Posted by The Editors |
- I wrote about that, too, last week !
Posted by jo abbess
on November 3, 2009, 10:22 am, in reply to "Clive James isn't a climate change sceptic, he's a sucker "http://www.joabbess.com/2009/10/24/clive-james-lighthearted-ignorance/
--Previous Message--
: Clive James said some deeply foolish things
: about the invasion of Iraq, and is doing the
: same now on climate change.
:
:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/02/climate-change-denial-clive-james
:
http://www.joabbess.com - Thanks, Jo (nm)
Posted by The Editors
on November 3, 2009, 11:01 am, in reply to "I wrote about that, too, last week !"
--Previous Message--
:
: http://www.joabbess.com/2009/10/24/clive-james-lighthearted-ignorance/
:
: --Previous Message--
: Clive James said some deeply foolish things
: about the invasion of Iraq, and is doing the
: same now on climate change.
:
:
:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/02/climate-change-denial-clive-james
:
:
:
- Re: Clive James isn't a climate change sceptic, he's a sucker
Posted by noamsampy
on November 3, 2009, 10:40 am, in reply to "Clive James isn't a climate change sceptic, he's a sucker ""A survey last month by the Pew Research Centre suggests that the proportion of Americans who believe there is solid evidence that the world has been warming over the last few decades has fallen from 71% to 57% in just 18 months. Another survey, conducted in January by Rasmussen Reports, suggests that, due to a sharp rise since 2006, US voters who believe global warming has natural causes (44%) outnumber those who believe it is the result of human action (41%)."
GM seems almost surprised that people - shock horror, hold the front pages - tend to believe whatever rubbish is fed to them by the media
Best,
N.
--Previous Message--
: Clive James said some deeply foolish things
: about the invasion of Iraq, and is doing the
: same now on climate change.
:
:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/02/climate-change-denial-clive-james
:
- James after the Bali bombings
Posted by The Editors
on November 3, 2009, 11:14 am, in reply to "Re: Clive James isn't a climate change sceptic, he's a sucker "But let us allow, for the moment, that the mass outcry against American hegemony is the voice of the true, the eternal and the compassionate left. Allowing that, we can put the best possible construction on its pervasiveness. Not just the majority of the intellectuals, academics and schoolteachers, but most of the face-workers in the media, share the view that international terrorism is to be explained by the vices of the liberal democracies. Or, at any rate, they shared it until a few days ago. It will be interesting, in the shattering light of an explosive event, to see if that easy view continues now to be quite so widespread, and how much room is made for the more awkward view that the true instigation for terrorism might not be the vices of the liberal democracies, but their virtues.
The consensus will die hard in Australia, just as it is dying hard here in Britain. On Monday morning, the Independent carried an editorial headed: "Unless there is more justice in the world, Bali will be repeated." Towards the end of the editorial, it was explained that the chief injustice was "the failure of the US to use its influence to secure a fair settlement between Israelis and Palestinians." I count the editor of the Independent as a friend, so the main reason I hesitate to say that he is out to lunch on this issue is that I was out to dinner with him last night. But after hesitating, say it I must, and add a sharper criticism: that his editorial writer sounds like an unreconstructed Australian intellectual, one who can still believe, even after his prepared text was charred in the nightclub, that the militant fundamentalists are students of history.
But surely the reverse is true: they are students of the opposite of history, which is theocratic fanaticism. Especially, they are dedicated to knowing as little as possible about the history of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. A typical terrorist expert on the subject believes that Hitler had the right idea, that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a true story, and that the obliteration of the state of Israel is a religious requirement. In furthering that end, the sufferings of the Palestinians are instrumental, and thus better exacerbated than diminished. To the extent that they are concerned with the matter at all, the terrorists epitomise the extremist pressure that had been so sadly effective in ensuring the continued efforts of the Arab states to persuade the Palestinians against accepting any settlement, no matter how good, that recognises Israel's right to exist. But one is free to doubt by now - forced to doubt by now - that Palestine is the main concern.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/16/indonesia.australia - Re: James after the Bali bombings
Posted by noamswampy
on November 3, 2009, 12:12 pm, in reply to "James after the Bali bombings"Cheers. 10 years ago I used to think that CJ was funny. But recently I've come to the conlusion that he is an arrogant elitist who views are as spinelessly establishment-friendly as they are ill-informed.
My point was that GM seemed surprised that people would believe what's in the papers, even when it flies in the face of the facts (that the earth is getting warmer). Does he perhaps underestimate the effectiveness of his and other newspapers' propagandistic output?
Best,
N.
--Previous Message--
: But let us allow, for the moment, that the
: mass outcry against American hegemony is the
: voice of the true, the eternal and the
: compassionate left. Allowing that, we can
: put the best possible construction on its
: pervasiveness. Not just the majority of the
: intellectuals, academics and schoolteachers,
: but most of the face-workers in the media,
: share the view that international terrorism
: is to be explained by the vices of the
: liberal democracies. Or, at any rate, they
: shared it until a few days ago. It will be
: interesting, in the shattering light of an
: explosive event, to see if that easy view
: continues now to be quite so widespread, and
: how much room is made for the more awkward
: view that the true instigation for terrorism
: might not be the vices of the liberal
: democracies, but their virtues.
:
: The consensus will die hard in Australia,
: just as it is dying hard here in Britain. On
: Monday morning, the Independent carried an
: editorial headed: "Unless there is more
: justice in the world, Bali will be
: repeated." Towards the end of the
: editorial, it was explained that the chief
: injustice was "the failure of the US to
: use its influence to secure a fair
: settlement between Israelis and
: Palestinians." I count the editor of
: the Independent as a friend, so the main
: reason I hesitate to say that he is out to
: lunch on this issue is that I was out to
: dinner with him last night. But after
: hesitating, say it I must, and add a sharper
: criticism: that his editorial writer sounds
: like an unreconstructed Australian
: intellectual, one who can still believe,
: even after his prepared text was charred in
: the nightclub, that the militant
: fundamentalists are students of history.
:
: But surely the reverse is true: they are
: students of the opposite of history, which
: is theocratic fanaticism. Especially, they
: are dedicated to knowing as little as
: possible about the history of the conflict
: between the Israelis and the Palestinians. A
: typical terrorist expert on the subject
: believes that Hitler had the right idea,
: that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is
: a true story, and that the obliteration of
: the state of Israel is a religious
: requirement. In furthering that end, the
: sufferings of the Palestinians are
: instrumental, and thus better exacerbated
: than diminished. To the extent that they are
: concerned with the matter at all, the
: terrorists epitomise the extremist pressure
: that had been so sadly effective in ensuring
: the continued efforts of the Arab states to
: persuade the Palestinians against accepting
: any settlement, no matter how good, that
: recognises Israel's right to exist. But one
: is free to doubt by now - forced to doubt by
: now - that Palestine is the main concern.
:
:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/16/indonesia.australia
:
- Re: Clive James isn't a climate change sceptic, he's a sucker
Posted by Chris Shaw
on November 3, 2009, 1:01 pm, in reply to "Clive James isn't a climate change sceptic, he's a sucker "There's a whole medialens thing going down in the comments section of Monbiots article.
--Previous Message--
: Clive James said some deeply foolish things
: about the invasion of Iraq, and is doing the
: same now on climate change.
:
:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/02/climate-change-denial-clive-james
:
- And by the way, George...
Posted by The Editors
on November 3, 2009, 1:23 pm, in reply to "Clive James isn't a climate change sceptic, he's a sucker ""A study by the website Desmogblog shows that the number of internet pages proposing that man-made global warming is a hoax or a lie more than doubled last year. The Science Museum's Prove it! exhibition asks online readers to endorse or reject a statement that they've seen the evidence and want governments to take action. As of yesterday afternoon, 1,006 people had endorsed it and 6,110 had rejected it. On Amazon.co.uk, books championing climate change denial are currently ranked at 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 in the global warming category. Never mind that they've been torn to shreds by scientists and reviewers, they are beating the scientific books by miles. What is going on?"
Internet pages, museum exhibits, published books - what is going on in George's head?! What about the performance of the corporate media? That is the dedicated corporate arm of the same corporate system wrecking the havoc.
It makes no sense at all to discuss this problem without discussing the media. And yet the word is given a single mention:
"Had he bothered to take a look at the quality of the evidence on either side of this media debate, and the nature of the opposing armies – climate scientists on one side, rightwing bloggers on the other..."
There is another force on the denialist side - much of the global corporate media system chock full of adverts and denialist blather.
Eds - "...difficult to get a man to see something when his income depends...." etc. NOM
Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym
on November 3, 2009, 1:54 pm, in reply to "And by the way, George..." - Rubbish
Posted by Kebz
on November 4, 2009, 9:01 am, in reply to "And by the way, George..."That is utter rubbish. The vast majority of articles in the corporate media accept climate change as a fact. You should really do your research before you make such statements. You can hardly compare this to the way the media demonise official enemies or promote imperial wars. The Guardian for example actually has a complete section dedicated to climate change.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change
Search the Independent and you will find that the vast majority of articles carried favour the climate change camp.
http://www.independent.co.uk/search/index.jsp?eceExpr=climate+change
http://www.independent.co.uk/search/index.jsp?eceExpr=climate+change
http://www.independent.co.uk/search/index.jsp?eceExpr=climate+change
Similarly even the BBC carry mostly articles that accept climate change as a fact:
http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?go=homepage&Search=Search&tab=all&q=climate%20change&start=1&scope=all
http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?go=homepage&Search=Search&q=climate%20change&tab=all&scope=all&start=2
http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?go=homepage&Search=Search&q=climate%20change&tab=all&scope=all&start=3
The newsreader Peter Sissons has even accused the BBC of stifling the views of climate change sceptics.
Even in right wing rags like The Mail, the majority of articles support climate change.
I'm not a denier, a sceptic, nor a dedicated pro-climate change activist but with this accusation, you are completely off the mark. How can Monbiot accuse the media, if the overwhelming coverage actually favours climate change? Do right wing bloggers outweigh the effect of the coverage? There is a whole industry now based around climate change consultancy etc. Hardly, a suppression of pro-climate change views by the establishment, is it?
what is going on in George's head?!
: What about the performance of the corporate
: media? That is the dedicated corporate arm
: of the same corporate system wrecking the
: havoc.
:
: It makes no sense at all to discuss this
: problem without discussing the media. And
: yet the word is given a single mention:
:
: "Had he bothered to take a look at the
: quality of the evidence on either side of
: this media debate, and the nature of the
: opposing armies – climate scientists on one
: side, rightwing bloggers on the
: other..."
:
: There is another force on the denialist side
: - much of the global corporate media system
: chock full of adverts and denialist blather.
:
: Eds
:
- Re: Rubbish
Posted by The Editors
on November 4, 2009, 9:22 am, in reply to "Rubbish"
: That is utter rubbish. The vast majority of
: articles in the corporate media accept
: climate change as a fact.
I certainly don't agree it's that clear cut even in terms of direct references to climate change. But there are other factors: vast numbers of corporate media articles are in complete denial on climate change and comment as if it doesn't exist and isn't/shouldn't be a factor in people's thinking. You provided a few links, I could provide you with a thousand and one celebrity-penned and other articles promoting holidays to far off places in travel supplements from just this week's press. That's just one category. Then there are reports on the latest high-performance cars and so on... These, combined with the adverts, have a simply incalculable impact on the mindset of readers (and TV viewers of the filmed versions). Andy Rowell of Spinwatch, who has often written for the Guardian, put it particularly well:
"Advertising reassures people that it is OK to buy and consume. It provides a [psychological] safety net to make it acceptable to consume. What makes this so important is the media are often the windows through which we see the world. If we open a paper and see fast cars it makes it acceptable to drive one, if we see cheap flights it makes it acceptable to go on one."
You can't seperate this impact out from the impact of the media science articles, which are often excellent. And you can't separate the corporate media out from the rightwing bloggers, as Monbiot did.
Eds
- Re: Rubbish
Posted by Kebz
on November 4, 2009, 11:01 am, in reply to "Re: Rubbish"You didn't make it clear that you were talking about advertising. Consumerism has a detrimental effect on everything as discussed at length on this board. We are all hypocrites to some extent by using the internet, by traveling to work, by purchasing utilities and buy purchasing what are really non-essentials. As you type on your keyboard you are generating emissions but that doesn't stop you, because what you think you are doing is worth it. Life involves compromises and Monbiot's compromises are different to yours or mine.
--Previous Message--
:
: That is utter rubbish. The vast majority of
: articles in the corporate media accept
: climate change as a fact.
:
: I certainly don't agree it's that clear cut
: even in terms of direct references to
: climate change. But there are other factors:
: vast numbers of corporate media articles are
: in complete denial on climate change and
: comment as if it doesn't exist and
: isn't/shouldn't be a factor in people's
: thinking. You provided a few links, I could
: provide you with a thousand and one
: celebrity-penned and other articles
: promoting holidays to far off places in
: travel supplements from just this week's
: press. That's just one category. Then there
: are reports on the latest high-performance
: cars and so on... These, combined with the
: adverts, have a simply incalculable impact
: on the mindset of readers (and TV viewers of
: the filmed versions). Andy Rowell of
: Spinwatch, who has often written for the
: Guardian, put it particularly well:
:
: "Advertising reassures people that it
: is OK to buy and consume. It provides a
: [psychological] safety net to make it
: acceptable to consume. What makes this so
: important is the media are often the windows
: through which we see the world. If we open a
: paper and see fast cars it makes it
: acceptable to drive one, if we see cheap
: flights it makes it acceptable to go on
: one."
:
: You can't seperate this impact out from the
: impact of the media science articles, which
: are often excellent. And you can't separate
: the corporate media out from the rightwing
: bloggers, as Monbiot did.
:
: Eds
:
: