It's Steam, Stupid (1 Viewer)

[LowDown]

A short video that exposes one of the tricks environmentalists use to fool people.

If truth is on their side then why do they need to lie, distort, and decieve?

Environmentalists are enemies of mankind.

 

[WCH]

A short video that exposes one of the tricks environmentalists use to fool people.

If truth is on their side then why do they need to lie, distort, and decieve?

Environmentalists are enemies of mankind.

The radical ones are reincarnated Communists.

 

[jmotivator]

They are watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the inside.

 

[shlunka]

Guess I should start taking cold showers then.

 

[Morality Games]

A short video that exposes one of the tricks environmentalists use to fool people.

If truth is on their side then why do they need to lie, distort, and decieve?

Environmentalists are enemies of mankind.

Conservatives are annoyed that environmentalists use photos of factories that produce CO2 because one of the elements in the photo (steam) is not actually a visual representation of CO2.

Got it.

You are aware that a cornerstone of denier "science" against man-made global warming was that large volcanic eruptions erupt more CO2 into the atmosphere than centuries of industry ever could, while neglecting to mention these come in ash deposits that don't remain in the atmosphere but rather disperse, whereas man manufactured gases often do. But I guess that doesn't pass for deception.

 

[shrubnose]

Guess I should start taking cold showers then.

Try taking a bath in a tub full of crushed ice, some people like that.

It really wakes you up in the morning.

 

[Morality Games]

A short video that exposes one of the tricks environmentalists use to fool people.

If truth is on their side then why do they need to lie, distort, and decieve?

Environmentalists are enemies of mankind.

I would furthermore point out that "environmentalists" didn't start that. Journalists did because there was no better visual analogue to a gas that is odorless and colorless than the steam that rises from the factories that produce CO2, and because both newspapers and television programs have to supplement text and commentary with visual analogues.

 

[LowDown]

I would furthermore point out that "environmentalists" didn't start that. Journalists did because there was no better visual analogue to a gas that is odorless and colorless than the steam that rises from the factories that produce CO2, and because both newspapers and television programs have to supplement text and commentary with visual analogues.

Yeah, journalists with an environmentalist agenda. So, if environmentalists are so pure and their cause is so just then why do they have to lie?

 

[Morality Games]

Yeah, journalists with an environmentalist agenda. So, if environmentalists are so pure and their cause is so just then why do they have to lie?

"Environmentalists" is a vague, hasty generalization, the use of which itself passes as a form of deception. When you level an accusation of immorality you level it against specific organizations and people with names that are recognizable and who can be held accountable.

And agendas had nothing to do with it. Even conservative editors of any major news organization would agree to use such images as analogues as part of the program if they focused tested better when it came to ratings than pictures of a gas that is odorless and colorless.

 

[MMC]

Try taking a bath in a tub full of crushed ice, some people like that.

It really wakes you up in the morning.

That wont work for me SN.....just sayin. :lol:

 

[brothern]

Hold on ... the video contends that since CO2 is colorless, odorless, trace and essential to the environment, the target groups are being "dishonest" by using pictures of steam. But isn't the video doing the exact same thing by being misleading itself? A pollutant does not need to be visible, odorous, abundent and inessential to an environment in order to be a pollutant. Yet the video implies that this is the case in its soot analogy, and its attack on the opponent's tactics rather than the opponent's argument.

It's a dishonest and misleading argument attacking a dishonest and mislead argument. Man oh man, the state of politics today.

 

[LowDown]

"Environmentalists" is a vague, hasty generalization, the use of which itself passes as a form of deception. When you level an accusation of immorality you level it against specific organizations and people with names that are recognizable and who can be held accountable.

And agendas had nothing to do with it. Even conservative editors of any major news organization would agree to use such images as analogues as part of the program if they focused tested better when it came to ratings than pictures of a gas that is odorless and colorless.

Sorry, that doesn't wash. The kicker is when they color the steam by backlighting or photoshopping it to make it look like smoke or soot. And there is never any attempt to enlighten the viewer that it's not smoke or soot, so naturally the viewer will assume it's what it looks like. And that is deliberate deception.

 

[LowDown]

Hold on ... the video contends that since CO2 is colorless, odorless, trace and essential to the environment, the target groups are being "dishonest" by using pictures of steam. But isn't the video doing the exact same thing by being misleading itself? A pollutant does not need to be visible, odorous, abundent and inessential to an environment in order to be a pollutant. Yet the video implies that this is the case in its soot analogy, and its attack on the opponent's tactics rather than the opponent's argument.

It's a dishonest and misleading argument attacking a dishonest and mislead argument. Man oh man, the state of politics today.

That's a rather strange argument. They correctly describe CO2. They never made any claim that pollutants were never colorless and odorless, just that harmless steam was being misrepresented.

 

[Morality Games]

Sorry, that doesn't wash. The kicker is when they color the steam by backlighting or photoshopping it to make it look like smoke or soot. And there is never any attempt to enlighten the viewer that it's not smoke or soot, so naturally the viewer will assume it's what it looks like. And that is deliberate deception.

If the colored steam grabs someone's attention more the than uncolored steam, then it is the natural choice from a journalistic point of view.

 

[LowDown]

If the colored steam grabs someone's attention more the than uncolored steam, then it is the natural choice from a journalistic point of view.

If viewers get the impression that a plant is spewing dirty smoke or some other noxious pollution and the company is harmed by that misconception on the public's part then it's an actionable tort, serious libel. Perhaps on that basis, legal liability, you can understand why this sort of deception is wrong.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

If the colored steam grabs someone's attention more the than uncolored steam, then it is the natural choice from a journalistic point of view.

So the natural journalistic choice is to deceive if it grabs more attention and , gets the false, or even valid, point across with more force than it actually has in and of itself? That is fair game in your moral handbook?

So, as an analogue [ not attempting to hijack this, just an analogy folks ], journalists to make their point by showing George Zimmerman without the wounds to the back of his head, or perhaps by editing the audio tape of his 9-11 call to make it appear as if he were being racist, which certainly, and naturally, garnered much more attention. While that is an exaggeration, it seems analogous to your premise.

 

[Morality Games]

If viewers get the impression that a plant is spewing dirty smoke or some other noxious pollution and the company is harmed by that misconception on the public's part then it's an actionable tort, serious libel. Perhaps on that basis, legal liability, you can understand why this sort of deception is wrong.

It certainly isn't ideal, but "libel" is hard to pull off in the United States.

It is difficult to believe a libel case could succeed in any case because factories that produce steam usually produce pollution in some other less tangible process. In which case it would probably encapsulate some kind of fair use to use pictures of steam.

So the natural journalistic choice is to deceive if it grabs more attention and , gets the false, or even valid, point across with more force than it actually has in and of itself? That is fair game in your moral handbook?

So, as an analogue [ not attempting to hijack this, just an analogy folks ], journalists to make their point by showing George Zimmerman without the wounds to the back of his head, or perhaps by editing the audio tape of his 9-11 call to make it appear as if he were being racist, which certainly, and naturally, garnered much more attention. While that is an exaggeration, it seems analogous to your premise.

I'm not really involved. That's how journalism in the United States works because people respond to it.

 

[Diogenes]

So the natural journalistic choice is to deceive if it grabs more attention and , gets the false, or even valid, point across with more force than it actually has in and of itself? That is fair game in your moral handbook?

So, as an analogue [ not attempting to hijack this, just an analogy folks ], journalists to make their point by showing George Zimmerman without the wounds to the back of his head, or perhaps by editing the audio tape of his 9-11 call to make it appear as if he were being racist, which certainly, and naturally, garnered much more attention. While that is an exaggeration, it seems analogous to your premise.

You make an excellent point about the trustworthiness of journalists. "If it bleeds, it leads" was the guiding spirit for the "coming ice age" scare of forty years ago, just as it is for AGW today.

 

[Deuce]

Is the lady in this video trying to suggest that these plants don't emit CO2?

Because that ****ing seems like what she's trying to suggest. She's saying "THESE ARE PICTURES OF STEAM." The implication that these are not pictures of sources of CO2? Help me out here.

Look, journalism sucks. Im just not sure why that means I should stop believing peer-reviewed science.

 

[Glowpun]

A short video that exposes one of the tricks environmentalists use to fool people.

If truth is on their side then why do they need to lie, distort, and decieve?

Environmentalists are enemies of mankind.

Oh I see. Was it not Reagan who said that trees should be cut down because they pollute the environment? So what should we replace trees with, more asphalt parking lots and more concrete? If mankind had to move to another planet what resources will be left to build the crafts?