Which is more likely to be propaganda "An Inconvenient Truth" or the ExxonMobil's disinformation campaign

Question

about global warming? (see link)

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

Chuckles; very entertaining lol.
Captainobvious; Perhaps you don't know about the Union of Concerned Scientists - they're a group of top scientists in all field including many Nobel laureates from both sides of the political divide. Read the report - you'll find the truth.

CaptainObvious part 2;

Yes I do know science. I'm a working scientist for the last 25 years. Are you talking about "dissenting" opinions? Yes, I know all about that. People in environmental science have to publish through the peer review system. ExxonMobil circumvented that in setting up its sham science publications.

Captain part 3; Hey I checked out your links, one of them had this disclaimer; "Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate". Another was an opinion piece by a guy who says he's not very good at science and one was an actual peer reviewed science paper. Congrats! you found one! Check out this link; a survey of 928 peer reviewed papers on the topic during a ten year span - not one contradicted the IPCC consensus opinion.

Oops, forgot the link;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Answer 1

I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" and it was based on scientific data. Is it an opinion? Yes, but it is an educated opinion. I don't know why some people are so hell-bent that it is some kind of conspiracy.

Answer 2

they are both propaganda, and if you don't understand this then you will never understand the nature of the information age we are living in and how power and knowledge are disseminated and used.
that being said, I can rhetorically ask you which of these examples of propaganda do you prefer?
exxons disinformation campaign is pretty insidious, and it helps them and their cronies to keep doing what they do to make billions of dollars for themselves.
an inconvenient truth makes a claim to a higher, nobler goal, but the reality is that it is mostly just conversation fodder at the water cooler for people who probably drove to work alone in an SUV and left the light on at home when they left, and it doesn't really change anything. what it does is make people feel more anxious and worried about problems they feel impotent to resolve. this in turn makes people consume more in order to relieve their anxiety, thus allowing consumers and megacorporations to go on making billions of dollars for themselves. and that's pretty insidious too.
frankly, I don't trust the information I'm given by either source. They have entertainment value, but I try to worry more about what I myself can do to make a positive impact on my world instead of listening to the slick car salesmen or the prophets of doom and gloom. both are products of mass media. both encourage consumption, apathy, passivity, low-grade unrelenting anxiety, and tell us that our actions are useless because they want to be the beneficiaries when we surrender our freedoms. the freedoms that they each ask us to give up are only slightly different, but not much. don't forget that celluloid is a petroleum product.

Answer 3

The difference with tobacco companies is that the tobacco companies did their own research that proved smoking could result in cancer, then denied it could.
Exxonmobil is disputing independent research.

Answer 4

lol. that article is propaganda saying someone else spends money for propaganda... funny. ITS A THEORY. Not proven either way. It is wrong for a company to spend money to show people that it may or may not be justified.... sounds like the writers of that article are the ones trying to say their views are a fact when in reality they are not. so who is worse?

Answer 5

Inconvenient Truth, because the scientist forgot about the oncoming "ice age" that was so publicized in the 70's.

Answer 6

of course the latter...they have a vested interest, Al Gore does not

Answer 7

I would say "An Inconvenient Truth." Scientists lie about evolution, they lie about abortion, they always get nutrition wrong, they cannot cure a simple disease of multiplying cells...

Why trust them on this?

Answer 8

certainly the latter.