Misled Mouse
First, a bit about that word "misled." As a teenager, I had a girl friend who pronounced it, "myzled," as in, "Franklin, I think you're myzling me." True, I probably was, but that's what teenage boys do who have had good upbringing: they disguise their intentions toward teenage girls. We myzle them, and occasionally our myzling works (but you couldn't prove it by me).
Ok, with that upgrade now made to the way English shall be spoken, let me tell you about a great myzling (noun form) that has been perpetrated on the world by certain forces in America. Global warming is real, and yet most people -- including the Mouse until yesterday -- believe doubt exists among the scientific community regarding its reality. Last night, milady and I went down to Charlottesville to a little art theater to see Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth. Now I will admit that Gore may be myzling us too, but if so, he managed it well. He's had his way with me. Here's the line of reasoning that converted me to his way of thinking -- and which, incidentally, illustrates the news media biases I was yawping about yesterday.
A study was made to determine the extent to which the scientific community agreed or disagreed with the consensus opinion that global warming is real. A random sample of scientific peer-reviewed papers was taken, and of the 960+ papers reviewed, zero percent disagreed. That is, all of the scientific community agreed that global warming is real. A separate sample of 650+ media articles was then pulled to test the extent to which the media agreed that global warming was real. More than half (53%) thought there was "some doubt." What was a certainty among those who know, was "in doubt" among those who tell us what to believe.
Gore went on briefly to show how this doubt was created. Public relations firms were hired and were given the job of creating doubt. One of the firms boasted, in a private communication, that "doubt is our product." A senator, who was either bought and paid for or "convinced" (i.e., myzled) by the PR firm, went so far as to say, "Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." [I won't say the senator's name, but part of it was "Imhofe."]
The results of these studies immediately caused me to reflect on yesterday's blog. Those PR firms did not aim their "doubt" at householders like you and me; they went after the news media. I have personally seen at least seven panel discussions on global warming in which both sides (as if there were two sides) were presented. The PR firm's idea, of course, was that they could get more bang for the buck by having the media carry their message than they would get by a junk mail broadside. Their aim was not to convince, but only to create doubt. I can attest to the fact that until I saw the results of the surveys Mr. Gore reported, the strategy had been effective, at least on a humble Mouse.
But then, one might ask: "Even if global warming is a fact (and not a hoax) perhaps it is merely cyclic in nature, just the weather making its normal sine wave of ups and downs; maybe humankind has had nothing to do with it."
That was the main source of Mouse's myzlement (before yesterday). It seemed entirely possible that all the data about warming could be explained as only nature taking her course. But then came Gore with another pot-load of hard fact.
For at least two decades scientists have taken ice core samples from the ice sheets of Anarctica, and by analyzing the contents of air bubbles found in those cores have been able to draw an accurate picture of CO2 and temperature variations over the past 650,000 years. Gore used a huge graphic screen to display those pictures. Looking at the graph lines we could see the past seven ice ages clearly depicted, and see just as clearly that the CO2 measure tracked almost perfectly with the temperature gradient. The dramatic changes in temperature that led to, and brought the earth out of, the ice ages could have been predicted by anyone knowledgeable of the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
But then came the hard part, the truly frightening part. At the highest points reached by the temperature of the earth over the past 650,000 years, the ratio of CO2 to other constituents of the atmosphere never exceeded 300 parts per million. But today that ratio has already gone way beyond that upper threshhold and if the rate of increase continues will be off the chart.
Thus, when nature had the world to herself, when human actions contributed little or nothing to the CO2 mix in the atmosphere, the cycle of extreme cold and extreme warming produced the world as we know it, at least, as we knew it 75 years ago. The polar ice caps and the glacial formations in the high parts of the earth's land masses were such that humankind could live in relative comfort. But if the warming level exceeds the peak levels reached in the past, the ice caps and glaciers will melt and the balance of temperature and temperature related effects will be upset, and life as we know it will dramatically change. It may in fact become impossible.
The facts demonstrated by the evidence in the ice core samples proves that the current levels of CO2 accumulation and the attendant rises in temperature have been brought about by human action. So the certainty of global warming has been joined by the additional certainty that humankind is a contributor to the problem.
But that's actually the good part. If human action is causative in nature -- and who's to doubt it -- then human action can effect changes in the opposite direction. That was Mr. Gore's positive message, that we have it in our power to change the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and thus bring about a normalization of the earth's temperature. Many nation's have already taken action. Only the USA and Australia failed to sign the Kyoto protocol, an international treaty designed to lower CO2 emissions. But the USA emits more than 30% of the CO2 currently entering the atmosphere, so without our participation, the efforts of the rest of the world may be ineffective.
On the other hand, it could be that our current administration knows all that and sees that if the rest of the world actually takes action to solve the problem, while we do nothing, the ecocomic differential between us and them may be broadened to such an extent that they will be unable to compete. But this so-called "advantage" is countered by the fact that sound environmental policies, integrated into the economic base, produce economic advantages that leverage the implementing nations to the disadvantage of those that fail to obey nature's demands. The Japanese auto industry long ago decided to manufacture high-mileage automobiles (thereby decreasing emissions of CO2), and today Toyota and Honda are prospering while Ford and GM flounder. It may be that the Japanese acted for reasons only peripherally related to global warming, but now that we can see the benefits of their strategy in terms of CO2 emissions, we can -- and should -- ground our actions in the light of the lessons learned by the Japanese "experiment."
Tomorrow, I will write about how the illusion of the modern "philosopher's stone," called "Adam Smith's invisible hand," has made it possible for the PR firms to create so much doubt in the face of so much fact.
Ok, with that upgrade now made to the way English shall be spoken, let me tell you about a great myzling (noun form) that has been perpetrated on the world by certain forces in America. Global warming is real, and yet most people -- including the Mouse until yesterday -- believe doubt exists among the scientific community regarding its reality. Last night, milady and I went down to Charlottesville to a little art theater to see Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth. Now I will admit that Gore may be myzling us too, but if so, he managed it well. He's had his way with me. Here's the line of reasoning that converted me to his way of thinking -- and which, incidentally, illustrates the news media biases I was yawping about yesterday.
A study was made to determine the extent to which the scientific community agreed or disagreed with the consensus opinion that global warming is real. A random sample of scientific peer-reviewed papers was taken, and of the 960+ papers reviewed, zero percent disagreed. That is, all of the scientific community agreed that global warming is real. A separate sample of 650+ media articles was then pulled to test the extent to which the media agreed that global warming was real. More than half (53%) thought there was "some doubt." What was a certainty among those who know, was "in doubt" among those who tell us what to believe.
Gore went on briefly to show how this doubt was created. Public relations firms were hired and were given the job of creating doubt. One of the firms boasted, in a private communication, that "doubt is our product." A senator, who was either bought and paid for or "convinced" (i.e., myzled) by the PR firm, went so far as to say, "Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." [I won't say the senator's name, but part of it was "Imhofe."]
The results of these studies immediately caused me to reflect on yesterday's blog. Those PR firms did not aim their "doubt" at householders like you and me; they went after the news media. I have personally seen at least seven panel discussions on global warming in which both sides (as if there were two sides) were presented. The PR firm's idea, of course, was that they could get more bang for the buck by having the media carry their message than they would get by a junk mail broadside. Their aim was not to convince, but only to create doubt. I can attest to the fact that until I saw the results of the surveys Mr. Gore reported, the strategy had been effective, at least on a humble Mouse.
But then, one might ask: "Even if global warming is a fact (and not a hoax) perhaps it is merely cyclic in nature, just the weather making its normal sine wave of ups and downs; maybe humankind has had nothing to do with it."
That was the main source of Mouse's myzlement (before yesterday). It seemed entirely possible that all the data about warming could be explained as only nature taking her course. But then came Gore with another pot-load of hard fact.
For at least two decades scientists have taken ice core samples from the ice sheets of Anarctica, and by analyzing the contents of air bubbles found in those cores have been able to draw an accurate picture of CO2 and temperature variations over the past 650,000 years. Gore used a huge graphic screen to display those pictures. Looking at the graph lines we could see the past seven ice ages clearly depicted, and see just as clearly that the CO2 measure tracked almost perfectly with the temperature gradient. The dramatic changes in temperature that led to, and brought the earth out of, the ice ages could have been predicted by anyone knowledgeable of the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
But then came the hard part, the truly frightening part. At the highest points reached by the temperature of the earth over the past 650,000 years, the ratio of CO2 to other constituents of the atmosphere never exceeded 300 parts per million. But today that ratio has already gone way beyond that upper threshhold and if the rate of increase continues will be off the chart.
Thus, when nature had the world to herself, when human actions contributed little or nothing to the CO2 mix in the atmosphere, the cycle of extreme cold and extreme warming produced the world as we know it, at least, as we knew it 75 years ago. The polar ice caps and the glacial formations in the high parts of the earth's land masses were such that humankind could live in relative comfort. But if the warming level exceeds the peak levels reached in the past, the ice caps and glaciers will melt and the balance of temperature and temperature related effects will be upset, and life as we know it will dramatically change. It may in fact become impossible.
The facts demonstrated by the evidence in the ice core samples proves that the current levels of CO2 accumulation and the attendant rises in temperature have been brought about by human action. So the certainty of global warming has been joined by the additional certainty that humankind is a contributor to the problem.
But that's actually the good part. If human action is causative in nature -- and who's to doubt it -- then human action can effect changes in the opposite direction. That was Mr. Gore's positive message, that we have it in our power to change the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and thus bring about a normalization of the earth's temperature. Many nation's have already taken action. Only the USA and Australia failed to sign the Kyoto protocol, an international treaty designed to lower CO2 emissions. But the USA emits more than 30% of the CO2 currently entering the atmosphere, so without our participation, the efforts of the rest of the world may be ineffective.
On the other hand, it could be that our current administration knows all that and sees that if the rest of the world actually takes action to solve the problem, while we do nothing, the ecocomic differential between us and them may be broadened to such an extent that they will be unable to compete. But this so-called "advantage" is countered by the fact that sound environmental policies, integrated into the economic base, produce economic advantages that leverage the implementing nations to the disadvantage of those that fail to obey nature's demands. The Japanese auto industry long ago decided to manufacture high-mileage automobiles (thereby decreasing emissions of CO2), and today Toyota and Honda are prospering while Ford and GM flounder. It may be that the Japanese acted for reasons only peripherally related to global warming, but now that we can see the benefits of their strategy in terms of CO2 emissions, we can -- and should -- ground our actions in the light of the lessons learned by the Japanese "experiment."
Tomorrow, I will write about how the illusion of the modern "philosopher's stone," called "Adam Smith's invisible hand," has made it possible for the PR firms to create so much doubt in the face of so much fact.
posted by Benedict S. at 10:12 AM
12 Comments:
It was my understanding (from the distant past) that the verb myzled only existed in past tense, because that was the girl's mistaken reading of the word "misled." Glad to see it's been expanded to a variety new uses, but I -- a purist -- feel that its correct form is the lovely mispronunciation as in, "Sir, I feel I have been myzed."
Truthfully,I have never "myzled" anyone in my life.I was more of the BullSh%ting kind,I could BS almost anyone that would listen,ah,am I telling on myself?
IT's the leftist folks that doesn't want global warming known as a fact.Other extreme leftists who support socialism are the primary
mouthpieces of this movment, and to some, new found religion.That
alone should scare the Hell out of the American public. Environmental issue come with a price tag
and so far we have shown ourselves unwilling to pay it,or even change
our way of living to help the situation.
Who do I hate worse than the media? Rush Limbaugh,his lies are heard by millions on his radio talk show.
It is common practice for industry to wage scientific and public
relations war against the regulatory agencies whose job is to protect
public health. The Wall Street Journal reports that PR firm executives openly admit to hiring university professors to put their names on ghost-written letters to the editor.The letters are written by hacks paid to put a corporate "spin" on the science, and the experts sign their names to lend credence to the spin (and to earn a fat fee). Another common practice these days is "seeding the scientific literature" with bogus results, to create doubt and confusion. In recent years, corporations have seeded the literature with false findings related to tobacco, lead, mercury, asbestos, vinyl chloride,
chromium, nickel, benzene, beryllium and others. They cook the
numbers, publish misleading articles in obscure journals, and then
cite their own work to create confusion and doubt.
Miss Finding: I appreciate your concern for the alternate spelling and pronumciation of "myzled," but unfortunately this particular absurdity -- unlike many of the Mouse's creations -- is based in fact. The young lady was real, and her pronunciation was as I have phoneticized it. Besides, if we do it your way there will be -- forgive me this transgression -- the missing "L" to pay.
John (A): It is good to remember that a true confession is to the soul as the little tart sorbet between the courses of a gourmet meal. It cleanses the crannies wherein are bred the greater deceits of immortal classics.
As for those professorial men who permit their names to be used in nefarious schemes, may their tribe develop a yellow scurvy -- or some other ill odored affliction. [Miss F. I need help here for a word, a more alliterative disease than "yellow scurvy," some affliction that rolls off the tongue with the sonorous cadences of pure disgust.]
Sorry, that "myzed" was a typo. Ruined the whole thing, didn't it? Can't think of a alliterative disease at the moment...maybe tomorrow.
John (A),: I'd love to hear more about how -- and particularly, why -- leftists and religionists are trying to deny global warming. I can understand why the oil industry and the power companies would be so motivated, but the motives of the left are much too subtle for this poor little Mouse.
Miss Finding: Typos come and go but the irony of your comment will endure, perhaps not forever, but at least until this blog cycles off the bottom of the page. Purist indeed!
How can we expect that if we pour millions of tons of chemical waste into the atmosphere it will not have a profound effect on the environment? There probably are cylical patterns to the weather, however, it has only been within the last sixty or so years that we have been dumping waste into our air. This practice most likely is either speeding up the natural cycle or causing something new to occur. At any rate, we need to take measures o either slow or reverse the trend if future generations are going to have a chance at life on this planet.
Someone (;/) mentioned Rush Limbaugh( again), in my opinion some of the biggest lies he tells are lies about the environment. When I was in the habit of listening to his show it grated on my nerves any time he would start in on "the environmental wackos", this was a big reason that I stopped listening to him.
On a related note I caught 20 bluefish and 1 small striped bass on the Vineyard( all caught and released). My kids, who did not fish as much as thier dad or thier uncle, each caught a couple of fish and a bag of (I kid you not)medical waste which daddy dutifully unhooked and buried(hope I don't catch anything!)
Well gotta go weed and water the bird garden my students created, and then tutor a kid who has been having problems with reading.
No time to edit...
Off to Brigantine later today- you know what they say,"Life's a beach"...
CE: Too many people -- those not attuned to the way show biz works -- see Limbaugh as something of a wizard, when actually he's an entertainer. His schtick works only half-assedly. Too many of his audience take him seriously and thus miss the great gobs of ironic humor he ladels out. If laughter is the best medicine, Limbaugh is a tonic for incurable diseases.
On the other hand, I could be wrong about this. The guy may actually be serious, in which case, we should wish upon him that "alliterative disease" Miss Finding will supply the name of as soon as she comes to her senses after a dreamful night's rest.
It's not hard to see why top level conservatives deny global
warming: because they would lose money trying to mitigate it.
Therefore, they've successfully managed to bundle it with
abortion and gay marriage and all the other things "Good Christians" should reject.
The Religious Right & The Road To Environmental Apocalypse
By Glenn Scherer
Abortion. Same-sex marriage. Stem-cell research. US legislators backed by the Christian Right vote against these issues with near-perfect consistency.
That probably doesn't surprise you, but this might: Those same legislators are equally united in their opposition to environmental protection.
Forty-five senators and 186 representatives earned 80- to 100-percent approval ratings from the nation's three most influential Christian right advocacy groups-the Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council-in 2003. Many of those lawmakers also got flunking grades-scoring less than 10 percent, on average-from the League of Conservation Voters.James Watt, told Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. "God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back,"
Watt said in public testimony that helped get him fired.
Many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End-Time, when the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven,and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire. They may also believe, as do millions of Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but welcomed-even hastened-as a sign of the coming Apocalypse.
We are not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are
beholden to these beliefs. The 231 legislators (all but five of them
Republicans) who received an average 80 percent approval rating from leading religious-right organizations make up over 40 percent of the US Congress.
These officials include some of the most powerful figures in government, and key environmental decision makers: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN),Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Conference Chair Rick
Santorum (R-PA), House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), and President
Bush.
Because of its power as a voting bloc, the Christian Right has the ear, if not the souls, of much of the nation's leadership. Some of those leaders are End-Time believers themselves. Others are not. Either way, their votes are swayed by an electoral base that accepts the Bible as literal truth and
eagerly awaits the Apocalypse. That, in turn, is sobering news for those who hope for the protection of the Earth, not its destruction.
mouse,I am surprised you didn't already know this!
This information is spooky. I think someone is being myzled.
John (A): I was vaguely aware of the religious right's ostrich-like behavior re: global warming. It was your statement about the "left" that has me puzzled.
Miss Finding: I think John (A) was myzling us about the left being soft on global warming. But knowing him as we all do, I would suggest that the myzlement he created was a result of a misstatement, an unintended consequence of too much mousing around before 7 in the morning.
Honestly,myzleing? was not my intentionn.In fact I can't remember now why I even brought up the Leftists.I blame it all on the heat and my age.I walked out of my PT building this morning around 10:30am and the heat hit me like walking straight into a wall.
Post a Comment
<< Home