Comments on: 90 Minutes of TV; 16 Months of Handwaving…

By: Websites tagged "wunsch" on Postsaver

Websites tagged "wunsch" on Postsaver — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:47:07 +0000

[...] eine Zahl mit Wunsch saved by RavenSamara2009-02-21 – Wünsch Dir was! saved by AgentX2009-02-19 – 90 Minutes of TV; 16 Months of Handwaving… saved by iceman97862009-02-15 – Finden Sie Ihren Wunsch-Kredit günstig online! saved by [...]

By: Moshe

Moshe — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 15:12:43 +0000

The war of Jenkins’ Ear springs to mind, and the reaction to the assassination of that Archduke in Sarajevo in 1914 is generally considered to have been a bit over the top. Which is why, now the lunatics are not only running the asylum, but writing the agenda for the G8 meetings, your kind of political analysis is vital. Most sceptics seem to assume the warming fad will just fade away when facts get known, but any psychologist or social scientist will tell you it’s not that simple.

By: geoff chambers

geoff chambers — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:57:03 +0000

you say “Monbiot and Ward’s paranoid hystrionics (sic).. is nothing short of sheer lunacy .. it’s hard to actually conceive of an historical, or even pathological precedent.”
Not that difficult, actually. The war of Jenkins’ Ear springs to mind, and the reaction to the assassination of that Archduke in Sarajevo in 1914 is generally considered to have been a bit over the top. Which is why, now the lunatics are not only running the asylum, but writing the agenda for the G8 meetings, your kind of political analysis is vital. Most sceptics seem to assume the warming fad will just fade away when facts get known, but any psychologist or social scientist will tell you it’s not that simple. Hasn’t any computer modeller come up with a prediction (sorry, projection) of what will happen when people discover the entire developed world has been basing its political and economic policies on fantasy for fifteen years?

By: JMW

JMW — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 02:31:01 +0000

“The message is clear: don’t think for yourselves, don’t deviate from the straight and narrow. There are some things that should never be questioned. Let us make up your minds for you”

The environmentalist’s definition of “fair and balanced”: It’s not fair when it’s balanced. Because then people start using their brains for something other than a means to keep their skulls from caving in.

Small wonder that, 16 months later, they’re still in a mad flap over a television documentary.

It’s hilarious and sad.

By: Alex Cull

Alex Cull — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:41:25 +0000

I agree re the shakiness of the environmentalist cause if they consider that Swindle could wreak such great damage. Another thing that often annoys me, in the debate surrounding this TV programme, is the emphasis on people not being able to think for themselves, and needing to be led down the one true path. The message is clear: don’t think for yourselves, don’t deviate from the straight and narrow. There are some things that should never be questioned. Let us make up your minds for you.

By: jnicklin

jnicklin — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 06:20:38 +0000

If all it takes is 90 minutes of TV do the amount of damage to the environemetalist cause, then the cause must be very shaky indeed.

I watched Swindle and I watched AIT. Swindle at least had the courage, or is it criminal intent, to include the opinions of actual scientists as opposed to AIT’s monologue by a “recovering politician.”

Swindle had a few errors, that is the hazzard of dealing with science in a documentary, new information can unseat the old. AIT on the other hand was, for all intents, content free programming since almost all of it was a misrepresentation of reality.

With all of its faults, Swindle still stands head and shoulders above the Gore slide show. If it has unsettled the settled view of the greens, then their message may well be exhausted.

By: JMW

JMW — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:23:11 +0000

Imagine if the environmentalists and their credo were a small-time soft drink maker trying to make a dent in the market, then blaming his failure to do so on the “corporate giants” Coke and Pepsi and the consumer’s blind loyalty to them—even getting it into his head that the government must pass laws to allow the Little Guy to sell their product, all while ignoring the real reason: that he’s simply offering an inferior product. And the populace knows this, and are simply choosing what they think is the better product.

Translate this into the Green Message, and…

They’ve offered their product. The populace has largely rejected it. Though it was, for a time in the early 90′s [if I remember it correctly], trendy to be seen as “green”. Now only the message is left, and those adherents who stuck with it all this time.

Sadly, they just don’t Get It.

By: lee

lee — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:13:03 +0000

The C4 guy is right that TGGWS is a lightning rod, i.e., people are generally deeply sceptical of environmentalism and climate change alarmism (as every poll suggests), but they are often afraid to admit it or find difficulty in articulating their dissent (because of the new orthodoxy and attacks on
‘deniers’). TGGWS simply gave them a way to express their disbelief, by referring to the first thing in the public domain with which they could align themselves. In this sense your analysis of why the greens react so ferociously is spot on.

On another point, I wonder whether you would be interested in lodging some OFCOM complaints about shoddy reporting of climate issues. I know running to the censor is hardly ideal, but it does draw a lot of attention to issues and I have used it in campaigns in the past. Very few people are actually holding the media to account in the way they report climate issues, so they can distort and inflate all they like. Just an idea. Give it some thought and feel free to drop me a line if you want more info or to chat it through.

By: Alex Cull

Alex Cull — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:18:10 +0000

It is indeed an amazing fuss that some are making over TGGWS, as if the massive indifference in the UK to global warming is due to this one TV programme. No-one I know has even seen it, although a few people I know went to see An Inconvenient Truth. The real inconvenient truth is that most folks just do not care about carbon emissions and are simply not interested in the subject.