monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@neptuneblue,

Quote:

Watcher of Weasels dot org where everything is made up including the "facts"!!!

I will ask again, what do you consider made up in the article? Do you have an answer or not?

@livinglava,

Quote:

Marketing/promotion is business propaganda.

Political propaganda is political marketing/promotion.

That is a formulation of the issue that though fairly common does not bear much scrutiny. By failing to make necessary differentiations you've ended up with a locked-in conclusion that what Goebbels did in Germany is the same thing that Honda does when it advertises the Civic as the best selling car in Canada (which it is).

You get a bit closer with the part of this sentence I've bolded.

Quote:

Also note that the most effective propaganda works by differentiating itself from propaganda and passing as valid information.

Here you acknowledge the role of purposeful deceit. Absent that intention, the term "propaganda" loses any useful meaning. Also, one probably has to differentiate the spheres of product marketing versus political promotion because of the possible/likely/real consequences of propaganda in that second sphere are far more dire. Even acknowledging the real consequences of tobacco or fossil fuel (etc) companies' propaganda operations, Reynold's Tobacco or Exxon are not going to lead us to a totalitarian style of civic organization except via shifts into the political sphere.

There's an extremely enlightening book I can recommend to you and everyone who hasn't read it: The Father of Spin: Edward Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations. And crimminey, used copies available for $2.95. If you're interested in PR and manipulation of masses of people, this book really has to be in your library.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Quote:

Civic as the best selling car in Canada (which it is).

Being the best at anything is Canada is seriously overrated.

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

Kudos for you knowing how to directly post videos from the sites in which you find them. I can only post videos from YouTube. However, the trouble is in posting from the site is most of the time, they don't do closed captioned. YouTube generally does.

Just saying.

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

tHE STATISTICS ARE FORMULATED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY ARE WHOLLY MISLEADING. tHE MOTIVATIONS HE ATTRIBUTES TO ADVOCATES OF CLIMATRE CHANGE ARE NOTHING MORE THAN RIGHT WING FANTASY. If you want accuraste information on climate change, its mitigation, and effects, written on a level even you should be able to understand, read any of the IPCC's assessment reports for policymakers., NOT SOME IDIOT BLOGGER WHO MAERELY REPEATS DENIALIST MEMES.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

tHE STATISTICS ARE FORMULATED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY ARE WHOLLY MISLEADING.

Yes they are but not by the deniers, they are manipulated by climate change advocates. That has been proven.

Quote:

Top 12 Debunked Climate Scares of 2018

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/01/top-12-debunked-climate-scares-of-2018/

2 Replies

@coldjoint,

Quote:

That has been proven.

And that "proof" has been debunked. Next.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Anthony Watt has been repeatedly debunked himself. Go back to the primary sources. IPCC reports, the recent multi-agency and scientific groups climate assessment the US government mandated be put out, for example.

RealClimate, done by actual climate scientists with actual data, Skeptical Scientist, for example.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Anthony Watt has been repeatedly debunked himself.

Please produce some examples of how he did that.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Read some reliable stuff first. Stop with the GarbageInGarbageOut crap that is all you post. I gave you four saources. Read them and get back to me afterwards.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Read some reliable stuff first.

I have, and quit passing off what you refuse to prove is fact as fact.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

And that "proof" has been debunked.

By all means, show us how that was accomplished.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

I gave you four saources.

You have posted 0 links.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Really? Tell me what it was. Read some more. There are huge amounts of it and you have never cited any of it.

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Quote:

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.

Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."

A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.

The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.

Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.

Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."

An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

<rolls eyes>, sorry, joint, I didn't realize I had to spoonfeed you. Search for ipcc.gov and read pretty much anything there. Try their sixth assessment report.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Do you know how to post a link? I see you are having trouble with emojis.

2 Replies

@tsarstepan,

Great video.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.

Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."

An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

Each one of those sources is in the globalist tank. It is bullshit backed up with bullshit.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Do you know how to reach a site? It's really elementary. As far as I know, I've never used an emoji. Far too ambiguous to be really meaningful. I notice you overuse them profligately.

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know