Thank Christ @ Seven is over - climate denial on Breakfast
Ummmm, okay, what the hell was @ Seven? I've never been so happy to see Campbell Live back on air in my entire life (great interview re power black outs last night btw John). It's a huge call, but screw it, I'm going to make it - @ Seven was to NZ current affairs what Melody Rules was to NZ comedy. When @ Seven started mocking those earning less than the minimum wage I thought that Paul Henry had secretly taken over as producer. @ Seven was so god damned awful it hurt, oh God did it hurt. Thank little baby Jesus it is over and TV3 can just go back to having Sunrise as its only trainwreck programme.
Seriously how low can Sunrise rate before Australian hatchet man go chop chop?
I think they should strip the hell out of sunrise, one interviewer, one news reader and that business bloke, get rid of the rest of them, they chatter like monkeys on meth about inane bullshit. Other than unemployed actors who the fuck would willingly wake up to this banal banter? Sunrise should be agenda setting hard news to counter the conservative pap on creaking Breakfast, who out did themselves this morning minus the fact that Paul Henry wasn't even on.
That older, deader Oliver Driver who has replaced Henry as a host on Breakfast did an embarrassing interview with Climate Denial nutbar Lord Munchkin. His Lordship, who isn't a fucking scientist was allowed air time to promote his ludicrous climate denial nonsense about global warming all being a Greenpeace hoax.
According to their right wing critics at Conservapedia, Greenpeace Inc takes about $24million a year, (ironically Conservapedia use Public Interest Watch (PIW) as a source against Greenpeace when PIW are actually an Exxon Mobile funded front group),where as Bloomberg BusinessWeek puts Greenpeace revenue at $30 million per year. Compare that $30million to what Exxon Mobile is worth - HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS.
How the hell Greenpeace can con the world as Lord Munchkin insinuates with a measly $30 million when Exxon Mobile on their own are worth half a trillion is as much a mystery as the climate denial belief that all 6 Billion of us on this planet have no impact via man made pollution whatsoever on our biosphere.
And this bullshit was allowed to occur unchallenged on the public broadcaster!
You know why I think this constant attack on the science is a spin job? Because the bloody Republicans told us so. Why don’t more people know about the Frank Luntz Memorandum to the Bush White House, 2002, on how to shut down the global warming debate?
Winning the Global Warming Debate – An Overview
1: The scientific debate remains open: Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.
Right, so in the same way the Tobacco companies attacked consensus of a link between smoking and cancer, big oil and big polluters are using similar smear tactics to question the science behind the evidence that man made pollution is causing the climate to rapidly change.
And let’s not forget who is backing much of this smear campaign…
Climate Change Skeptics
The world’s largest-ever gathering of global warming skeptics will assemble Sunday in New York City to confront the issue, “Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis?” About 800 scientists, economists, legislators, policy activists, and media representatives are expected to register at the second International Conference on Climate Change, opening Sunday, March 8 and concluding Tuesday, March 10 at the New York Marriott Marquis Hotel.
Hmmm, and I wonder who is organizing this climate change sKeptics picnic in wunderland? The Heartland Institute? Ummmm, aren’t they the very same Heartland Institute who until 2006 were receiving money from Exxon Mobil and who also is behind the Tobacco Industries ludicrous position that Tobacco isn’t scientifically proven to cause cancer and as such there shouldn’t be taxes on cigarettes?
Greenpeace tried to bring this point home last November in the New York Times...
Greenpeace Seeks Newsweek Disclosure of API Revenue
Greenpeace is demanding that Newsweek disclose how much money it has made selling the oil industry's biggest lobbying group advertising deals that included the ability to co-host energy policy forums and seat the association's president as a panelist beside members of Congress.
Climate deniers are creationists at an evolution debate, they and their online right wing mafia like MacDoctor, No Minister, Not PC and Whaleoil deserve nothing short of our weary pity and unmistakable contempt.
That said, thank Christ @ seven isn't back on air.
posted by Bomber @ 12:59 pm
15 comments
15 Comments:
Of that 800 actual climate scientists (those working an dpublishing in the area)can most probably be counted on fingers and toes (well fingers anyway). The rest are self declared experts who publish on their vanity blogs and lots of economists (of the Austrian/Chicago tribe) and associated right wing hangers on.
Doug
@ Seven was so bad I watched it a couple of time thinking they were taking the piss, then it dawned on me they weren't.
Peter Baguette has all the sex appeal, charm and wit of my dogs blanket before its washed. And those two dudes. What a pair of dropkicks they were.
And down with those crazy denialists!!!
How was @ Seven allowed to go to air? Could you imagine what the new Australian CEO must have been thinking? He would have been on the phone to his boss screaming that he was surrounded by sheep screwing morons. No wonder John was smirking so much during his first show back last night, he would have been thinking, "sure cut my budget and you'll get @ Seven".
@ Seven was to NZ current affairs what Melody Rules was to NZ comedy
Brilliant!
Now now Bomber........His Lordship doesnt needs to know anything about anything.....hes a LORD and you know how those right wing types love a title.....raw sewage could be pooring from his mouth and the righties will be in raptures over it!
The skeptics will win out because the warmists and their so-called scientists have been shown to be liars.
If Monkton should not be able to air his views because he is not a scientist then neither should Gore, Castle-Hughes, Bono, .....,a huge list.
Exxon has given funding to skeptics that is miniscule compared to that given to the lying fraudsters that make up the science of AGW.
Your whole article is full of logical fallacies and if you knew anything at all of science and logic you would be ashamed of writing such.
You are too stupid to admit you have been on the wrong side and will just keep thinking you are right despite all evidence to the contrary.
It seems that to you, evidence and opinion are the same thing.
PETRA?
MORE LIKE JORDAN!
JAMESON INTERPRETS MEANINGLESS EXISTENTIAL BULLSHIT AS THE CULTURAL LOGIC OF LATE CAPITALISM.ON TOTALITY, THE IMPORTANCE OF ADOPTING; AND THIS SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE THAT THERE IS A RESIDUE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT CONCEPTS OR NARRATIVES OR GRAND RECITS OF EMANCIPATION AND RESISTANCE OF CRITICAL SOCIAL POLICY OPERATING OF A POST-STRUCTURALIST, NOT A POSTMODERN PERSUASION.ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING A UNITY OF THE MANIFOLD OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE AND A PROGRESSIVE LINEAR RATIONALITY UNFOLDING IN HISTORY; AND IT IS THESE ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING THE HUMANIST CONSTRUCTION OF THE SUBJECT THAT THEY HAVE CONFLATED TO BECOME PROBLEMATIC WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF POSTSRUCTURALISM OR BUYING INTO A SERIES OF UNHELPFUL AND UNHEALTHY OPPOSITIONS.EITHER MODERNITY OR POSTMODERNITY OR MODERNISM OR POSTMODERNISM.CLEARLY POSTMODERNISM AND POSTSTRUCTURALISM IN THEORY CONTAIN MUCH COMMON GROUND IN TERMS OF THEIR INTERESTS AND APPROACHES.
but hey pat and petra don't give up yer day job...
That's a bit much! @ Seven wasn't great (Petra B made it awkward and cringy, "YEA-AHH") but it was no Melody Rules.
Plus I don't think they were making fun of people on min wage. It seemed to me like they were saying that it's disgusting to give workers so little. He seemed to be asking 'how are workers are supposed to live on less than the price of a movie ticket etc per hour?'.
I'm having a hard time trying to figure why it’s relevant that The Heartland Institute received funding FOUR years ago from Exxon Mobil (learn how to spell-you kind of hurt your credibility when you can’t even get the company name right). I’d also be interested in knowing where Heartland says tobacco shouldn’t be taxed because it isn’t dangerous? There are LOTS of reasons not to tax tobacco: “tobacco tax hikes encourage cross-border shopping and other tax avoidance measures, and they also cause budgeting problems, disproportionately burden low-income taxpayers, and punish local businesses.”
LMAO - Dale I feel like you are a climate gate hacker - after a decades worth of emails you only have a couple of lines you jump up and down about - just like my post here, you have a spelling mistake and a bullshit attempt to claim the Heartland Institute have never attempted to diminish the health concerns of smoking.
(cough, cough Dale)
I think you'll find the HI's attempt to diminish the health concerns by attacking the science behind smoking and cancer in their openly declared 'Smoker's Lounge' Blog.
Tell you what I have a hard time with in regards to climate deniers attacking the science in the exact manner Frank Luntz advised the Republicans in 2002, and that is the farce projected by Lord Munchkin and his acolytes that somehow Greenpeace with $30 million can counter influence someone like Exxon Mobil who is valued at half a trillion. That's what I have a hard time understanding Dale. Well that and the magical world climate deniers live in where nothing all 6 billion of us do has any impact on our biosphere.
Oh and as for your 'hard time' connecting Exxon Mobil and climate denial...
Between 1998 and 2005: ExxonMobil Grants $16 Million to Global Warming Skeptic Organizations
ExxonMobil disperses roughly $16 million to organizations that are challenging the scientific consensus view that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. For many of the organizations, ExxonMobil is their single largest corporate donor, often providing more than 10 percent of their annual budgets. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists will find that “[v]irtually all of them publish and publicize the work of a nearly identical group of spokespeople, including scientists who misrepresent peer-reviewed climate findings and confuse the public’s understanding of global warming. Most of these organizations also include these same individuals as board members or scientific advisers.” After the Bush administration withdraws from the Kyoto Protocol, the oil company steps up its support for these organizations. Some of the ExxonMobil-funded groups tell the New York Times that the increase is a response to the rising level of public interest in the issue. “Firefighters’ budgets go up when fires go up,” explains Fred L. Smith, head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Explaining ExxonMobil’s support for these organizations, company spokesman Tom Cirigliano says: “We want to support organizations that are trying to broaden the debate on an issue that is so important to all of us. There is this whole issue that no one should question the science of global climate change. That is ludicrous. That’s the kind of dark-ages thinking that gets you in a lot of trouble.”
The following is a list of some of the organizations funded by ExxonMobil:
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) - AEI receives $1,625,000 from ExxonMobil between and 1998 and 2005. During this period, it plays host to a number of climate contrarians.
American Legislative Exchange Council - In 2005, ExxonMobil grants $241,500 to this organization. Its website features a non-peer-reviewed paper by climate contrarian Patrick Michaels.
Center for Science and Public Policy - Started at the beginning of 2003, this one-man operation receives $232,000 from ExxonMobil. The organization helps bring scientists to Capitol Hill to testify on global warming and the health effects of mercury.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow - Between 2004 and 2005, this organization receives $215,000 from ExxonMobil. Its advisory panel includes Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling, Roger Bate, Sherwood Idso, Patrick Michaels, and Frederick Seitz, all of whom are affiliated with other ExxonMobil-funded organizations.
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) - Founded in 1984 to fight government regulation on business, CEI started receiving large grants from ExxonMobil after Myron Ebell moved there from Frontiers of Freedom in 1999. CEI, along with another ExxonMobil-supported enterprise, the Cooler Heads Coalition, runs the website GlobalWarming.Org, which is part of an effort to “dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis.” Between 2000 and 2003, the CEI receives $1,380,000, or 16 percent of the total funds donated by Exxon during that period.
Frontiers of Freedom - The organization receives $230,000 from Exxon in 2002 and $40,000 in 2001. It has an annual budge of about $700,000.
George C. Marshall Institute - The institute is known primarily for its work advocating a “Star Wars” missile defense program. Between 1998 and 2005, Exxon-Mobil grants $630,000 to the Marshall Institute primarily to underwrite the institute’s climate change effort. William O’Keefe, the organization’s CEO, once worked as the executive vice president and chief operating officer of the American Petroleum Institute. He has also served on the board of directors of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, another global warming skeptic organization, and is chairman emeritus of the Global Climate Coalition.
Heartland Institute - In 2005, this organization receives $119,000 from ExxonMobil. Its website offers articles by the same scientists promoted by other ExxonMobil-funded global warming skeptic organizations.
Tech Central Station - TCS is a web-based organization that provides news, commentary, and analysis focusing on the societal tensions and strains that are concomitant with historical change. TCS proclaims itself as a strong believer of the “material power of free markets, open societies, and individual human ingenuity to raise living standards and improve lives.” Until 2006, the website is operated by a public relations firm called the DCI Group, which is a registered ExxonMobil lobbying firm. In 2003 TCS receives $95,000 from ExxonMobil to be used for “climate change support.” TCS contributors on the global warming issue include the same group of people that is promoted by several of the other ExxonMobil-funded global warming skeptic organizations. In 2006, TCS will pay the public relations firm Medialink Worldwide to produce a video news release that challenges the view that global warming has increased the intensity of hurricanes. The piece is later shown on a Mississippi television station and presented as a regular news report.
I personally love the story about the Public Interest Watch from 2002 – this was a front group funded by Exxon-Mobile which attacked Greenpeace by suggesting that Greenpeace were avoiding tax – amazingly Greenpeace was audited because of this one claim by an Exxon-Mobil front group.
I hope that helps your hard time connecting Exxon Mobil with climate denial Dale
Post a Comment
<< Home