SUNDAY, OCT 26, 2019: NOTE TO FILE
Misdirection
How not to tell the truth to power
Eric Lee, A-SOCIATED PRESS
TOPICS: MISINFORMATION, DISINFORMATION, FROM THE WIRES, FIRST TELL TRUTH TO SELF
Abstract: My wife is XR and I wish I could be. She doesn't share most of what social media has to offer, but surely an AOC interview of two credible scientists on climate change would be such music even to my critical ears, that I'd want to Like and Share it; I couldn't possibly dis on any of it, i.e. vet the claims and disagree or differ. Not agreeing is 'negative', something I would be better off not being.
COOS BAY (A-P) — XR is informing my wife. I asked her to send me the video she wanted to share so I could properly consider the information offered. She said it was just 5 minutes and that I could manage to get the point XR wanted to make by hosting the video. So there were voices and claims were made and I could not pause the flow to consider the claims.
I listened and nothing the scientists said was the least off-base, well, almost nothing. One question, however, was of interest. I asked for the link and mentioned 'one point was of interest' to avoid saying it was an AOC question that was of interest. Still, I was castigated for wanting to nitpick on some little point and go off on it while ignoring all the other important information.
On social media it is against the law to be 'negative' and she is frustrated trying to find confirming sources that I have nothing but praise and affirmation to offer. I understand, and often manage to avoid conflict, but this time saying 'one point' implied too much, was surely something negative, and I was toast. I refused to mention what the point of interest was. But I will here as there is little risk she will read this note or of my being in her presence if someday she does.
If I vet a source and conclude 'it's all good', then end of story. If a correction or qualifier merits making, then I may offer the service of making it. Often I don't have time or an audience who wants to hear, so I just make a mental note. The one point that caught my attention would have been a note to self that I may have thought about later, maybe. But this time I'm inclined to play the part I've been assigned to see where my negativity would go.
So I got the video, and it came from an XR YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYThdLKE6TDwBJh-qDC6ICA?feature=embeds_subscribe_title
With link to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqywSUFPc8s
Global warming
Examining the Oil Industry’s Efforts to Suppress the Truth about Climate Change
Extinction Rebellion
48.5K subscribers
23 October 2019 - Washington, D.C.
House Oversight Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
'Examining the Oil Industry’s Efforts to Suppress the Truth about Climate Change'
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questions to: Dr. Ed Garvey
(former Exxon scientist) and Dr. Martin Hoffert
(former Exxon consultant)
Join the rebellion: https://Rebellion.Earth/
International: https://Rebellion.Global/
#EverybodyNow
1. #TellTheTruth
2. #ActNow
3. #BeyondPolitics
World Map of Extinction Rebellion Groups: http://bit.ly/2IGXuM7
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ExtinctionR
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ExtinctionRe...
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ExtinctionR...
Category: Nonprofits & Activism
And the question:
0:39 'Are large corporation's use of fossil fuels one of the primary causes of climate change that we are seeing today?' [AOC]
'Yes is the simple answer.' [Dr. Ed Garvey (former Exxon scientist) or Dr. Martin Hoffert (former Exxon consultant)]
'Same here, yes.' [Dr. Garvey or Dr. Hoffert]
So watch the video. But nothing to see here, folks, no smoking guns..., I'm familiar with the Exxon story, so its all old news, if Exxon hadn't done what they did, then that would be of interest, but to nitpick, there are errors of omission. Of all 'primary causes' why even mention 'large corporations'? And the scientists misstepped slightly. They could have said, 'The question of where large corporations fall on the list of causes is above my paygrade.' 'Same here.'
To not beg the question, and ask one that matters, restate: 'What are the primary causes of climate change?' This is equivalent to asking, given that CO2 is primary proximal driver: 'What are the primary causes of fossil fuel use?' To which the two scientists would be more likely to not answer or at least qualify any answer. The question should be asked of someone more likely to know and to know how they know, and able to speak to margins of error. But congressmen don't want to be confused.
Why not ask:
- Do humans need to drive cars?
- Do four million people need to be sitting in airplanes at any given moment?
- Do over half of all humans of NIMH have to live in cities or do they just want to?
- Do we have to eat industrially produced food that is mostly made (indirectly) of fossil fuel?
- Do we need to consume more than 50 Wh electricity per person per day for personal use?
- Do trucks, planes, and trains need to transport food on average 1,500 miles to your mouth?
- And what about private jets, why are any needed to fly executives and the rich about, e.g. to Devos to hear Greta?
- If we end fossil fuel use in five years, what would be the sustainable population, to the nearest one hundred thousand, of humans on planet Earth?
- Is there an alternative to the nation-state-serving military-industrial complex, given that it is the primary user of fossil fuel and producer of greenhouse gases?
- Does the military alone, including such corporations as supply it, use more fossil fuels than all the other large corporations (and the smaller ones who supply them) put together?
Any wannabe politician who asked any of the above questions would not be electable. XR enthusiasts, who are 'beyond politics' even if their leaders are not, can't think in terms of real solutions. But it's corporations who are to blame for global warming, as two scientists testified under oath. In January 2019, AOC informed the public, 'the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change' as fighting to mitigate the effects of climate change is her generation's 'World War II'. War hawks never consider the possibility that war may do more harm than good.
A politician can ask about large corporations being to blame as clearly they need regulation by you know who. We need a Green New Deal to save the world, some politicians may sing, but true believers can't ask if two plus two really equals four if doing so failed to support one or more of the 'solutions' they favor.
So down with democracy, up with naturocracy, bitches.
