Reason Over Emotion

[dr_mabeuse]

Having stood up many times in this forum on the side of stark, raving illogical lunacy as opposed to sound, scientific, rational thinking, I just wanted to go on record to show that I know the difference between the two and know when it's time to stop screwing around and get serious about things.

The problems we face as a nation demand solid dispassionate scientific answers, and its looking to me more and more like Al Gore is really the guy who might have them.

Someone's going to have to clean up this mess.

Direct quote from Steven G Brant article on an Al Gore radio interview. My highlighting:
===========

Here are two things I took away from what Al said last night:

(1) The vast majority of the American people are being hugely misdirected away from the subject matter that counts by the demands of our modern communications system to make money and the knowledge by that system that emotion-driven stories lock people into a mindset that allows them to be "sold to" better than stories that force people to think (my way of summing up this point), and

(2) The America people have it within their power to redirect this system so that it gives them the information they need, once enough of them wake up to the danger posed by the continuation of the current system's emphasis on "emotion" rather than "reason" (again, my way of summing up Al's point).

In writing The Assault on Reason, [Gore] hopes to wake us all up to the danger of continuing the anti-fact and anti-truth, emotion-driven thinking habits we have slipped into since television became a dominant part of our culture. (Last night he mentioned the Nixon -- Kennedy debate of 1960 as one of the early markers of this journey, when image began to be as important to the public as substance.) He realizes that unless we regain the ability to focus on facts and truth (I would call it science instead of pseudo-science), we will fail to address the challenge of global climate change, something we are rapidly running out of time to deal with.

...

If we start to think differently... if a critical mass of Americans starts asking questions like "What do we really, scientifically know how to do?", "How much better could things be if our political and business leaders did what's possible rather than what's easy?", and "Is it true that one of the root causes of war is scarcity of food, water, shelter, and education... and that mankind now has the ability to provide all of those basic needs to everyone on Earth?"... we can get to that better world that - great "wonk" that he is -- Al Gore knows is possible. There are scientifically-proven methods -- many of which have enormous money-making potential as detailed here , by Amory Lovins, and here , by Bill McDonough - for getting us not just out of this mess but to a much, much better future. It's possible. We have the technology!

"Thinking differently" is a critical part of the solution. Using reason and logic -- rather than emotional manipulation and "vote for me and I'll protect you" daddy-ism -- is the route to the future we all say we want.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh, now I'm feeling all sniffly and emotional!

Seriously, the point couldn't be made any clearer. Thanks.

 

[gauchecritic]

I think all that that is saying Zoot, is that the public are being propagandised.

When has that never been the case?

The public (and there are far too many of them to make it otherwise) don't want to think, they want to be entertained. This actually isn't as black as it may seem because being in that, if not gullible then at least maleable, state pours more onus onto those that actually do want to sell us things.

As an organism, the public actually knows that they can't all run the country and so inevitably put their trust into whatever system there is to do their job properly for and on behalf of those that trust them to do it.

I think it's a rather large wool-pulling exercise perpetrated by professional politicians who are willing to put the blame on their constituents when they fail to do what they are paid to do, which is make peoples lives better.

They create platforms and make promises that they have little intention of sticking to should the least opposition make itself known and then blame the voters for putting them in that position.

They find themselves sympathising with opposition policy on slum clearance but are constrained to follow the party line and so can't even give voice to their own conscience and their constituents wishes.

Politicians are hamstrung as soon as they begin their victory speech and few of them are naive enough to think otherwise, yet still sell their snake oil because they know that people will buy it.

The people expect and vote for (even those that don't actually make a cross on the ballot) people to think for them in matters that they can't be bothered with or that they can't do themselves and it's the politicians that get it wrong, not the voting public.

 

[kendo1]

It is interesting to note that America is committed to spending $600 billion on the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq(An extra $100 billion has just been approved by the US Senate). This is more than the inflation -adjusted $552 billion the US spent during the nine year war in Vietnam.
Only the Second World War cost more, at $3 trillion.

So this means that the war has cost more than $2000 for every man, woman and child in the US, with more money going on Iraq than the country's total spending on education and justice.

A Cogressional study has found that Iraq has just 6000 troops willing to operate independantly from the Coalition forces - with the rest refusing to fight unless backed by American forces.

A New York Times/ CBS poll recorded 76% of Americans disapprove of the war, while just 20% believe the present troop surge is working.

 

[angela146]

In writing The Assault on Reason, [Gore] hopes to wake us all up to the danger of continuing the anti-fact and anti-truth, emotion-driven thinking habits we have slipped into since television became a dominant part of our culture.

Sorry, Dr. M, but this is *way* too optimistic.

The notion that our ancestors were somehow more rational before television is quite silly. McCarthy, Hitler, the pro-slave groups of the 19th century, both sides of the national bank issue in the Andrew Jackson era, Thomas Jefferson's detractors, all of these folks used emotion in whatever medium was available at the time.

Radio, newspapers, political cartoons, orations, all of them are perfectly good tools for fear-mongering.

In fact the good guys are sometimes wise enough to use emotional arguments to their advantage. Sam Adams might be an example, along with Lincoln, FDR, JFK, MLK, RFK and to a lesser extent, Bill Clinton.

It certainly isn't limited to America either. The English Civil War, the Inquisition, Henry V, the Vikings, Jeanne d'Arc (and her opponents), Julius and Augustus Caesar... it was always thus. The greatest of good and evil have always used emotion to drive the passions of the people.

Would Moses have gotten the Israelites out of Egypt and into Canaan with logical discourse? Was Jesus of Nazareth death on a cross an act of reason? Would anyone have followed Mohamed if his persuasion had been purely rational?

The problem with Al Gore is that he *doesn't* know how to use emotion to make his point. He doesn't know how to get people to actually *care*, how to inspire, to motivate, to light the fire.

Of the current crop, Obama has it. Edwards has a little of it. Hillary Clinton tries awfully hard, but as has been said quite often, she ain't Bill.

It isn't the audience's responsibility to change their thinking to fit the goals of the speaker. The responsibility is on the speaker to frame his/her message to speak to the needs/desires/fears/passions of the audience.

For one brief moment, during his concession speech in 2000, Al Gore showed some emotion. We could see that he actually gave a damn, that the presidency was something he really wanted and cared about.

If he had let that kind honest emotion come out during the campaign, the world might be a different place today.

 

[cantdog]

Sorry, Dr. M, but this is *way* too optimistic.

The notion that our ancestors were somehow more rational before television is quite silly. McCarthy, Hitler, the pro-slave groups of the 19th century, both sides of the national bank issue in the Andrew Jackson era, Thomas Jefferson's detractors, all of these folks used emotion in whatever medium was available at the time.

Radio, newspapers, political cartoons, orations, all of them are perfectly good tools for fear-mongering.

In fact the good guys are sometimes wise enough to use emotional arguments to their advantage. Sam Adams might be an example, along with Lincoln, FDR, JFK, MLK, RFK and to a lesser extent, Bill Clinton.

It certainly isn't limited to America either. The English Civil War, the Inquisition, Henry V, the Vikings, Jeanne d'Arc (and her opponents), Julius and Augustus Caesar... it was always thus. The greatest of good and evil have always used emotion to drive the passions of the people.

Would Moses have gotten the Israelites out of Egypt and into Canaan with logical discourse? Was Jesus of Nazareth death on a cross an act of reason? Would anyone have followed Mohamed if his persuasion had been purely rational?

The problem with Al Gore is that he *doesn't* know how to use emotion to make his point. He doesn't know how to get people to actually *care*, how to inspire, to motivate, to light the fire.

Of the current crop, Obama has it. Edwards has a little of it. Hillary Clinton tries awfully hard, but as has been said quite often, she ain't Bill.

It isn't the audience's responsibility to change their thinking to fit the goals of the speaker. The responsibility is on the speaker to frame his/her message to speak to the needs/desires/fears/passions of the audience.

For one brief moment, during his concession speech in 2000, Al Gore showed some emotion. We could see that he actually gave a damn, that the presidency was something he really wanted and cared about.

If he had let that kind honest emotion come out during the campaign, the world might be a different place today.

You're dead right about the cold fish thing, during Gore's campaign. It was sad.

Actual freedom to say what you think in this country is a lot more proscribed now than in Jefferson's day. Those guys got away with stuff you could never say now.

I do wish people would bite the fearmonger's bait less often, all the same. I have never wanted to be afraid much, myself, and I resist it. I kinda look over the tales I hear to see if there's anything there I should become alarmed about, before starting to worry. I never bought it that Saddam Hussein, in 2001, posed any credible threat to the United States, nor that Nicaragua in the eighties was to be feared, militarily, as Reagan claimed it was. You have to look at these things critically.

But the reason I do is that living in fear is not to my taste, so much. I don't see the appeal, honestly.

Evidently, though, piles of people want to fear and love to hate. I think it's appropriate to tap 'em on the shoulder and ask 'em to calm down and think a minute.

 

[cantdog]

The people expect and vote for (even those that don't actually make a cross on the ballot) people to think for them in matters that they can't be bothered with or that they can't do themselves and it's the politicians that get it wrong, not the voting public.

Weird effect, that. The public, which notoriously wants to avoid all thought, still has the thing right. The pols, who present themselves as experts, still fuck it all up and chase chimaeras.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Don't kid yourself. Al Gore is just another self-serving pol who has glommed onto a particular issue in a "political entreprenuerially" manner, hoping it will carry him to the top. Plus, he's scary - have you ever seen him give a speech when he's affecting "rage?" He actually starts becoming unbalanced - veins pop out, his voice gets shaky - it's fucking terrifying.

Plus, who's the propagandizer here? Check this out:

Will Al Gore Melt?
If not, why did he chicken out on an interview?
BY FLEMMING ROSE AND BJORN LOMBORG
Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Last week he was in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune.

The interview had been scheduled for months. The day before the interview Mr. Gore's agent thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?

One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore's suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.

Clearly we need to ask hard questions. Is Mr. Gore's world a worthwhile sacrifice? But it seems that critical questions are out of the question. It would have been great to ask him why he only talks about a sea-level rise of 20 feet. In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding Florida, San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. But were realistic levels not dramatic enough? The U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century. Moreover, sea levels actually climbed that much over the past 150 years. Does Mr. Gore find it balanced to exaggerate the best scientific knowledge available by a factor of 20?

Mr. Gore says that global warming will increase malaria and highlights Nairobi as his key case. According to him, Nairobi was founded right where it was too cold for malaria to occur. However, with global warming advancing, he tells us that malaria is now appearing in the city. Yet this is quite contrary to the World Health Organization's finding. Today Nairobi is considered free of malaria, but in the 1920s and '30s, when temperatures were lower than today, malaria epidemics occurred regularly. Mr. Gore's is a convenient story, but isn't it against the facts?

He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century. Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don't mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn't we hear those facts? Mr. Gore talks about how the higher temperatures of global warming kill people. He specifically mentions how the European heat wave of 2003 killed 35,000. But he entirely leaves out how global warming also means less cold and saves lives. Moreover, the avoided cold deaths far outweigh the number of heat deaths. For the U.K. it is estimated that 2,000 more will die from global warming. But at the same time 20,000 fewer will die of cold. Why does Mr. Gore tell only one side of the story?

Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century. Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global warming. These are best achieved through open debate, and we invite him to take the time to answer our questions: We are ready to interview you any time, Mr. Gore--and anywhere.

Mr. Rose is culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, in Copenhagen. Mr. Lomborg is a professor at the Copenhagen Business School.

 

[impressive]

Perspective is everything.

 

[AngelofDarkLust]

Perspective is everything.

And fear is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[poppy1963]

To: dr_mabeuse in the first post

I think you highlighted a key: "...we SAY we all want..."

But do our actions demonstrate the same? Will our actions demonstrate it as we move towards the elections of 2008? I'm not so sure...It is fast becoming the "politically correct" attitude...but still, I'm not so SURE it's what people REALLY want.

We want someone to "fix things" we don't know how to fix. If one comes along and is even remotely convincing he/she may be able to do that...that's who the majority will lean towards I believe. I'm not convinced we've learned that it's all smoke and mirrors. Things are pretty broken and will not be easy to fix...if they can be fixed at all really. It will take generations.

 

[AngelofDarkLust]

I'm not convinced we've learned that it's all smoke and mirrors. Things are pretty broken and will not be easy to fix...if they can be fixed at all really. It will take generations.

The entire field of politics is "smoke and mirrors."

I am sick of democrats who have never lived in condition I (or now my clients -- b/c I've bootstrapped my way up the food chain) have ever lived... tell me how they know how hard it is. Tell me Mr. Democrat, have you ever stood in a free food line or sat before a Social Worker and explained why you need a voucher for your gas bill. And Mr. Republican, have you ever had to actually make a "choice" like I have and you want to tell me I'm evil? They're all hypocrits.

 

[poppy1963]

The entire field of politics is "smoke and mirrors."

I am sick of democrats who have never lived in condition I (or now my clients -- b/c I've bootstrapped my way up the food chain) have ever lived... tell me how they know how hard it is. Tell me Mr. Democrat, have you ever stood in a free food line or sat before a Social Worker and explained why you need a voucher for your gas bill. And Mr. Republican, have you ever had to actually make a "choice" like I have and you want to tell me I'm evil? They're all hypocrits.

I agree that most of those who look to lead the masses in this world have NO idea what it is like to be one of us... Are they evil? Personally, I don't think so much...initially well-intentioned most likely! But such world they wander in looks to corrupt to protect it's greed...and the rewards for such far outweigh the potential negative consequences if you are able/willing to choose your "friends" wisely by their standards...lol.

STILL though...we seem here to have the most success at providing for the poorest among us...that can't be denied. So what's to complain about? What a conundrum, huh? A messy thing really. Mud puddle...unclear waters.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I always vote for logic and reason.

 

[impressive]

I always vote for logic and reason.

No surprise, there.


Hiya, Joe. How's you?

 

[Huckleman2000]

Don't kid yourself. Al Gore is just another self-serving pol who has glommed onto a particular issue in a "political entreprenuerially" manner, hoping it will carry him to the top. Plus, he's scary - have you ever seen him give a speech when he's affecting "rage?" He actually starts becoming unbalanced - veins pop out, his voice gets shaky - it's fucking terrifying.

Plus, who's the propagandizer here? Check this out:

You know, Roxanne, it's sometimes very difficult to understand where you're coming from in terms of scientific justification. Two threads away from this, you're obsessing over quotes, semi-colons, commas, and capitals in a list of survey results that doesn't even cite the percentages of response. And now in this thread, you're breathlessly quoting a Business professor, of all things, as a coherent response to Al Gore's treatise on the decline of reason in public discourse.

Let's look at that, since it strikes me as an excellent example, even though I've never read Gore's book, and I'm not a climate scientist. I'm just someone familiar with the application of "reason" to research.

Look at Lomborg's so-called "arguments". They, at best, consist of rebuttals of isolated data points, from which the leap is made directly to the refutation of the entirety of the data set. For example, the first refutation is of the ramifications of adopting "Al Gore's" radical changes in lifestyle. Ignoring the obvious pejorative branding of any lifestyle change to the target du jour , the reportage of the UN results consists entirely of interpretive statements, absent any actual data reporting or discussion of methodology and interpretation by the study's authors. Lomborg pulls a few data points from the study, and proceeds to use those to refute much broader research conclusions. This is fundamentally dishonest, yet is (in my experience) a very common tactic among Business School graduates and, apparently, professors.

Take, for example, the discussion of snow/ice cover in Antarctica. The phenomenon of Global Warming is, by definition, an amalgamation of climate studies that encompass the globe. The warming trend does not occur uniformly in every locale; in fact, the area of large uncertainty is the effects of climate change in localized areas. This is not to say that Global Warming isn't a fact, it's merely to state that the results of the changes in the climate system are too complex to predict with a high degree of certainty in a given area. So when Lomborg points to Antarctica and says that snow cover has been increasing over a few decades in certain areas, that is not a refutation of the whole idea of global climate change. Saying "It's getting colder here" doesn't mean that the system, as a whole, isn't getting warmer. In fact, rapid change of any sort ought to be an alarm; yet, Lomborg's article seems to assert that rapid change in one direction in one location is somehow antithetical to the preponderance of scientific consensus, thus disproving it. So, what seems on surface to be a logical interpretation of research is, in fact, a perversion of the research to support some pre-determined conclusion.

In my experience, this is the apex of Business School thinking, and this is arguably exhibited in the performance of our Harvard MBA president. That's taking my conclusion way beyond the scope of this thread, but I'm goddamned sure I can take it that way in a logical manner more directly than you can say that Lomborg can carry his arguments into serious climatology. What is the crux of his argument? That addressing climate change has serious economic impact. Does that mean that NOT addressing climate change will not have serious economic impact? Does that mean that climate change will not occur? Does that mean that we should ignore any climate change for which we cannot accurately predict economic consequences? Does that mean that economists should ignore climatologists because they can't carry their research through other disciplines?

Having a lot of experience 'producing and selling' strategic business advice, let me be the first to tell you that what gains popular credibility in the business community has precious little to do with objective data. If it were that simple, the stock market would be much less of a crapshoot.

 

[Jubal_Harshaw]

Having stood up many times in this forum on the side of stark, raving illogical lunacy as opposed to sound, scientific, rational thinking, I just wanted to go on record to show that I know the difference between the two and know when it's time to stop screwing around and get serious about things.

The problems we face as a nation demand solid dispassionate scientific answers, and its looking to me more and more like Al Gore is really the guy who might have them.

Someone's going to have to clean up this mess.

Direct quote from Steven G Brant article on an Al Gore radio interview. My highlighting:
===========

Here are two things I took away from what Al said last night:

(1) The vast majority of the American people are being hugely misdirected away from the subject matter that counts by the demands of our modern communications system to make money and the knowledge by that system that emotion-driven stories lock people into a mindset that allows them to be "sold to" better than stories that force people to think (my way of summing up this point), and

(2) The America people have it within their power to redirect this system so that it gives them the information they need, once enough of them wake up to the danger posed by the continuation of the current system's emphasis on "emotion" rather than "reason" (again, my way of summing up Al's point).

In writing The Assault on Reason, [Gore] hopes to wake us all up to the danger of continuing the anti-fact and anti-truth, emotion-driven thinking habits we have slipped into since television became a dominant part of our culture. (Last night he mentioned the Nixon -- Kennedy debate of 1960 as one of the early markers of this journey, when image began to be as important to the public as substance.) He realizes that unless we regain the ability to focus on facts and truth (I would call it science instead of pseudo-science), we will fail to address the challenge of global climate change, something we are rapidly running out of time to deal with.

...

If we start to think differently... if a critical mass of Americans starts asking questions like "What do we really, scientifically know how to do?", "How much better could things be if our political and business leaders did what's possible rather than what's easy?", and "Is it true that one of the root causes of war is scarcity of food, water, shelter, and education... and that mankind now has the ability to provide all of those basic needs to everyone on Earth?"... we can get to that better world that - great "wonk" that he is -- Al Gore knows is possible. There are scientifically-proven methods -- many of which have enormous money-making potential as detailed here , by Amory Lovins, and here , by Bill McDonough - for getting us not just out of this mess but to a much, much better future. It's possible. We have the technology!

"Thinking differently" is a critical part of the solution. Using reason and logic -- rather than emotional manipulation and "vote for me and I'll protect you" daddy-ism -- is the route to the future we all say we want.

I have always seen Al Gore as a putz who doesn't give a damn for anything that doesn't give him more power. This has swayed my oppinion a little. I have had this discussion several times ofver the past few years and I have said that our media is one of the biggest factors in the current failure of our democracy. Yes, I said failure. our government is so screwed up right now that I have serious doubts that it can be fixed and if the press keeps with their current policies and the the government does not do something to control it, this country is in for some seriously rough weather.

The media has learned the best way to lie and has been taking full advantage of it for years. A good example is the articals I read a couple months back on the reapair cost study done on several top import cars. Several news agencies report on the study and reported the findings. The study was based on the costs of repairing damage from low speed corner collisions, i.e. backing the left rear corner into a utility pole at 10 mph or bumping a wall with the right front corner at 15 mph. They all reported costs of repairing said damage but only one mentioned the fact that the rediculous costs (most in excess of $8000) were the combined totals of damage to all four corners, not a event. The one agency that did mention it glossed over it while making a bigger issue of the cost of repairing imort cars. Yes they told the truth. They just told it in a way that skewed everything in such a way as to make it seem the opposite were true.

I have seen the same done with hundreds of stories on the war on terror, the war in Iraq, and politics in general here in the US. They tell one sided stories that show you what they want you to see and cover up the opposing view with, "Calls to ... were not immediately returned." or, "... had no comment." True, technically, but what they didn't tell you is that they called the person's home phone when they knew that person was away and waited a grand total of 5 minutes for a call back before airing the story. Another favorite cover line reporters use is, "Sources say...". But freedom of the press garantees their sources' anonimity. So a reporter can quote a source that doesn't even exist and there is no way to prove he made it up. All he has to do is say his source is protected by the constitution and his ass is covered.

The media no longer cares about reporting the truth. What they care about is a story that will make their ratings skyrocket thus enabling them to get more money in advertisements thus making the board of directors and the stockholder very rich and happy.

Meanwhile the American public is up in arms over a travesty of justice that never really happened.

Wake up and think for yourselves people. If you listen to what Fox news, CNN and all the rest report, you have to know there is more to the story than what they are reporting. Ju8st ask yourself if it really makes sense and try to see if there is a logical reason for some of the things you see on the news. But for christ's sake, think it over real hard before you take what a reporter says as the truth. Reporters lie more than lawyers and politicians put together.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You know, Roxanne, it's sometimes very difficult to understand where you're coming from in terms of scientific justification. Two threads away from this, you're obsessing over quotes, semi-colons, commas, and capitals in a list of survey results that doesn't even cite the percentages of response. And now in this thread, you're breathlessly quoting a Business professor, of all things, as a coherent response to Al Gore's treatise on the decline of reason in public discourse.

Let's look at that, since it strikes me as an excellent example, even though I've never read Gore's book, and I'm not a climate scientist. I'm just someone familiar with the application of "reason" to research.

Look at Lomborg's so-called "arguments". They, at best, consist of rebuttals of isolated data points, from which the leap is made directly to the refutation of the entirety of the data set.

Al Gore only talks about a sea-level rise of 20 feet. In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding in Florida, San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. Yet the U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century.

That's hardly an "isolated data point." Instead, it's classic, self-serving political hype and scare mongering: Find something to scare the hell out of people with -doesn't have to be true. Find a "bad guy" (or industry) on the other side of the issue and demonize him. Rinse and repeat until your political ends are acheived. When will we ever learn? Give me a break.

 

[Liar]

A friend of mine does his thesis work with a rhethorical analysis of "An Inconvenient Truth", and found the same core elements (Simplification, tropes, bifurcation, polarization, repetition and faux rationalization, I think they're called. I only know the terms in Swedish) and the same amount of them as you'd find in old school propaganda films. In mere methodology terms, Riefenstahl would be proud.

So I'm all for reason and logic. But to have Al Gore as the champion of that, feels like the epitome clash of pots and kettles.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Al Gore only talks about a sea-level rise of 20 feet. In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding in Florida, San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. Yet the U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century.

That's hardly an "isolated data point." Instead, it's classic, self-serving political hype and scare mongering: Find something to scare the hell out of people with -doesn't have to be true. Find a "bad guy" (or industry) on the other side of the issue and demonize him. Rinse and repeat until your political ends are acheived. When will we ever learn? Give me a break.

Hello Pot? this is Roxanne. I think you're prolly black.
Do you even know what the difference is between the (presumably) catastrophic effects of a 20 foot rise in sea level vs. a rise of a foot? Do you know what consequences the UN study predicts based on a foot of sea-level rise?

Here's the Exec summary. Sea level rise takes up about a page out of seventeen in the report.

I reiterate: mitigating (I don't say "refuting", since Lomborg doesn't say that sea-level rise will not occur at all) a single extrapolated data point out of the preponderance of evidence does not at all refute all the evidence nor the scientific conclusions.

Al Gore nor anyone else is setting out to 'demonize" Lomborg. That's a willful misstatement of the research. Climatologists don't begin their studies with a thesis that "Lomborg is full of shit." I would say that the preponderance of the evidence is precisely the opposite. Lomborg has decided to attack the scientific community, and has chosen to obsess over several isolated data points in Al Gore's mass-market presentation.

Just because Lomborg tilts at his own windmills doesn't imply that the windmills care or take his flailings seriously, nor that his stabs carry any weight.

What are the political ends of scientists who report global warming? You say this is a "classic, self-serving hype...", yet you don't cite any political objectives apart from, essentially, "Not Mine". It's pretty simple to isolate and characterize the political stripes of the global-warming deniers. I don't see a similar coherency on the other side, apart from the idea that governments ought to do something.

The tactics you attribute so all-knowing and condescendingly to your political opponents are exactly those employed by the ones you champion. Climatologists aren't the aggressors in this fight, they are merely the messengers. Your 'rinse and repeat' tactics are employed by the special interest tacticians, not the scientists.

Do you honestly think that there's more money to be made in research that bucks the oil industry, which continues to set profit records every quarter? Are you really trying to assert that, "The most profitable, and therefore compromised, research results are those that annoy and contradict the most powerful government/industrial partnership in history." What capitalist dogma suggests that nonsense?

Don't bother appealing to us about commas and semi-colons and parentheses in reporting a survey question - just use a little common sense and critical reasoning of your own.

 

[Huckleman2000]

A friend of mine does his thesis work with a rhethorical analysis of "An Inconvenient Truth", and found the same core elements (Simplification, tropes, bifurcation, polarization, repetition and faux rationalization, I think they're called. I only know the terms in Swedish) and the same amount of them as you'd find in old school propaganda films. In mere methodology terms, Riefenstahl would be proud.

So I'm all for reason and logic. But to have Al Gore as the champion of that, feels like the epitome clash of pots and kettles.

Yeah, a rhetorical analysis is the way to refute scientific research.

Shoot the fucking messenger!

Is there a more blatant example of that idiocy than your friend's thesis?

Similar techniques of rhetorical persuasion do not imply a similarity of the underlying message. Global warming research is not equivalent to the notion of Aryan supremacy. Are you fucking nuts?

 

[Pure]

these Republican talking points are really impressive; they get an added lustre in Roxanne's rendering. it's quite amazing how a personality capsule, say of Carter, Gore, or Kerry is sold; the capsules are all very similar: venal, of course; bumbling (at best), cowardly (at almost worst) and traitorous at worst.

simple repetition works wonders. pretty much in the way Roxanne says,

Find a "bad guy" ... on the other side of the issue and demonize him. Rinse and repeat until your political ends are acheived.

'demonize' isn't quite right; maybe 'infantilize' or 'depict as mush' would be more accurate.

the odd thing is that such manly 'warriors' as Cheney, Bush, etc. come off so well by comparison. the message, Republicans=manliness, is being sold rather well these last several decades. as many have noted it's more sold in images, e.g., GWB in his flight suit, GWB framed against the 9-11 area of destruction, etc.

i saw Gore on Jon Stewart's show, with his book on Reason. Reminded me a bit of Roxanne. I don't see this line being very effective, since it involves always telling one's opponents they're too emotional.

at some point the lies, genuine venality, cronyism will 'register' with the Americans even with all the patriotic drum beating and 'support our boys' and 'don't let evil come to our doorstep'. this latest bit about US attorneys having to be zealous Republicans, is perhaps registering, as well as the lies told about the procedure.

let's hear it for Monica II! there's truly Xtian pussy. if Roxy were only a smoker i'd send her a pack of genuine Monica II cigars. superior aroma.

 

[Liar]

Yeah, a rhetorical analysis is the way to refute scientific research.

Shoot the fucking messenger!

Is there a more blatant example of that idiocy than your friend's thesis?

Similar techniques of rhetorical persuasion do not imply a similarity of the underlying message. Global warming research is not equivalent to the notion of Aryan supremacy. Are you fucking nuts?

Jaysys and the disciples in a champgne jacuzzi.

Never said anything such. Please read my post and at least try to comprehend, before you start hurling invectives at things you obviously don't understand the first thing about. A rhethorical analysis is not concerned about the message, does not refute the science, doesn't even talk about the science. It talks about the methods of communication. Nothing else.

It's not about whether Al G is right about global warming or not. For the record, I think he is, generally speaking. But that is irrelevant. This entire thread is not about that. "Similar techniques of rhetorical persuasion do not imply a similarity of the underlying message", you say. And damn right you are. However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread or what I posted. Gore is now critisizing certain techniques of rhetorical persuasion. While he himself uses them.

"An Inconvenient Truth" is still, the way it's written, directed, produced and marketed an obvious piece of scaremongering propaganda. That I agree with it's message has mothing to do with it.

And that's where the pot and kettle business comes into play. The man behind that piece of cinema, now preaching for more logic and reason, and less fearmongering and emotion in the debate climate (and, I assume, the climate debate). It's ironic, to put it mildly.

Do I make myself clear now?

 

[Liar]

In fact, I'm not sure more logic and reason is a good thing in the climate case. Logic and science is what climatologists have been trying that for decades, with minimal impact on the public opinion. It's only until now, when Al Gore steps in, guns blazing, with a slick media package and the mother of all Powerpoint presentations, a loud and boisterous show where accuracy has been rationalized away to make way for emotional effect, that people are starting to get the point.

Propaganda? Yes. But maybe the ends justify the means.

 

[rgraham666]

You're dead right about the cold fish thing, during Gore's campaign. It was sad.

Actual freedom to say what you think in this country is a lot more proscribed now than in Jefferson's day. Those guys got away with stuff you could never say now.

I do wish people would bite the fearmonger's bait less often, all the same. I have never wanted to be afraid much, myself, and I resist it. I kinda look over the tales I hear to see if there's anything there I should become alarmed about, before starting to worry. I never bought it that Saddam Hussein, in 2001, posed any credible threat to the United States, nor that Nicaragua in the eighties was to be feared, militarily, as Reagan claimed it was. You have to look at these things critically.

But the reason I do is that living in fear is not to my taste, so much. I don't see the appeal, honestly.

Evidently, though, piles of people want to fear and love to hate. I think it's appropriate to tap 'em on the shoulder and ask 'em to calm down and think a minute.

I don't believe that people want to fear and love to hate. Any more than an alcoholic wants to get drunk or a junkie wants to shoot up.

But fear and anger are addictive. They, initially, feel pretty good. A real high.

Then they get to be less pleasurable and you need bigger doses to maintain the high. When you're not high, your mind and body don't seem to work properly and you're less than happy.

Finally you need to have some of the drug in your system all the time to feel even the slightest bit normal. To people who aren't high, you're behaviour seems bizarre even at the best of times.

Junkies tend to hang out together because they don't understand the straights anymore.

Anyway, the problem, in my mind, is one of communication. Once, in the U.S. at least, a person or company was limited to the number and type of communication outlets they could own in a particular area. There was also the 'Fairness Doctrine'. If one group went on the air and claimed something, an opposing group could demand equal time to refute it and get it.

Those ideas are gone now. So the power of communication has passed to people with money. It's mostly their message you hear. Who can be surprised at what we hear?

And Huck? That was a bit unfair to take a swipe at Liar like that. Neither he nor his friend were refuting global warming. They were just reporting on the methods Gore was using to sell it.

Joe? Logic doesn't care. So it, alone, has a major problem.