Dave Stancliff Noam Chomsky on ‘Why America can’t tackle Climate Change’ blogarama.com

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Noam Chomsky on ‘Why America can’t tackle Climate Change’

noam-chomsky-climate-change.jpg

Noam Chomsky has a big ol' brain, and over the years, he's devoted it to revolutionizing linguistics, pushing the boundaries of analytic philosophy, formulating trenchant political theory, and pissing off establishment figures. Whether or not you agree with his politics, there's no denying that he's a sharp fella. Which is why it's well worth watching his take on why the United States has thus far failed to tackle climate change: (Video below)

Image: cloud2013, Flickr, CC

Yes, I know YouTube lists the running time as 20+ minutes, but to get the climate-related part, you only need to listen to the first few.

Much of this has been said before -- that vested interests have been successful in confusing the American public by bombarding them with misinformation from various sources, that the media's failure in covering the climate story is twofold, and that the interests that combat climate action have institutional prerogatives to do so -- but Chomsky pulls it together so well, it could serve as a crash course on the roots of climate denial.

There's a bunch of interesting commentary on labor, health care, and the outsourcing of jobs -- even green ones -- that fills the second chapter of the vid, so if you have some time, it's worth a peek as well.

Story, video, photo source 

More on America and Climate Change
33 US Generals & Admirals Say " Climate Change is Threatening National Security"
How Climate Change Could Destroy America

4 comments:

Rose said...

We should become a team. Point - counterpoint.

"Cause I think you ought to post the ClimateGate revelations that haven't gotten any mainstream press. the admissions by top "Global Warming" pushers that it is all bunk... WattsUpWithThat's expose on where the temperature stations are located - it'll blow your mind.

See, we'd make a good team.

Dave Stancliff said...

Thanks for the implied respect.

We are already point-counterpoint and that's cool.

It's nice to get comments. Most of my readers (I'd say 99%) never comment.

I can't help wondering why at times, especially when I look at my stat counter info and see how much time some people spend reading my blog.

One final thought: it's always good to look at the other side of any issue if you really want to seek the truth.

Rose said...

It's not implied respect. It is honest respect. And honest disagreement usually but this time - I agree. it's always good to look at the other side of any issue if you really want to seek the truth. That's why Al Gore's dishonest statement that the "debate was over," was so bad.

It's even worse now that Climategate has revealed what many of us knew to be true - they were actively working to stifle dissenting opinion, working to discredit scientists who raised legitimate questions, and working to dupe the American people, the whole world even.

It's all about money. Money and power.

If they can convince you to put on the hair shirt, and they can pass cap and trade and put on the chains, and you allow them to control the whips - you know the end of this story.

Future generations will look back at Al Gore and the warmistas as the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society.

If they survive the coming ice age and the Yellowstone Caldera. Or the swine flu, or the deadly asteroid...

But at the very least, Al Gore should be drug through every public square and flogged within an inch of his sorry dishonest life. That crazed sex-poodle.

Rose said...

How many of your readers are even aware of the Climategate emails - and what was contained within?

And why is the media so happy to print all the Wikileaks revelations, but none of the Climategate revelations?

Why did the major media claim that ClimateGate emails were "private" and thus should NOT be printed or examined, but said quite the opposite about the "private" (classified, even) Wikileaks documents?

Does any of that make sense to you?