually looking at it from the Chinese point of view this is to stop it's entire steel industry from collapsing) and it has enough influence over the western economy that it would be difficult to imagine any pressure could be leveraged on it to change this.
I equally enjoy how people who decry global elites, imperialism and government propaganda seem to be almost uniformally happy to give Russia a free pass.
But both are authoritarian societies and with China and trade it's one of the few points where i think Trump has an interesting point to make rather than just rhetoric and to be fair on him, if you look hard enough he has if nothing else been consistent on this point for over thirty years.
If you believe that in some way the US and the UK are through clandestine methods just as authoritarian and repressive as the People's Republic or the Russian Federation, than there is an unbridgeable gap between us.
The very fact people can now link to an alternative source, even if it's a bunch of nonsense, is a good thing. A great thing.
We're past the evil, porn, child molesting Internet stage. The establishment failed with that effort. There is an ever growing body of information beyond the reach of the traditional gatekeepers and far from it being just the contrarian view it's every view imaginable and the genuine source of the confusion and competition you have attributed to the mainstream. Again, a good thing.
The mainstream (until recently at least) doesn't operate in overt consensus, doesn't tell outright lies that are easy to pin down. Usually the collusion of omission is their weapon of choice. I raised this earlier and related to another subject, we've just had a year's worth of US election coverage dumped on us like the contents of every landfill on the planet. A major sub-set has focused on economic issues and yet not one mainstream source anywhere discussed any of the central issues. The money supply, the creation of debt, the nature of interest, these are the driving factors behind any capitalist styled economy and yet we had no discussion, no documentaries, no debates on the subject. Instead we had policies related to management of symptoms.
Another example, here in the UK. Look at the collusion between left, right, centre, up and down mainstream sources with regards to the establishment and entertainment paedophile scandals. Or before that, the war in Iraq. 9/11. Millions of issues no doubt, never mentioned, never discussed. Taboo. This is how the mainstream media operates. If they don't raise it then it's not an issue. And that's how the information flow is controlled.
Oh sure, for the stuff that gets raised they fight like cats and dogs. Lefties go one way, righties go the other. Each group consumes their propaganda and divisions are maintained. That's the primary job of the mainstream, to divide, preach, misinform, dumb down and misdirect. And they are all in it together.
I can think of one case that ran contrary to the rule. Snowden. I still haven't got my head around that whole business. It was a very odd moment in recent history where our media recovered its senses and its primary function. I don't know why that happened and why that particular issue was viewed as being different by the establishment.
It's all starting to become less relevant anyway because more and more people have seen through the game and as more alternative sources become available and more people compare notes then more awareness will grow. If we can hold on to the Internet, which is by no means guaranteed.
Personally I hardly ever use links to online sources, either mainstream or otherwise (unless it's footie because we are all in the same biased camp on that one). Drive by link posters bug the shit out of me. They let others do their talking for them and you can't help feeling they abdicate their thinking too. My feeling is that all these links should have been visited at some point anyway as you formed your own opinion, taking in information from both (or more) sides. To have a serious discussion you should have enough knowledge and be comfortable enough with your own research to at least present the basics in an always simplified online debate (should be called exchange rather than debate, because very few actaullt debate online).
Für eure Sicherheit
I'm sure you'll find those uniformly defending Russia and China in plenty of other places but certainly as not part of my make-up. My main focus is the West because naturally, it is the region of my birth, information to form an argument is more accessible and of course it contains far more of a corrupt dynasty that needs exposing.
I think we already established that there is a divide that can't be bridged in terms of common ground but from my perspective, that was never the point of these rolling discussions. Because aftet all, that is all this is, merely a discussion, a diversion through the day. Certainly more interesting than discussing football at the moment. Attempting to convince someone on a message board is foolhardy at best, especially those beyond a certain age, on either side of the debate. But going back to your last sentence, then without doubt I believe that. In fact, I believe the West has been far more destructive and ruthless across the centuries than anything China or Russia can be accused of. But just to ratify my belief in clear enough terms, they too are ruinous cunts. To be honest, I though that had been made clear way before now
Last edited by Kano; 23-11-2016 at 01:11 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote