Documentary Explores How Big Oil Stalled Climate Action for Decades (theguardian.com) 174
Slashdot reader XXongo brings word of a new three-part documentary — streaming free now — that tries to understand America's early inaction on climate change. Looking back over the last few decades, The Power of Big Oil explores how the fuel industry "successfully set up a campaign to discredit climate science and targetting individual politicians to vote against measures to curb climate change."
The Guardian notes that the series includes an interview with a U.S. senator who they say "blames the oil industry for malignly claiming the science of climate change was not proved when companies such as Exxon and Shell already knew otherwise from their own research."
As far back as 25 years ago, the senator says, "they had evidence in their own institutions that countered what they were saying publicly. I mean — they lied." The documentary's makers have dug out a parade of former oil company scientists, lobbyists and public relations strategists who lay bare how the US's biggest petroleum firm, Exxon, and then the broader petroleum industry, moved from attempting to understand the causes of a global heating to a concerted campaign to hide the making of an environmental catastrophe. Over three episodes — called Denial, Doubt, Delay — the series charts corporate manipulation of science, public opinion and politicians that mirrors conduct by other industries, from big tobacco to the pharmaceutical companies responsible for America's opioid epidemic.
Some of those interviewed shamefacedly admit their part in the decades-long campaign to hide the evidence of climate change, discredit scientists and delay action that threatened big oil's profits.
Others almost boast about how easy it was to dupe the American public and politicians, with consequences not just for the US but every country on the planet.
In one video clip an aide to a climate-conscious senator remembers that "You had reams of material coming out of the government. They were at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, at NASA — this expanding network of people, working on this day in and day out, saying that this was a legitimate issue, and that we needed to do something about it. And on the other hand, you had two or three guys who went around to conferences and said, 'Oh, I'm not sure. Oh, maybe there's clouds....' It quickly became apparent that these were private interests who had a stake in the status quo." He refers to it as "emerging industry of nay-sayers."
There's also a discouraged assessment from climate activist looking back over a lack of progress in the early decades. "You want to make an assumption that it's a meritocracy — a good argument will prevail, and it will displace a bad argument. But, what the geniuses at the PR firms who work for these big fossil-fuel companies know is that truth has nothing to do with who wins the argument. If you say something enough times, people will begin to believe it."
The Guardian notes that the series includes an interview with a U.S. senator who they say "blames the oil industry for malignly claiming the science of climate change was not proved when companies such as Exxon and Shell already knew otherwise from their own research."
As far back as 25 years ago, the senator says, "they had evidence in their own institutions that countered what they were saying publicly. I mean — they lied." The documentary's makers have dug out a parade of former oil company scientists, lobbyists and public relations strategists who lay bare how the US's biggest petroleum firm, Exxon, and then the broader petroleum industry, moved from attempting to understand the causes of a global heating to a concerted campaign to hide the making of an environmental catastrophe. Over three episodes — called Denial, Doubt, Delay — the series charts corporate manipulation of science, public opinion and politicians that mirrors conduct by other industries, from big tobacco to the pharmaceutical companies responsible for America's opioid epidemic.
Some of those interviewed shamefacedly admit their part in the decades-long campaign to hide the evidence of climate change, discredit scientists and delay action that threatened big oil's profits.
Others almost boast about how easy it was to dupe the American public and politicians, with consequences not just for the US but every country on the planet.
In one video clip an aide to a climate-conscious senator remembers that "You had reams of material coming out of the government. They were at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, at NASA — this expanding network of people, working on this day in and day out, saying that this was a legitimate issue, and that we needed to do something about it. And on the other hand, you had two or three guys who went around to conferences and said, 'Oh, I'm not sure. Oh, maybe there's clouds....' It quickly became apparent that these were private interests who had a stake in the status quo." He refers to it as "emerging industry of nay-sayers."
There's also a discouraged assessment from climate activist looking back over a lack of progress in the early decades. "You want to make an assumption that it's a meritocracy — a good argument will prevail, and it will displace a bad argument. But, what the geniuses at the PR firms who work for these big fossil-fuel companies know is that truth has nothing to do with who wins the argument. If you say something enough times, people will begin to believe it."
Reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations can claim the cost of manipulation and dishonesty as a cost of doing business: They, indirectly, are charging the government for the cost of lying to the government.
There's profit in manipulation and dishonesty, there isn't in telling the truth. Worse, idiots choose the manipulation and dishonesty over the truth.
Let's not forget Bush jr with his 'balanced reporting' propaganda: Demanding honest people spread the dishonesty themselves.
Re:Reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
People should have learned the lesson when we all were discussing the tobacco industry.
Re: (Score:3)
People should have learned the lesson when we all were discussing the tobacco industry.
I think it was even the same people behind them both.
Re:Reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it was even the same people behind them both.
Yes, the oil and tobacco industries used many of the same lobbyists, and the strategy was the same. They knew they couldn't win a scientific debate, so instead, they attacked the credibility and objectivity of science itself.
If your goal is inaction, you don't need to convince the public. You just need to sow doubt. Stalemate is victory.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The anti-nuclear crowd is using the same anti-science FUD to keep people from using nuclear power.
I get the same bullshit from the anti-nuclear morons.
What about Chernobyl? Yes, what about it? That was a dual-use (capable of being used to produce weapon grade material) reactor built by half drunk Soviet politicians then handed over to half drunk operators that were hired more for their loyalty to the Party than for their technical skill. The reactor was built with a known flaw of a "positive void coeffic
Re: (Score:2)
The anti-nuclear crowd is using the same anti-science FUD to keep people from using nuclear power.
I get the same bullshit from the anti-nuclear morons.
That's because the anti-nuclear morons are often the exact same groups that are pro-fossil fuel (aka pro-global warming).
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes, this is why Putin and (to a lesser extent) Biden are the bestest presidents ever. Where Trump some how made gas prices fall to $1.86/gal before leaving office, these two geniuses have pushed up the price of fuel to over $5/gal.
How much did Trump increase the deficit to achieve that laudable goal? Was that after he inherited a healthy economy from Obama?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Putin and Biden are the best presidents ever! (Score:3)
Re: Putin and Biden are the best presidents ever! (Score:2)
The deficit did not go up by $10 trillion. That would have required around $15 trillion in spending in one year. The total debt might have went up by that much, but that isn't the same thing as the deficit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give you that, I misunderstood what was said. Debt is not the same as deficit. But all is good as long as we agree that the debt went up by 10 trillion under Obama making him the second worse president in recent history.
Re: (Score:2)
But all is good as long as we agree that the debt went up by 10 trillion under Obama making him the second worse president in recent history.
Well, we would at least agree on the total amount of debt increase (except it was $8.6 trillion). Having increased the debt by $4.3 trillion per term puts him at #2 behind Trump, who increase it $7.8 trillion in one term. But the way politics have went over the past 20 years, for the most part the president who raised the debt the most is going to be the most recent president. Ever since Clinton that has been true, and right now Biden is on track to perhaps at least tying Trump.
Debt growth is likely to go b
Re: (Score:2)
You may want to look up the definition of racist. Nothing Joce640k said had any racial connotations and was in no way racist.
The fact that there has only been one non-white president in the history of the USA makes it even more difficult to see how any comments on Trump's presidency can be called racist.
Of course this is all coming from an AC so more likely this is just a bot gone bad.
History repeats itself (Score:4, Interesting)
People should have learned the lesson when we all were discussing the tobacco industry.
No, they didn't. Whether we're talking about tobacco, or oil, or sugar [youtube.com], or PFAS [youtube.com], or tetraethyl-lead [youtube.com], or war [youtube.com], or pick any other poison at your leisure, big industry wants money, no matter the expense, not even human lives, and the sheeple have not stopped them.
Re:Reasons (Score:5, Informative)
Before oil and tobacco and opioids, the leaded gas industry used the same playbook:
https://www.mentalfloss.com/ar... [mentalfloss.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Or the lead industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Oil, Tobacco, Lead, Guns, Alcohol... Vs. CFC.
They had learned their lessons. However it was was the wrong lesson.
CFC back in the 1980's causing a hole on the Ozone layer, in general created a rather quick ban and a heave restriction on the use of CFC. Because they didn't bother with a counter information campaign. So the Left and the Right had no issues banning it.
Sure lying and being deceitful will have a big issue in the future, however in the mean time they can profit like crazy off it, vs like CFC ge
Re: (Score:2)
Politics doesn't seem to work well when huge commercial interests are involved. So (in a capitalist society like ours) the fix is the same as it was before: stop buying their product. Works for big oil as well as tobacco.
If all the tobacco goes away tomorrow, all of the effects are positive.
If all the oil goes away tomorrow, society collapses.
The two can't be directly compared in that way.
Re: Reasons (Score:2)
It is rare for two related scenarios to be nearly identical in every way. Oil and tobacco have very different benefits to society. The scare tactics used to combat reform related to each industry was very similar though. That is the comparison being used here, and it is accurate.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If all the oil goes away tomorrow, society collapses.
Typical misunderstanding, it's not true.
What I actually said is absolutely true.
Respond to what I actually said, or fuck off.
Forget it, Jake (Score:2)
It's Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your hypothetical comment might be true but in reality, what are the chances of all the oil going away overnight?
None. But that's not the point.
The point is that tobacco is something we've been conned into thinking we want, by creating want for it. But oil is something we've been conned into thinking we need, by creating need for it. The solutions which don't use it have been continually attacked by Big Oil with the result that Big Oil is now an integral part of our society. It can and should be excised, but that doesn't change the fact that most people simply can't afford to switch. The total cost to humanity of burn
Re: (Score:3)
Typical misunderstanding, it's not true. We could easily shift from burning oil.
I just bought a new car last year and fully expect to be fueling it for many years to come. I also heat my home with natural gas, and that is unlikely to change in my lifetime. So no shift happening here.
Re: (Score:3)
Typical misunderstanding, it's not true. We could easily shift from burning oil.
Actually, No, we can't. That is one of the things that irritate me about you green new deal weenies. You really have no clue how much the economy of the world is wrapped around oil. The current best guess is we will be burning fossil fuel for at least the next 20 years, probably longer.
An this doesn't cover other things that we get from oil. If we was to just stop using oil, as in cold turkey, the death toll will not be in the millions, but in the billions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you ignore that tens of thousands of products use plastic...
And you can ignore the tens of thousands of products made from plastic, because oil that is used to make plastic is not oil that's burned producing carbon dioxide that contributes to the greenhouse effect.
Use all the oil you want to make plastic; there may be other problems with plastic, but contributing to the greenhouse effect isn't one.
Re: (Score:2)
Use all the oil you want to make plastic; there may be other problems with plastic, but contributing to the greenhouse effect isn't one.
Debatable. [worldbank.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you wake up in a cave and walk around naked scrounging for food in the woods you are supporting corporations. I bet you own at least one Apple product, big Computer. You use electricity, big Utility. Buy your food at a grocery store, big Food and big Ag.
Unless you form a Big Government and use Big Police to force people to not use these things life as we now live it will continue.
Re: (Score:2)
Same thing they did with Tobacco (Score:5, Interesting)
It's just another part of marketing, and keeping the public onboard with harmful and destructive practices. Sow doubt in the public's mind and then you can keep on making money without interference from the masses.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of the people involved with tobacco at the time are now making their living in promoting the fossil fuel industry.
Odd that..
Re: Same thing they did with Tobacco (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
COVID and big pharma
Next time include a spoiler warning. Not cool!
Compensation - how much and where to get it. (Score:2, Interesting)
So, they committed fraud and deliberately damaged other people's interests for their own profit. It's not enough that the companies pay up but their investors too. How much? Where from? How to find these people?
Re: (Score:3)
It's not hard to picture a dystopian future where these people and their offspring are doxxed and hunted down for sport.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah right. Your comment reminds me of a cartoon during the time Reagan was elected and the time he took office. He's riding a horse in a corral filled with cattle, Jimmy Carter is on another horse. Reagan asks Carter, "how can you tell which ones are sacred cows?". Carter answers, "Well Ron, you just have to ask them."
It also reminds me of that yokel in a West Coast rally for the Big Lie, "when do we get to use the guns?".
Gunning down people for sport, eh? Now we know what kind of people a decent America i
Re: (Score:2)
Gunning down people for sport, eh? Now we know what kind of people a decent America is up against.
GP said "It's not hard to picture a dystopian future" (emphasis mine).
There have been lots of fictional depictions of such dystopias; so pray tell, what part of that sentence suggested to you that GP is in favour of hunting people for sport?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you didn't score very well on reading comprehension tests, did you.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you're being silly.
The perpetrators should be identified, trialled in a legal and just manner, and given punishments relative to the crimes committed.
Doxing and hunting them for sport would be letting them off too easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Also consider: these investors might have been duped by the same misinformation. How can you morally hold them responsible? The real question is: were these co
Re: (Score:2)
Shareholders are shielded from claims in most countries.
That's true. The point of corporatism is to separate the people making the profit from their responsibility for the harm done in the process. That's why they should not exist.
[...]investors might have been duped by [...] misinformation. How can you morally hold them responsible?
Easily. Very, very easily. If you don't know enough about a corporation to know if it's doing evil, you cannot morally invest in it. Failing to find out is being willing to aid evil so long as you don't know it's occurring.
Re: (Score:2)
... If you don't know enough about a corporation to know if it's doing evil, you cannot morally invest in it. Failing to find out is being willing to aid evil so long as you don't know it's occurring.
I agree with everything you said before this - especially that corporations as they are currently configured and held non-accountable need to be dismantled and outlawed. But given all the pension fund investments and other third- and fourth-party investments there are, it's unreasonable to expect all of the smaller investors to know what's going on with corporations. And they shouldn't have to - that's why we have governments. They are the ones failing - mostly because government "by the people" has devolve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't know enough about a corporation to know if it's doing evil, you cannot morally invest in it. Failing to find out is being willing to aid evil so long as you don't know it's occurring.
Even if the world were to stop burning fossils fuels (which is unlikely anytime soon because they are still quite necessary), they will still be needed to make plastics, fertilizers, lubricants, chemical feedstocks, and many other things that it is in no way immoral to invest in.
If you personally don't like the business, by all means don't invest in it. But don't pretend to be some arbiter of morality based on your own personal fears. It is not at all immoral for people to not share those.
lets do a quick mendacity check, shall we? (Score:2, Informative)
From the Guardian:
"...In 1997, Hagel joined with the Democratic senator Robert Byrd to promote a resolution opposing the international agreement to limit greenhouse gases, on the grounds that it was unfair to Americans. The measure passed the US Senate without a single dissenting vote, after a vigorous campaign by big oil to mischaracterise the Kyoto protocol as a threat to jobs and the economy while falsely claiming that China and India could go on polluting to their heartâ(TM)s content...."
Mischaract
Re: (Score:2)
I kind of want to watch the movie, but I'm afraid it will be filled with that kind of nonsense. And it's three hours long and doesn't have a transcript.
Re:lets do a quick mendacity check, shall we? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't seem to have parsed the sentence correctly.
Part 1: "mischaracterise the Kyoto protocol as a threat to jobs and the economy"
Part 2: "falsely claiming that China and India could go on polluting to their heartÃ(TM)s content...."
Both of those are true.
The oil companies were portraying any action to reduce emissions as bad for the US, and as a scheme by other countries to weaken the US while they used emissions to get ahead. That was nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
The oil companies were portraying any action to reduce emissions as bad for the US, and as a scheme by other countries to weaken the US while they used emissions to get ahead. That was nonsense.
Lots of impoverished countries still wanting and trying to use emissions to get ahead, and many are trying to crush those aspirations. Nothing at all moral about that.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you think it has nothing to do with those same countries
A) being likely to be worst hit my climate change, and least able to deal with it
and
B) realizing that if they proceed on the same basis that developed nations did, emitting vast amounts of CO2 as they industrialize, the whole world is screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
being likely to be worst hit my climate change, and least able to deal with it
Because they don't have the modern amenities needed to adapt, like a reliable electrical grid.
realizing that if they proceed on the same basis that developed nations did, emitting vast amounts of CO2 as they industrialize, the whole world is screwed.
History is littered with predictions of the end of the world. It is traditionally used to justify some mighty immoral things.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that you have not tried to defend your position that it's an attack on developed nations, trying to induce them to stifle themselves.
Never play defence, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer to work to bring others up to our standards than to drag us down to theirs. This goes for pretty much any subject actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the country has already given up its standard of living. They seem pretty excited about it, they have rallies and stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just more misinformation. We can have a better standard of living.
Re: (Score:2)
We can have a better standard of living.
Of course our kids will have a better standard of living than us, and their kids even more so. Even the ones inculcated with fear. That goes without saying. Can't be stopped even if you want to.
Re: (Score:3)
Young people today have a lower standard of living than their parents in some countries, like the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? It pretty much depends on your yardstick, mate.
Last time I checked, even in the UK
- high quality smartphone are ubiquitous. Not so in their previous generation.
- computers, gaming systems, giant flatscreens - all ubiquitous, not so the previous generation.
- in 2018-19, only 12% of non pensioners lived in a completely unemployed home, down from 18% in the mid 1990s.
From: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplep... [ons.gov.uk]
- Overall, personal well-being levels have improved in the UK, as have mental well-being
Re: (Score:3)
The Kyoto protocol was first started in 2005 from an extension of a proposal in 1992.
In those past 17 or so years has a shift to renewable energy hurt the US economy? The sector for the US is up to over $600 billion last year, is one of the largest job growth sectors and that is without any major climate legislation in the US for probably decades. Imagine if we had actually made a real effort.
People are quick to say climate denial and misinformation is oil company propaganda because otherwise it makes a me
because it is a mischaracterisation (Score:2)
Would it have made a difference? (Score:2)
How many people who read this have actually taken any steps to reduce their footprint? Have you bought a smaller more efficient car? Increased the temp in your home in the summer and cooler in the winter?
It's out there now. Have you changed?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if the news was published fully, do you think people would have reacted?
Trump gave them a name for their dissonance: "Fake news"
Re:Would it have made a difference? (Score:4, Informative)
> Even if the news was published fully, do you think people would have reacted?
Yes. Specifically, the politicians who opposed meaningful changes because special interest groups had their ears (and their purses) would likely not have been as easily swayed... or at least have had a constituency that was genuinely motivated to pressure them into doing the right thing.
Don't try to push responsibility of all this onto the public individuals - put it on the shoulders of the corporations who fought so hard to resist change, where it belongs.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Have you bought a smaller more efficient car?
Have you? If most people believe in AGW and buy a smaller, more efficient car, then the few of us who don't and continue to drive old inefficient shit-boxes will have a smaller impact on the climate. You don't have to wait for me to trade in my bro-truck. You can squeeze into that Prius today.
Re: (Score:2)
Increased the temp in your home in the summer and cooler in the winter?
WTF would I do that? Being comfortable all the time is a wonderful perk of living in the first world. I'll not be giving that up thanks. If you plan to solve climate change by dragging down people's standards of living, you are doomed to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is my point. Even if the news was published you wouldn't have adapted.
I am constantly adapting. That is what HVAC is for.
Lies have no place in debate (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The only people who can change it are the ones who would be negatively affected by it. So yeah, not going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Congresscritters are already held to the requirement to be honest by the voters and other Congresscritters. Anyone that gets too far out of line can be removed from office by an election or a vote of no confidence by other Congresscritters. Since it is quite a process to remove someone from Congress, and it should be a process that is taken with care, this rarely happens.
I believe we need term limits as people that serve in Congress for life get so far removed from reality that they are no longer represen
Re: (Score:2)
I believe we need term limits as people that serve in Congress for life get so far removed from reality that they are no longer representatives of the people.
If they're no longer representative, ideally the people should vote them out as you say. The problem with term limits is that you encourage a revolving door since everyone in congress needs to immediately start preparing for their career after congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on man like they won’t even enjoy their jobs after that!
Virtually All Industries Oppose Costly Regulations (Score:2)
Virtually all industries oppose costly laws and regulations. There is absolutely nothing unique about Big Oil in this regard. It's the responsibility of the legislative bodies to do the right thing and it's the responsibility of the voters to replace them if they don't.
Lead in gasoline (Score:2, Interesting)
Action (Score:2, Insightful)
Coincidence (Score:2)
This is being driven by lawyers who want to sue for 30% of a trillion dollars. They need lots of "common knowledge" out there to get a critical mass going.
I'm ready for my downmod, Mr. DeMille.
it never was a meritocracy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
With the implication that somehow one has to give up going from point A to B, or the benefits of petrochemicals in order to not have out of control climate change. And no for you it's not going to be shaming, blaming, or whatever but the simpler, suffering which will do the job.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe stop getting your proposals second hand from other people telling you whats actually in them. Is there a serious US politician who advocated for forgoing liberties and packing you in commie blocks? You cannot even imagine, or read the ocean of options and proposals between your imaginary dystopian scenario and "do nothing".
It's not the fault of the rest of us that some politicians got so dug into the anti-climate change position that they feel they have to stick by it at every turn, facts be damned,
Re: (Score:3)
Driving, Air Conditioning, Flying in a plane, Eating Meat, Refrigeration. Those are some of the top contributors. If we are going to make a big difference in CO2, how do we address these issues without forgoing liberties?
Driving: Adjust zoning laws in major cities to allow more densification and affordable housing in city centers, using that minicipal power to slow down suburbanization which is overall bad for the environment. Use federal budgets to spur more public transport options. Use congestion taxes to change behaviour of commuters and give them other options. Have a federal plan for EV chargers across the national highway system and major roadways. All new construction has to include EV charging. We already ha
Re: (Score:2)
Many people (most Americans, in fact) prefer the suburban lifestyle to the dense urban alternative.
That's probably a bit fair but why that is an important question and one that changes over a persons life, and we can agree that suburbs are in fact subsidized. In reality suburbs cost more tax money than they take in as they require more spread out infrastructure.
Also this is not just opinion, there is a lot of data around how the suburbs and american sprawl style living is bad for us, economically [youtube.com], environmentally, [youtube.com] socially [youtube.com] and are even negative to our own health. [youtube.com]
Seriously, the suburban sacred cow is not
Re: Don't care (Score:2)
Not trying to discount your life here but anecdotes do not counter the data which is a majority of suburbs do not collect enough tax and end up in the opposite end of relying on the dense economic centers they surround. Not to mention all the very real environmental, social and health concerns they bring. All those have to be addressed.
Also all the zoning we do now is forcing single family homes with special carve outs for sprawling developments and their developer owners. Some of that is municipal and so
Re: (Score:2)
No offense but that's a lot of conjecture, emotions and accusations but little data, solutions or improvements. Nobody claimed conspiracy or coersion but historical circumstances and economic conditions that cause emergent behaviours. You are the one writing morality tales here. People are products of their environment, we make one style of living the one that is "normal" or preferred" through policy, media and economic conditions then use that built in preference to say it's good when all other data poi
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if everyone does it, then it's okay. You should turn your sig into LeftwingNutjob. You must be very proud of yourself not standing for anything honorable.
Re: (Score:2)
and no amount of green shaming, emotionalism, or scapegoating is going to change my thinking.
You mean, no amount of anything is going to make you start thinking. We knew that from your posting history.
Re:Don't care (Score:4, Informative)
But I don't want to live the life of a preindustrial peasant, neither do most people (documtary makers included), and no amount of green shaming, emotionalism, or scapegoating is going to change my thinking.
If that's what you believe it would take then you've fallen for Big Oil's propaganda.
Hook, line, and sinker.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Needs a followup (Score:5, Insightful)
Right after they acknowledge the Oil Wars as corporate subsidies?
Or USDA as subsidies for Big Sugar and Big Healthcare?
Or Remdesivir being approved for infants for no reason but minor Pharma profit on a kidney killer?
We got 99 problems and they all alongside the Potomac.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't know enough about a corporation to know if it's doing evil, you cannot morally invest in it. Failing to find out is being willing to aid evil so long as you don't know it's occurring.
Rather brilliant if they are behind that. What anti-nuclear protesters are really screaming is "it is not an emergency".
Re:Animal Farming - No climate action at all (Score:4, Informative)
Fucking liar
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/... [greenpeace.org.uk]
Gosh only one of the most well known orgs talks explicitly about it.
Sure you could have taken ten seconds to check your claims, but instead why not just blatantly lie instead.
Why not just be honest about whatever agenda you are pushing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Climate Propaganda (Score:4, Informative)
You know a lot of people are dishonest when talking about how they really "just want balanced media" because they will shit all over PBS and NPR as soon as they hear something they don't like despite them being a couple of the most balanced outlets in the US almost always showing both sides of a story.
That 0.012% of the budget we give PBS sure is breaking the bank. Fuck those kids and puppets right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Climate Propaganda (Score:3)
If you really think PBS and NPR are "left wing shills" your Overton window is absolutely knackered to hell, maybe just embrace that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Climate Propaganda (Score:2)
I think they are because I listen to them and can easily take away that opinion. I have never heard so many Trump admin officials giving their take on a story anywhere as much as NPR, I never even knew they had so many assistant press secretaries.
Every news organization might make a controversial staffing call, conservative outlets have done the same. Doesn't mean you can write the whole thing off.
Most people don't listen to either org because they do it dry and boring which we all say we want but deep d
Re:Inconvenient Truths (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When discussing a democracy, where the deniers are in the majority, it isn't just an excuse but is the expected outcome.
This does not seem to be the case. Corporate shills are severely outnumbered and a majority of the country believes climate is a valid problem despite shills.
That's the root of the entire problem. Not that democracy worked as intended, but that it is this stupidly easy to convince the majority to do the wrong thing against their own interests.
If this were true how come shills are only convincing people associated with one party and not the other? How come climate never used to be a partisan issue but is certainly that way now?
Personally I suspect what is leading people astray are persistent threats of unpopular policies promulgated by a single party resulting in the whole issue becoming a