Green Propaganda?

Aye Matey!

Hi All,

Long time no speak. I thought it might be time to start a general thread concerning the energy sector, legislation, all things green and their related conspiracy theories.

I submit to you but one catalyzing item for brain fodder :

February 10, 2009
The Green Party has called for a Northern Ireland minister to be sacked after he banned adverts warning of the dangers of climate change.
Members said environment minister Sammy Wilson’s decision to outlaw the Act On CO2 campaign - funded by the government - was ‘grossly irresponsible’. Mr Wilson, who denies man is to blame for global warming and has the power to override Westminster, claims the TV and radio adverts are ‘propaganda’.

Similar items are expected and welcomed from fellow CT members. The Emerald Isle is about to turn a shade greener with the requirement for domestic Building Energy Ratings and the foretold domestic carbon taxation of a not too distant future.

Diogenes

Aye Matey! wrote: »

Hi All,

Long time no speak. I thought it might be time to start a general thread concerning the energy sector, legislation, all things green and their related conspiracy theories.

I submit to you but one catalyzing item for brain fodder :



Similar items are expected and welcomed from fellow CT members. The Emerald Isle is about to turn a shade greener with the requirement for domestic Building Energy Ratings and the foretold domestic carbon taxation of a not too distant future.

The same section of the DUP also believe in creationism. Says it all.

Aye Matey!

Diogenes wrote: »

The same section of the DUP also believe in creationism. Says it all.

Pardon the political ignorance but what does the acronym stand for?

Sratch that: http://www.dup.org.uk/

Run_to_da_hills

Aye Matey! wrote: »

The Emerald Isle is about to turn a shade greener with the requirement for domestic Building Energy Ratings and the foretold domestic carbon taxation of a not too distant future.

Its called invoking "Eco fascism" fair play to Sammy Wilson the N I Environment Minister who banned the global warming propaganda .

Mahatma coat

The same section of the DUP also believe in creationism. Says it all.

Quick quick someone find out his stance on the holocaust, thats obviously more important than whatever he has to say about the issue being discussed:rolleyes:


and Sod you RTDH, Goodwin'n the thread before me

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Quick quick someone find out his stance on the holocaust, thats obviously more important than whatever he has to say about the issue being discussed:rolleyes:

What a fine bit of Modding.

Run_to_da_hills

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Quick quick someone find out his stance on the holocaust, thats obviously more important than whatever he has to say about the issue being discussed:rolleyes:


and Sod you RTDH, Goodwin'n the thread before me

:D:D

Mahatma coat

Evolution is Just a Theory anyway, same as Climate Change.

or can you PROVE something that the wider scientific community cant?

you seem to be so brilliant and absolutley right in your pronouncements that I sit here witrh bated breath in anticipation.


or are you just gonna Sh!te on about nothing loudly??

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Evolution is Just a Theory anyway, same as Climate Change.

Indeed but it's theory with lots and lots of evidence which creationism doesn't have. I'm not a scientist so I can't say that global warming is real but I have no desire to discover that it is. No one can afford to take that chance. If the American government says it's happening when their normal inclination would be to say quite the opposite then you'd have to give it very serious consideration.

Mahatma coat

if the American Government said Red Was Green enough times would you change your mind about traffic lights???

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Evolution is Just a Theory anyway, same as Climate Change.

or can you PROVE something that the wider scientific community cant?

you seem to be so brilliant and absolutley right in your pronouncements that I sit here witrh bated breath in anticipation.


or are you just gonna Sh!te on about nothing loudly??

Ahhh the old "it's only a theory" argument.
Possibly the most retarded of the creationist's arguments.

Funny thing is it's still the theory of Gravity and the theory of relativity even though both have been proven completely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science
Someone needs to learn what the word means in a scientific context.

Aye Matey!

Mahatma coat wrote: »

if the American Government said Red Was Green enough times would you change your mind about traffic lights???

Simple analogy but effective none the less.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Evolution is Just a Theory anyway, same as Climate Change.

or can you PROVE something that the wider scientific community cant?

Gravity is just a theory, why don't you jump out of a 5th floor window to prove it wrong.

Nick_oliveri

Mahatmas a creationist? Say it aint true buddeh!

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Mahatmas a creationist? Say it aint true buddeh!

I think it's more of a pedantic contrary attitude rather a coherent philosophy on MC's part.

But hey prove me wrong MC, outline your theory than like the planet is like 300,000 years max, based on your own personal incredibility, rather than a rational argument.

Mahatma coat

Nah not a creationist by a mile, however those people are entitled to believe in whatever crazy theories they like, if they want to postulate alternatives then they are free to do so, we dont have toisten to them, but we cant just wander over to them and punch em inthe face 'Cos They're wrong' its just opinion, yours is no more valid than theirs.


heres an interestin piece from the ABC website

abc.net.au wrote:

Charles Darwin's 200th birthday seems to be an appropriate occasion to celebrate the fact that evolution is not a scientific theory.

This introduction is of course an attention-grabber, intended to raise the hackles of respondents who must then read on a bit, in search of ammunition. I might have written, more temperately, that evolution is a philosophical theory. Essentially, it is a theory about an interesting group of non-particulars called 'kinds'. Scientists - notably biologists, for whom species are the only interesting kinds - do not have exclusive rights. When the philosopher Daniel Dennett remarked that evolution is the single best idea that anybody ever had he may have been expressing the second best idea that anybody ever had, because evolutionary theory explains the shaping of cultural kinds just as well as it explains the historical shaping of biological kinds.

Kinds of these two sorts are common (or sometimes garden). There are biological kinds such as the cane toad and the artichoke, and there are cultural kinds such as the electric toaster and the home mortgage. Kinds are unlike other non-particulars in that every item of a kind must owe its distinctive characteristics to previous items of the same kind. It must have parents (or precedents in the case of cultural kinds), with characteristics that are transmitted by active replication, copying, reproduction or imitation.

This generic consideration is irrelevant when we sort things in other ways: for example, when we sort them into classes or types. Member of the class of hundred kilogram vegetarians do not need hundred kilogram vegetarian parents, but a gorilla must have had parents who were gorillas (unless it is an item of cultural kind, such as a pretender in a hairy suit).

Kinds are interesting because they have a pair of intimately related features, both of which can be explained in a regular way. One is that each kind persists over a period of time that usually far exceeds the lives of its items, and the other is that it changes over time in a way in which its individual items do not change. This is just as true of cultural kinds like the home mortgage and the electric toaster as it is of biological kinds like the cane toad and the artichoke.

'Evolution' is the name we give to a comprehensive theory about the way in which the persistence of a kind and its shaping over time are both comprehensively explained. What makes evolutionary theory so powerful is the pattern of this explanation, which is the same in the cultural domain as it is in the biological domain. Biologists account for the persistence of a biological kind in terms of the splitting of DNA that underwrites the replication of the gene. They account for its historical shaping in terms of the imprecision of genetic replication, combined with the differential adaptation of slightly differing individuals to environmental hazards.

These accounts of the evolution of biological species are so persuasive that many people are ready to concede the entire theory of evolution to scientists as if it were wholly and solely theirs. But the fact is that the evolution of cultural kinds follows the same pattern, with differences in detail. Items of a cultural kind such as the electric toaster do not persist by autonomous self-replication but through the agency of purposeful imitation. The shaping of the kind over time is not attributable to contingencies of weather or to the abundance of predators or prey; it is attributable to the shifting social, political, economic and moral climates into which variant cultural items vie for the attention of imitators.

The classic quote about the persistence of a cultural kind such as the Wildeian witticism is 'I wish I had said that!' followed by the response: 'Don't worry Oscar, you will'. And the factors that determine the historical shaping of a cultural kind are frequently obvious. We stumble upon a new toaster with a pop-up mechanism and we spontaneously chorus 'Wow! Where d' you get it?'.

Obviously not all the inexactly imitated items of a cultural kind are equally adaptive. A statue of a crucified frog recently displayed in an Italian church has been condemned by the Vatican, and cultural historians will no doubt explain the success or failure this variant form of a familiar icon in terms of factors such as this Papal disparagement.

Despite the similarity of pattern some differences in the detail, as between biological and cultural evolution, differ in ways that may be significant. Self-replication is not purposefully aimed, like imitation. The onset of an ice age or of global warming is less arbitrary and more predictable than a shift in the moral, religious, economic or political climate. Because of this the two principal domains of application of evolutionary theory are not ultimately reducible one to the other. Cultural evolution is not a mere component or aspect of biological evolution; nor is biological evolution a triumph of the will.

The significance of this non-reducibility can't be overstated because there is a craven tendency among cultural theorists to sell out their position to the biologists. They are ready to argue, for example, that works of art (which are a mish-mash of cultural kinds) are 'really' all about beauty, and beauty is 'really' a subtle form of coercion exploited for its own ends by the majestically inscrutable force of biological evolution.

For all I know these theorists may be right about what beauty is, but they are certainly wrong about what works of art are. Works of art are objects offered up for our contemplation, as a more or less popular form of entertainment. At their best they enable us to recognize ways of saying or doing things that we had not previously known to be possible. They offer us greater or smaller epiphanies, both emotional and practical, and they force us to make up our minds whether to propagate a new way of thinking, feeling or acting by enthusiastic imitation, or to bury our discovery and walk away.

In either case the range of considerations that will affect the shaping of a cultural kind is as wide as the entire range of human interests. The crucified frog will certainly not succeed (nor will it fail) as a variant cultural kind merely because it is or it isn't beautiful. Moreover, whether it flourishes or disappears, the evolution of its kind will be of little interest to a biologist; unless perhaps on Sunday.

and Gravity, G or g ?

bonkey

Gents...this is not a creationism thread. Take it somewhere else.

Also...both Diogenes and Mahatma infracted for feeling the need to take digs at each other. Last warning, boys.

On a final note...where's the conspiracy? It strikes me here that Aye Matey! is starting from the position that there is one...without bothering to explain what it is, who's behind it, and so forth.

Mahatma coat

The Conspiracy Bonkey is the Greens using their power to silence anyone who questions 'Their Accepted Wisdom' on climate change or challenges their absolute moral authority on all things Environmentalist.

yer man was right its blatent propaganda designed to push an agenda, an agenda that a lot of us are wary of as it would seem to ultimatley lead to extremely punitive restrictions being placed on some aspects of life in the name of 'the Greater Good'

I notice that Gormleys Lightbulb ban has been repealed with much less fanfare than it was announced, typical Green Showboating nothing of any substance behind their policies just a lot of soundbytes cobbled together by angry hippies

Run_to_da_hills

I have already started a controversial thread on this subject in the Green Issues Forum.

And it is a conspiracy issue.

"When Green issues turn to impose fascism it's time for us to put the foot down "

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055482519

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

The Conspiracy Bonkey is the Greens using their power to silence anyone who questions 'Their Accepted Wisdom' on climate change or challenges their absolute moral authority on all things Environmentalist.

That's strange, because the article the OP links to was about the Greens taking action against someone else trying to ban sometyhing promoting climate change.

Put more simply, Sammy Wilson wanted to silence once side of the debate - the "pro" climate change side. The article is about opposition to that.

Seeing that as an attempt to silence the "anti" climate change side is, frankly, a bit of a stretch.

yer man was right its blatent propaganda designed to push an agenda,

Are you saying that its acceptable to silence a viewpoint, as long as it happens to be one you disagree with?

Make no mistake here...that's what Sammy Wilson tried to do. He tried to silence a viewpoint he disagreed with - and you appear to be saying that not only is it wrong that he be censured for it, but that he was right to do so.

If there's a conspiracy here, its one to silence so-called "Green" viewpoints. That's what Wilson tried to do, and now people here seem to be saying the Greens are wrong to object to that.

I believe both sides should be heard. What Wilson did by banning it was, therefore, unconscionable. It is right and proper that he be censured. If the material being promoted was inaccurate or incorrect, then why not expose it for the lie that it is, rather than trying to silence it?

So I ask again...where is the conspiracy here? Is something wrong with the Greens objecting to their voice being silenced by someone who disagrees with it? Is something wrong with trying to silence a voice in the first place, thus making the Greens correct in this case?

For me, its the latter, which is why I asked the question. I wanted to see if people see it as a conspiracy against the Greens, trying to silence them....or if they were objecting to the Greens complaints about being silenced. You apparently fall into the latter group.

bonkey

King Mob wrote: »

Funny thing is it's still the theory of Gravity and the theory of relativity even though both have been proven completely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science
Someone needs to learn what the word means in a scientific context.

Just a slight point here.

If you're going to suggest that people learn what the word means in a scientific context, then use it that way yourself.

Theories - in a scientific context - cannot be proven. It is inaccurate - or using an incorrect context - to suggest that the theory of gravity or relativity have been proven.

King Mob

bonkey wrote: »

Just a slight point here.

If you're going to suggest that people learn what the word means in a scientific context, then use it that way yourself.

Theories - in a scientific context - cannot be proven. It is inaccurate - or using an incorrect context - to suggest that the theory of gravity or relativity have been proven.

Yea you're right, I should have clarified it.

Both the theories of gravitation and relativity have so much supporting evidence they are not quite 100% but in a practical sense proven.

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Nah not a creationist by a mile, however those people are entitled to believe in whatever crazy theories they like, if they want to postulate alternatives then they are free to do so, we dont have toisten to them, but we cant just wander over to them and punch em inthe face 'Cos They're wrong' its just opinion, yours is no more valid than theirs.

They believe whatever stupid things they want. Doesn't mean their right. And certainly doesn't mean their opinion alone carries the same weight as the mountain of scientific evidence that supports evolution.

The opinion of a creationist and a person who understands evolution are not equally valid. the opinion of the evolutionists opinion is based on the understanding of the theory and of the evidence behind it. The creationist opinion is based on poor understand of the theory and science itself, complete misrepresenting, igorning or twisting the evidence and a healthy does of logical fallacies thrown in.

It's not "cos they wrong". It's because the evidence clearly shows them to be wrong.
But imagine someone believing something based on poor understanding and bad logic with absolutely no supporting evidence....


Edit: As if to answer my prayers the mighty Aron Ra puts out this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wv6kgjOEL0

Mahatma coat

Bonkey, my objection is to the Greenies being given carte Blance to promote any fcukin crazy idea they like as the 'truth' yet when someone objects to it we find that we are not discussin the message but the censure, its a distraction, there is generally very little put forward in any of the green campaigns, some wishy washy slogans and a picture of a Polar bear or some other Bleedin Heart Liberal Sh!te, theyre deliberatley vague so as to be 'irefutable'.

Sammy Wilson appears to have objected to a series of these advertisements as there was no balance, no counter point and no notion of entertaining alternate theories. so yes if the Greenies want to fill the heads of the population with Blatent Propaganda either they keep it fair and balanced or they should be told, not good enough go back and do it again, this time try and include some balanced perspective.


course as we can see, its much easier for them to have a No confidence Vote in Mr Wilson and silence him
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/noconfidence-vote-puts-wilson-under-pressure-14184263.html

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Bonkey, my objection is to the Greenies being given carte Blance to promote any fcukin crazy idea they like as the 'truth' yet when someone objects to it we find that we are not discussin the message but the censure, its a distraction, there is generally very little put forward in any of the green campaigns, some wishy washy slogans and a picture of a Polar bear or some other Bleedin Heart Liberal Sh!te, theyre deliberatley vague so as to be 'irefutable'.

Sammy Wilson appears to have objected to a series of these advertisements as there was no balance, no counter point and no notion of entertaining alternate theories. so yes if the Greenies want to fill the heads of the population with Blatent Propaganda either they keep it fair and balanced or they should be told, not good enough go back and do it again, this time try and include some balanced perspective.


course as we can see, its much easier for them to have a No confidence Vote in Mr Wilson and silence him
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/noconfidence-vote-puts-wilson-under-pressure-14184263.html

You do realise that there is overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that global warming is real, and is happening.

You're basically saying that alternative viewpoints need equal air time. If someone says that Global warming is due to god focusing a giant magnifying glass at the poles, does this merit equal air time?

Mahatma coat

'Overwhelming Consensus' is not Proof or evidence tho is it.

There was Overwhelming consensus amongst the Inteligence communitite that Iraq had WMD's


so yeah, why should one side be given prority when no one really knows whats happenin anyway.

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

'Overwhelming Consensus' is not Proof or evidence tho is it.

There was Overwhelming consensus amongst the Inteligence communitite that Iraq had WMD's


so yeah, why should one side be given prority when no one really knows whats happenin anyway.

So what your saying is people should support their claims with good evidence then and not rely on fallacies like arguments for authority?

Funny that.....

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

'Overwhelming Consensus' is not Proof or evidence tho is it.

No, but science can't prove things, and can only reach concesnsus about a theory based on evidencial testing of it.

There was Overwhelming consensus amongst the Inteligence communitite that Iraq had WMD's

No, there wasn't. In fact, its well established that the Bush Administration overstated that case.

Besides which, the Intelligence Communitee aren't scientists, so it doesn't matter.

There's overwhelming consensus amongst flat-earthers that the earth is flat, but they too aren't scientists, so its not a relevant comparison.

Mahatma coat

hang on a mo, come back here with them goalposts

I thought Science was all about Proof.
definitive answers, nonfalsafiable and all that Sh!te


It was WELL established AFTER the fact that the Bush administration Lied through its teeth, but a lot of vested interests went along for the ride when Colin Powell was givin his Anthrax Speech to the UN.

as for Flat Earthers, well this isnt a Creationist Thread

Mahatma coat

Bonkey wrote:

Besides which, the Intelligence Communitee aren't scientists, so it doesn't matter.

Please Clarify what you mean here, as I think I'm readin this wrong and gettin annoyed by your aloofness

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

hang on a mo, come back here with them goalposts

I thought Science was all about Proof.
definitive answers, nonfalsafiable and all that Sh!te

Perhaps you should look into what the scientific method is before you wax on about it, for example "nonfalsafiable" isn't a word, the closest word would be unfalsifiable. I'd suggest you'd start with some light reading starting here

It was WELL established AFTER the fact that the Bush administration Lied through its teeth, but a lot of vested interests went along for the ride when Colin Powell was givin his Anthrax Speech to the UN.

And yet, somehow I have the dim memory of being among the millions of people, who marched against the War, one of the many reasons people had for opposing the War, was the shoddy nature and dubious calibre of the intelligence presented to justify the war.

As to the "after the fact" The British Dossier, that Powell used as a part of his UN presentation, was given the nickname of the Dodgy Dossier originally on Sept 24th 2002, several months before the invasion. PalmeGate erupted in October 2002, also several months before the invasion.

as for Flat Earthers, well this isnt a Creationist Thread

Flat Earthers aren't necessarily creationists. Creationists aren't necessarily Flat Earthers.

So You don't understand what the scientific method is, you're making basic factual errors as to the pre Iraq war intelligence, and you don't understand the difference between a Flat Earther and a Creationist.