Jon Excell, author of the essay to which Joe Fjelstad provided the link,
argues "surely it's time for a rethink: after all the world doesn't
appear to be getting any safer." This is remarkable, because he has just
argued not for more military spending but less. He apparently believes
that since all that money got spent on military research and it didn't
make the world safer, it was wasted. In the future, he says, the
taxpayers' money should be spent instead on social and environmental
concerns. I suggest that Jon is the one who needs to rethink.

In contrast, Steven Cherry's review of the movie "The 11th Hour," to
which Joe also referred us, is much more sophisticated. Brian liked it.
He says "It's a sad commentary on humankind that we need Hollywood
(actors and politicians) to put over science to the public." 

I say, how is one to distinguish between a documentary that puts science
over to the public and slick propaganda? Based on Cherry's review, this
movie strikes me as a very slick form of advocacy journalism indeed. So
slick, I gather, that people will pay to expose themselves to it as they
are being entertained by it. Given the short attention span of the
public, it will no doubt be very effective and make a lot of money for
the cause. 

Let's not mention that as a result of a lot of legislation voted on by
the public or their representatives, the environment in many ways is
getting better and not worse. Mentioning it would distract from the
urgency of the advocacy.

Of course, we need writers and movie makers to engage in advocacy
journalism because, at least in the US, the desires of the elitists and
their advocates, who know what is best, can still be thwarted by the
public. That public, despite their short attention spans, are not yet
ready to agree to all their imperatives. Irritatingly (for the
elitists), members of the public constitute a "consumer culture by which
[they] vote with [their] pocketbooks to continue to trash the world
instead of restoring it." 

If movies like this fail to get the public to see the error of its ways
and get with the agenda, the time will soon come in which mankind can no
longer afford the luxury of all that messy political process of
discussing and voting. There was a time when it was OK, but no longer.
It takes too long and risks having the wrong outcome. The elite will
have to replace voting with meritocracy - rule by selfless enlightened
individuals who have long enough attention spans and are smart enough to
understand the science, and who are wise enough to know what is best for
the world. Presumably those smart wise selfless elitists will all agree
with each other, and will be able to force people to pay for what is
best for them. Allowing people to vote with their pocketbooks to
continue to trash the world will be stopped for good.

Cherry's review says that the movie begins by "assuming the truth of
global warming and human responsibility for at least a large share of
it." All the people who matter already know that's true. So no need to
get involved in having to prove the assumption. Trying to do that might
confuse the public because of their lack of scientific sophistication as
well as short attention span. 

"Just trust us. After all, we have plenty of people who will tell you
that the discussion is over. The issue is settled. Just ignore anyone
who tries to tell you otherwise. Those nay-sayers don't know what they
are talking about, and besides, they have base motives and suspect
funding. We, on the other hand, have no agenda other than saving the
world by imposing our remedies. After all, if you can't trust the rich
and famous, who can you trust?" Hubris, I say.

Since we're drawing attention today to propaganda, here's my
recommendation: "Environmental Utopia," by Marita Noon,
http://www.responsiblenergy.org/newsroom/pr.asp#
<http://www.responsiblenergy.org/newsroom/pr.asp> . Posted earlier this
month, it compares, with citations, the stated and actual goals of
twenty environmental activist groups. At least the author admits to
having exaggerated a bit to make a point. That's something the elitists
never acknowledge doing (since the nobility of their causes justifies
the deceptiveness of their means). Including the author's picture and
bio, her essay is twenty-three pages long - much too long for the public
with its short attention span, so not much of a threat. 

Besides, no one needs to take any of what is said on this web site
seriously, because the source of funding for the organization hosting it
is suspect. Everyone knows not to trust anything that people with
suspect funding say - or even find out what they say. It's sure to be
propaganda and hence a waste of time. 

But for those who are curious despite all that warning, the final four
paragraphs of this posting are excerpts from this paper. 

We all want a green earth, clean water, fresh air and a safe food
supply. Wouldn't it be great if we could quit fighting all the evils in
the world, suddenly wave a magic wand and grant all of these
environmental groups their wishes? Wouldn't the world be a prettier
place, a perfect paradise? Does it sound too good to be true? It is.

A deeper study of the aforementioned environmental groups-plus many
others-reveals their true goals. If they could have all their dreams
come true, we'd revert back to, at the least, Colonial days and very
possibly we'd all be living in caves (though in reality, we'd all revolt
before that happened).

How did we get from paradise to pandemonium with one wave of the wand?
Read this carefully-documented, educational, and hopefully even
entertaining "Environmental Utopia" analysis. Yes, we have taken this
idea to a bit of an extreme to make a point, but it does expose the true
goals of a variety of environmental groups. Like the layers of an onion,
we will peel away the elements of American life that these groups would
have us eliminate. These are many of the same things that have made
America great-a country people are risking their lives for and a country
people are risking their lives to get into. 

Do you prefer the "necessities" of life? Do you like your car, your
microwave, your health and your house? Now that you are aware of the
changes that the seemingly innocent desires for a green earth could
force upon your life, it is time to do something about it. If you like
the American way of life, don't let the environmental groups take away
energy. Most of them have unattainable goals or goals that do not factor
in the complete picture. They fight to stop a perceived evil, without
looking at what else will be impacted. Which portions of your
lifestyle-or your children's or grandchildren's lifestyle-do you want to
give up in the name of saving the world from this or that speculative
environmental cataclysm?

Gordon Davy