RE: What's Your Favorite Climate Change Study?
My favourite climate study is the one by Exxon in the 70s that convinced them they had to spread confusion and misinformation about the topic to preserve their business model. It is an 'inconvenient truth' for believers in endless growth on a finite planet. Most of the voices declaring it is a fraud or non-issue seem to have a financial motive. The stalling they have achieved has made it ever harder to counter the effects of business as usual.
A lot of the actions we need to take will be unpopular and most politicians lack the courage to attempt them, but the public mood is changing.
Greta is an icon, but maybe we need a child to guilt politicians into action after they have ignored their own scientific advisors. The Trump efforts to erase any mention of climate change from government literature made their motives clear.
I don't think guilt is going to do the trick. I think it just looked ridiculous.
My usual repsect for you as you were able to read the post and respond to what I said and not just repeat the MSM lines.
Cheers.
I think it is a bit unfair that all the attention is on her, but she has become a figurehead. People say she is being paid, but do they have proof. I did see she won a 'peace prize'. I would expect she is not that interested in the money, but it's up to her what she does with it. We have seen that money does not always solve problems.
When I see people mention 'MSM' I tend to think they have bought into a certain mindset that 'dark forces' encourage. There are parts of the established media that I trust more than others. I am less like to trust a random vlogger or blogger. Just being on the internet does not necessarily make you credible. That goes for me too :)
Our news has become so tangled in politics and corporate money that it is unreliable at this point and there are very few standards of Journalism left, but there are agendas.
I agree that being a blogger does not make you creditable, (or me).. However, you can watch the same "News" here on two different channels and barely recognize the story due to the spin.
That is not dark forces that is just simply the fact that if you follow the ownership of the main media you can clearly find out who owns our "For Profit" news. That's not light and dark that is just money and news and ratings.
It's just business. :)
I do not think you can generalise about journalists. In many places in the world they risk prison or worse for reporting what is going on. Be grateful if you media is actually free to write what they like. Of course money is involved, but so is reputation. If you are caught out lying all the time you lose trust. Meanwhile we have a news source that is known for lying being the main source of news and general info for the most powerful man in the world whilst he condemns others as 'fake news'. Journalists in the USA have been killed at their desks by people influenced by him. You have to consider who has the most to lose from the truth getting out.
Both sides of our mainstream news is ruled by money and power. One can not deny that.
I watch both sides and believe the truth is in the middle. You can't look at the money on one side without looking at it on the other.
When people in the US say MSM we are just acknowledging that most of our media is owned by a small number of people, you could liken it to the whales on Steem.
Are there only two sides? There's a lot more money in oil and other vested interests. In the end it's all imperfect people with their own bias, but you can make some judgement on what that is.