Shocking New Oil Propaganda Plan to Fool Americans

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
The reality here is that the earth knows best.

new age nonsense. Earth doesn't know anything at all.

they various "system" on earth will attain equilibrium regardless of what we do to them - if we nuked ourselves out of existence and provided a million years of "nuclear winter" then there would still be an equilibrium reached.

That's not "earth" - that is physics and chemistry and biology.

positivist-nihilist drivel

really? Can you be a little more specific??

Earth wouldn't reach some sort of equilibrium regardless of what we do to it? Physics, chemistry, biology et al don't actually work??

What is it that you think is actually drivel here?

we are much more than mere "matter in motion"
so you are only speaking for yourself.

I wasn't talking about myself - I was talking about Earth, and whether or not it "knows best".

I wasn't talking at all about what laws society might work by, nor whether or not life is meaningful.

Way to launch an ad hom without actually bothering to comprehend what it is your are actually criticising!

How about we stay on topic and actually discuss the contents of the article and the plan by oil companies to propagandize the public, eh folks?

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Good idea.

Well basically their plan fits right in here doesn't it?

After all isn't global warming just a hoax, and "alternative" energy sources a rip-off?

So I expect the majority of ATS contributors will actually think they are doing a good thing.....even if by dubious means.

Originally posted by neo96
Huffington Post hmm now doesn't Soros fund them?

Yep have to agree

Propaganda and the church of climatology all can take a long walk off a short pier.

edit on 15-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

so your conclusion is...if soros has anything to do with it, it's a lie. i personally think that you should be able to breathe in as much CO2 as your personal freedoms and liberty allow. by all means, you and your family, and the people that discount this, should all go live right next to a coal-burning power plant....you know...to show all of us your conviction.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul




ad-homs are against T&C,
and it was your arguments i was pissing on



Way to launch an ad hom without actually bothering to comprehend what it is your are actually reading!

The black and white thinking demonstrated in this thread is appalling. The fringe have taken over our discourse as a nation. The evil Koch brothers vs. the evil George Soros...

You are all such good little lemmings repeating your talking points that have been drilled into your heads by the propagandists.

climate deniers... church of climatology, now if that doesn't sound like propaganda....

Wake up and realize what they are doing to you and your ability to reason and think for yourself. There is ground in the middle of all of this noise. NOTHING is black and white.

Calm the hell down and think for yourselves.

Originally posted by Anonymous404
reply to post by jdub297

 

You're right, but how much of that would be used up as a commodity like oil?
I guess we should build a wind farm out of wind to make you happy.

No.

If the industry is self-sustaining, I'm all for it; but allocating my taxes to certain politically-favored businesses, with no hope of a real return on that "investment," serves no one but the politcal interests involved and the recipients.

Where are the people who can sell wind-produced energy as a for-profit business?
Enron tried to lock-up the grid, and failed miserably.

Selling it as "green" or "renewable" is a lie because it is neither. Advocates act as if the wind farms are made of wind, when they are the products of the use of finite and expensive resources.

For many advocates, the goal is the wind farm itself, not the outrageously expensive electricity intermittently produced. When wind and solar become competitive, they will become true "alternatives."

The most "Shocking ... Propaganda" comes from the leeches and thieves enriching themselves in an otherwise unsustainable industry, that is largely just selling itself and not the product (i.e., electricity) they purport to be supplying.

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by jdub297


Star for you Mi Amigo! That is the true substance of this whole debate. Carbon Credits owned and controlled by the Climate Clowns at the top that take our taxes and spread the wealth directly into their own bank accounts!

Zindo

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Good idea.

Well basically their plan fits right in here doesn't it?

After all isn't global warming just a hoax, and "alternative" energy sources a rip-off?

So I expect the majority of ATS contributors will actually think they are doing a good thing.....even if by dubious means.

Sadly, you're probably right (about that last part).

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by Anonymous404
reply to post by jdub297

 

You're right, but how much of that would be used up as a commodity like oil?
I guess we should build a wind farm out of wind to make you happy.

No.

If the industry is self-sustaining, I'm all for it; but allocating my taxes to certain politically-favored businesses, with no hope of a real return on that "investment," serves no one but the politcal interests involved and the recipients.

Where are the people who can sell wind-produced energy as a for-profit business?
Enron tried to lock-up the grid, and failed miserably.

Selling it as "green" or "renewable" is a lie because it is neither. Advocates act as if the wind farms are made of wind, when they are the products of the use of finite and expensive resources.

For many advocates, the goal is the wind farm itself, not the outrageously expensive electricity intermittently produced. When wind and solar become competitive, they will become true "alternatives."

The most "Shocking ... Propaganda" comes from the leeches and thieves enriching themselves in an otherwise unsustainable industry, that is largely just selling itself and not the product (i.e., electricity) they purport to be supplying.

deny ignorance

jw

You keep saying this over and over, YET, you never address the simple reality: WITHOUT SUBSIDIES AND HELP, WIND/SOLAR WILL NOT BECOME COMPETITIVE ANY TIME SOON. And we needed mass-implemented alternatives LAST DECADE. Sorry, but I'd rather have a few startups become leeches for the greater good than to keep subsidizing oil/petroleum/nuclear and allow the same good ol' boys to destroy the planet while being MUCH LARGER leeches.

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by jdub297

 

Star for you Mi Amigo! That is the true substance of this whole debate. Carbon Credits owned and controlled by the Climate Clowns at the top that take our taxes and spread the wealth directly into their own bank accounts!

Zindo

No...

Cap n' trade was crafted BY THE OIL INDUSTRY, not by environmentalists.

reply to post by jimmyx



What is wrong with living next to a coal power plant? People who make ungodly amounts of money did not make a honest living to achieve those billions. They had to ripp you all off. They leaches and suck you dry. They are the kind of people who invent new ways to bypass laws to rob joe smo and make bribes and payoffs called gifts. No wonder our country is going broke. People like these who take and take and take and take and stop at nothing to gain more money and power. I wonder what is next on the money machines mind after the oil runs out and the earth collapses in on itself because of all the HOLES, oil pockets left behind. To them you are nothing but cattle ready for slaughter.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by jdub297

 

Star for you Mi Amigo! That is the true substance of this whole debate. Carbon Credits owned and controlled by the Climate Clowns at the top that take our taxes and spread the wealth directly into their own bank accounts!

Zindo

No...

Cap n' trade was crafted BY THE OIL INDUSTRY, not by environmentalists.

Interesting, do you have a link or some sort of evidence to support this?

Originally posted by redhorse

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
You only call something propaganda if it's blatantly lying to forward an agenda.

No.

propaganda[prop-uh-gan-duh]   Example Sentences Origin Propaganda
www.ask.com/Propaganda
Get Propaganda Search for Propaganda Dictionary.com Free Toolbar
Dictionary.com
Define Propaganda Instantly. Faster Page Loads With Fewer Ads.
Adsprop·a·gan·da   /ˌprɒpəˈgændə/ Show Spelled[prop-uh-gan-duh] Show IPA
noun
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.
4. Roman Catholic Church .
a. a committee of cardinals, established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV, having supervision over foreign missions and the training of priests for these missions.
b. a school (College of Propaganda) established by Pope Urban VIII for the education of priests for foreign missions.
5. Archaic . an organization or movement for the spreading of propaganda.

No where does it say anything about lying to forward an agenda or lying at all for that matter. Propaganda is slant (as you put it). It does not have to be false before you can call it propaganda. You are incorrect.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Huff Post, despite having SLANT, was not publishing a propaganda piece; it was pointing out the oil industry's attempts at propaganda.

People like yourself have to be extremely adept at double-think to call the messenger revealing the propagandists a propagandist itself.

Please see above definition once more. You are now presenting misinformation to further your agenda, and so by your own definition (which in incorrect) and indeed also by the real one, you are proving yourself a propagandaist. Or, in your own words...

Wrong again. Well done.

Actually there are different kinds of propaganda, by definition, much of it includes lying, going into the gray and the black realms. There's also lying by omission.

However... fair enough, I concede the point- propaganda does cover a spectrum of slant that may or may not include lying.

So with that said... does this automatically mean that Huff Post's slant/propaganda is harmful or dishonest? More often than not, I find their content to be informative and give reasonable perspectives, not always, but overall. Simply calling Huff Post propaganda and discounting the actual EVIDENCE presented is silly. THAT was my point. The evidence presented makes a strong case that the oil industry is engaging in harmful and DISHONEST propaganda that parallels with their propaganda efforts to manufacture false doubt among politicians, media, and the populace about anthropogenic global warming; and YES IT IS FALSE DOUBT. If anyone here would HONESTLY study the actual science of climatology/atmospheric physics stacked against the claims of global warming "skeptics" (keep in mind, major skeptic organizations have called AGW denial ridiculous/unfounded) as I have, they'd find that AGW is absolutely real, serious and that nearly EVERY claim otherwise is dead wrong and rooted in greed/politics rather than sound skepticism/science/reason/benefit.

But I digress... if you find yourself disbelieving the 'propaganda' of Huff Post as too slanted, then by qualitative logic you should be EXTREMELY disbelieving of the 'propaganda' of oil companies in regards to any science, belief, practice, technology, or legislation that threatens their profits/dominance in the energy market. Especially considering the fossil fuel industry being the richest industry ever to exist, and also their less-than-honest/harmless history in regards to just about everything/one on the planet.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by jdub297

 

Star for you Mi Amigo! That is the true substance of this whole debate. Carbon Credits owned and controlled by the Climate Clowns at the top that take our taxes and spread the wealth directly into their own bank accounts!

Zindo

No...

Cap n' trade was crafted BY THE OIL INDUSTRY, not by environmentalists.

Interesting, do you have a link or some sort of evidence to support this?

Actually sorry...

I couldn't find any direct links between industry and cap n' trade (at least not in recent years), however, originally Cap n' Trade was a watered-down compromise that was designed/supported by economists, Republicans, and the oil industry at the time in opposition to "command-and-control" legislation.

So essentially, Cap n' Trade is a greenwashed free-market version of CO2 control. Environmentalists see it as a cop-out, and NOW, the right-wing (essentially driven by major industry/Capitalists) is trying to destroy an already-diluted system that would have them abide by any accountability for carbon output. Essentially they want more power, more money, and less regulation... nothing new, but it certainly isn't an attack on ACTUAL freedom (of the populace) or on markets (Cap&Trade is market-friendly and hardly harms our precious Capitalist markets).

Oh and even the economists who invented the idea think that a carbon tax would be better. From the horse's mouth.


More info:

www.americanprogress.org...

online.wsj.com...

www.smithsonianmag.com...


Big business is throwing a tantrum, and they're using politicians and now the public to throw it for them under the guise of free-market religion and unscientific global warming skepticism. Difference is... climatologists have been LESS alarmist than they ought to be (considering the recent trends turning out WORSE than the IPCC predicted just earlier in the decade), and industry groups/market think-tanks have been FAR TOO alarmist over the economic implications of cap+trade/carbon taxes. The scientists are hung by stupid mobs, and the businessmen are worshipped... Business as usual.