SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
NASA chief scientist weighs in
Americans are "under siege" from disinformation designed to confuse the public about the threat of climate change, Nasa's former chief scientist has said.
Speaking to the Guardian, Ellen Stofan, who left the US space agency in December, said that a constant barrage of half-truths had left many Americans oblivious to the potentially dire consequences of continued carbon emissions, despite the science being unequivocal.
"We are under siege by fake information that's being put forward by people who have a profit motive," she said, citing oil and coal companies as culprits. "Fake news is so harmful because once people take on a concept it's very hard to dislodge it."
During the past six months, the US science community has woken up to this threat, according to Stofan, and responded by ratcheting up efforts to communicate with the public at the grassroots level as well as in the mainstream press.
"The harder part is this active disinformation campaign," she said before her appearance at Cheltenham Science Festival this week. "I'm always wondering if these people honestly believe the nonsense they put forward. When they say 'It could be volcanoes' or 'the climate always changes'... to obfuscate and to confuse people, it frankly makes me angry."
Stofan added that while "fake news" is frequently characterised as a problem in the right-leaning media, she saw evidence of an "erosion of people's ability to scrutinise information" across the political spectrum. "All of us have a responsibility," she said. "There's this attitude of 'I read it on the internet therefore it must be true'."
No editorial comment included.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @09:16PM (10 children)
As soon as a player acts in such a fashion, then that is no longer an example of capitalism.
If a monopolistic player is so dangerous, then why are you so eager to make government a monopolistic player? It makes no sense!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 11 2017, @10:04PM (9 children)
Ah, so that's where I misplaced my true Scotsman, thanks for bringing it back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @10:12PM (8 children)
The outcome given does not match the definition of capitalism; it is an example of behavior that is forbidden under capitalism.
There has been no implicit re-statement of capitalism or moving of the goal posts, or whatever.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 11 2017, @10:23PM (7 children)
Without a guarantor, there's nobody to forbid that behaviour.
With a guarantor strong enough to forbid it, you slide back into "violently imposition monopoly" (or "corporatist war", much worse than "state war" - for corporations, humans are just resources).
You are advertising an utopia, in the best case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @10:43PM (6 children)
Your answer makes no sense; if a monopoly is so dangerous, then why would you ever want to bless and ordain an organization ("government") with a monopoly on violence??? That's insane!
Your solution depends upon men (specifically, governmental bureaucrats) being angels: "a corporatist war is much worse than a state war, because for corporations, humans are just resources". You have no basis for assuming that dependency will be met—you've pulled it right out of your arse; you are advertising a utopia, in the best case.
Clearly, the solution is (as always) checks and balances; when it comes to providing the service of contract enforcement (or being a "guarantor", as you put it), then there must be competition, not an ordained and blessed monopoly. That is one of the reasons why there is not (and never will be) One World Government; the world is a much safer place when there is competition among the governments.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 11 2017, @10:48PM (2 children)
Ah, so you reckon corporatist wars are better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @11:06PM (1 child)
I'm recognizing that a "corporate war" is no worse than a "governmental war".
War is at its worst when it is not restricted by any kind of agreement; a war that breaks out between organizations that are founded on the "do-as-I-say" principle of coercion is likely to be much worse than a war that breaks out between organizations that have arisen under the "do-as-we-agreed" principle of capitalism.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 11 2017, @11:53PM
I doubt that. When an agreement breaks down, usually the parts invoke "you tricked me..." or "you forced me into a result that's detrimental".
When it happens, if violence is an option, at least one of the parties will try to use it. The stronger party (i.e. the one capable of most violence or the one that can afford the best mercenaries - your "private enforcers"), wins.
Guess what? Next time the winner will try the same course of actions - its prev experience and reputation pushes it towards.
Even if it's a Pyrrhic victory, others will do the same - because the annual shareholders meeting lets them no choice - in a dispute, it's either win or die trying.
At least govts can capitulate to spare its citizens, the corporates cannot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 11 2017, @11:44PM (1 child)
You are clueless about today's military and your ignorance of recent history is just plain astounding.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MostCynical on Sunday June 11 2017, @11:52PM
Governments get voted out, if the people don't like the war/overseas incursions/whatever, it happens quite suddenly (UK after WWII, Australia sith Vietnam)
Who votes the corporations out, when the war gets too ugly for the citizens? The shareholders (not if there is profit and dividend!)
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @05:45PM
Your solution depends on all men being angels instead of some men.