One of the great things about the scientific method is that it is embedded with a self correcting engine. Science always continues to improve because it can examine itself; it reviews and refines its flaws.
Science today is being perverted by a small group of privately paid intellectuals, who seek to obscure the results of professional scientists by spinning, twisting and undermining their results. Most of this disinformation comes from what are referred to as front groups.
A front group is an organization that claims to represent one agenda, while in reality, it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned. Front groups hire scientists that are willing to obscure the truth. Unlike regular scientists, they do not publish peer reviewed papers. Their views reflect their sponsors and unlike regular scientists, their main goal is to alter public opinion. Front groups create easy to read reports that are then injected into the media or political campaigns. They are nothing more than paid propagandists hired by the private sector and used to confuse the public.
Real scientists have been marginalized partly because they have trouble expressing their complex ideas to the media, while front group's existence depends on their ability to take incomprehensible ideas and turn them into easy to understand sound bites for the public. These sound bites then enter into what is called an echo chamber. This is when news outlets begin to naively report soundbites that move like a virus through the media.
There are hundreds of these groups, receiving billions from corporations. They work to protect private interests no matter how dangerous and undemocratic, no matter how many people die, all in the name of profit.
Science and technology are powerful engines. They can make our lives better or worse. Whoever controls this mass of power has the ability to affect entire societies. But at the moment these instruments are being dominated and manipulated by an unseen army of paid charlatans.
Here are some of the corporately funded front groups, pr firms and think tanks mentioned in the video:
The Cato Institute
Center for Consumer Freedom
The Employee Policy Institute
Center For Union Facts
Global Climate Coalition
Friends of Science Society
Frontiers of Freedom
Greening Earth Society
Institute of Public Affairs
Scientific Alliance
American Enterprise Institute
Adam Smith Institute
Citizens for a Sound Economy
Accuracy in the Media
Berman and Co.
16 Comments
PeroxideI live in Alberta, frankly, it is disgusting how many individuals i have met who blindly believe anti climate change propaganda. For a deeper look at how the corporation and media are distorting our information, check out Manufacturing Consent, by Noam Chomsky.
eric3579Manufacturing Consent
gwiz665Who are the ones that we left in charge? Killers, thieves and lawyers!♪
dannym3141>> ^gwiz665:
Who are the ones that we left in charge? Killers, thieves and lawyers!♪
"...but i repeat myself"
NetRunner*news
*lies
*money
*quality
siftbotBoosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by NetRunner.
Adding video to channels (Lies, Money, News) - requested by NetRunner.
lampishthingWhich is why everybody should be forced to study philosophy in school :-)
Ask some bloody questions before you believe the information!!!!
rosekatsays...>> ^lampishthing:
Which is why everybody should be forced to study philosophy in school :-)
Ask some bloody questions before you believe the information!!!!
And basic economics, from the elementary level if you ask me
Mashikisays...>> ^Peroxide:
I live in Alberta, frankly, it is disgusting how many individuals i have met who blindly believe anti climate change propaganda. For a deeper look at how the corporation and media are distorting our information, check out Manufacturing Consent, by Noam Chomsky.
I live in Ontario. And it's a funny thing to realize that a large number of people can't think for themselves. As soon as they turn around and say "look deeper" they turn to another talking and yipping windbag, who is spewing the same crap.
My faith in humanity continues to move backwards when the old irony meter is pegged at 11.
crillepsays...This video fails to mention that "so-called real" enviromental groups recieve funding as well. And the companies that fund them have opinions they would like portayed too. Both sides want funding and will do what it takes to further their cause. Frankly I'm glad that one group doesn't decide everything.
That's why it is ridiculous to ignore scientists who may be funded by a bigger corporation (i.e. ExxonMobil) and then call yourself bias. You can't discredit a scientist because of who pays him. You can however factcheck his work.
(somebody who compares global warming to cigarettes obviously wants to make a point as well)
NithernThe average 'joe' on the street has no idea what science really is and isnt. A scientific fact, is different from the layman's term of 'fact'. A scientific theory is the highest level of concept in science. A layman's 'theory' is a guess on something. Laymen hear of scientists discussing a theory. And then watchs them get in to an arguement over some fine detail. One scientists argues one set of 'facts', and the other, another set of 'facts'. He concludes that his original defination of 'theory' must still work. And never realizing, the two scientists do agree on alot of the information surrounding the topic, except on minor details between two different studies of some rock, fossil, or abstract concept in physics.
The Theory of Evolution, is a great example of this concept. The average 'Joe' knows, the Theory of Evolution competes with Creationism (or Intelligent Design) in schools. What the average 'Joe' doesnt realize, is that the two concepts are totally different on what they attempt to explain. A proper arguement on the concept of the planet Earth, would be, between Creationism and the Theory of Abiogenesis. Both sides argue different reasons for support of their idea towards the common 'Joe'. Scientists explain the need for a well educated workforce. The builders of tommorow, start with science today. Without proper understanding and teaching, the average 'Joe's country would get behind others in knowledge and skill. The Creationists, enphasis religion, piety, worship, and may play on the average 'Joe's sentaments of Christianity. Up till now, I've kept the concept generalized. But anyone with a real thought will understand this is a concept that's alive and well in America.
During the election of Mr. Obama as President of the USA. They found that 87% of scientists had voted for Mr. Obama, and like 7% voted for Mr. McCain (Mr. Obama's competitor). The remaining percentage, went to other canidates, or 'wrote in' someone (real or fictionist). Like wise, they found those with an education higher then 'high school diploma', voted for Mr. Obama. Those that had less then a 2-year college education, voted for Mr. McCain. Liberals tended to vote for Mr. Obama, and conservatives seem to vote for Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama's supports seem to be those that are often educated, while Mr. McCain's were not so well book-studied. So what does this all mean, with this video in mind you ask?
The Source of the information. I got this information a year ago, from cnn.com. I'm sure its still up on their site in the cnn.com/politics area. This information was also studied by several other organizations (each with their own reason for doing so). I stick with CNN, as they usually have their facts right. I do check with several other sources (like the Boston Globe, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, and even the BBC in England). I think Video Sift here as ALOT, of videos of Fox 'News' style of journalism.
dystopianfuturetoday(Note: The comment above was completely changed from what I originally responded to.)
^You are confusing science with politics. There is no 'organization A vs. organization B', only research, peer review and consensus, and as far as the current consensus goes, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion on climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
If you truly value research, then why do you reject the consensus of people who 'study the fuck out of things' for a living?
crillepsays...Taking a chance that the last comment was intended for me, I would just like to point out that I was not debating the existence of human influence on global warming. However the extent and the effect of it is debated widely.
But the subject can still be spun in either direction, the world will end soon, or we will get more sun
Like you say, as long as science is subject to peer review and so forth, it can only move forward. Therefore it should have no problem dealing with these groups. However it would be a mistake to ignore them.
eric3579*promote
siftbotPromoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, November 9th, 2009 3:09pm PST - promote requested by eric3579.
bigheadsays...As David Berman pointed out so eloquently, when asked if he considers him self a poet or a song writer, he said " the only thing I "am" is an American. It seems pompous when people call them selves scientists. Really so if your a scientist you are more able to distinguish bullshit form truth.
With so many opinions on what a legitimate study is, (the dogma of the double-blind study as the only validity of a subject) I think science is going down down into the ground.
I remember in the early 90's smart was not easy to come by. Now even dumbest are considered smart. Because they use fancy phones and work with computers, what is beyond science?
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.