<A Simpler Way to Calculate Global Oil Reserves?The Oil DrumServer News and Check Out Our Advertisers...>
<Restoring Staten Island's Rail ConnectionsThe Oil Drum: LocalNYC Residents Want More Solar>

138 comments on Geophysicist Klaus Lackner on Fueling the Future

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jim burke on September 13, 2006 - 5:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"there is a 12 page special section in the magazine."

...it is actually 24 pages. Huge by Economist standards.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack on September 13, 2006 - 9:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Actually, it is standard by Economist standards. Their regular mid-section surveys, of which the climate change survey was one, are always about 24 pages.

That doesn't take away from the significance of the magazine committing resources to the topic and their reasonable conclusions.

So, is this good MSM or bad MSM? Is this a superficial 24 page treatment of climate change? If the MSM avoid contentious issues just to sell advertising space, then what happened here? Won't this rare bit of truth set the sheeple shaking on their hooves?

Please help me out, I find these sweeping generalizations and plot theories so difficult to follow.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on September 13, 2006 - 11:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Just below the Citgo pop-up television screen ad are these mixed messages: (clever pop-out ad by the way)

the costs of climate change are unknown, the benefits of trying to do anything to prevent it are, by definition, unclear. What's more, if they accrue at all, they will do so at some point in the future. So is it really worth using public resources now to avert an uncertain, distant risk, especially when the cash could be spent instead on goods and services that would have a measurable near-term benefit?

Conspiracy?
Thought control?
Paid-for by whom?
Everything is "unclear" in the land of the fog heads.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack on September 13, 2006 - 11:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I am not disputing that companies, governments etc. are spending money to influence people's thoughts. I agree that oil's attempted undermining of awareness of climate change is reprehensible.

But elevating the MSM to public enemeny number one often just means only listening to those you already agree with.

It's nuance, man. Haven't we had this same discussion before - or did I just get a glimpse of ther matrix?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on September 14, 2006 - 4:24am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
who said MSM is an enemy?

they perform a service by bringing the sponsor's messages to the public.  ;-)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Bigelow on September 14, 2006 - 7:57am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Not to put too fine a point on it, but we have many rulers.

The Agency "embraced more than 800 news and public information organizations and individuals." --CIA's 3-Decade Effort to Mold the World's Views, New York Times, 12/25/77

"The final Church report was a disappointment, having been audited by the CIA. A subsequent House investigation was suppressed, though a leak it was published in the Village Voice. The House report indicated that Reuters news service was frequently used for CIA disinformation, and that media manipulation may have been the "largest single category of covert action projects taken by the CIA."" Neoconservatism: a CIA Front?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
airdale on September 14, 2006 - 9:02am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Operation Mockingbird is what you want to read about.

The CIA and its tentacles into the MSM.

Unbelievable in its range and depth. We are truly sheeple in this regard.

I unplugged my dish satellite the very day my wife left the farm. It only plays DVD movies now.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.