global temperature is increasing so much, I need an air conditioner this year!

Paz on 2/3/2007 at 13:16

I was hoping for an elaborate plot involving Lizardmen, but oh well.

You are correct about the number of people who discuss this without any concept of the topic (see any other topic in history). In this actual thread there are dingbats using IT WAS SUNNY LAST YEAR, NO WAIT NOW IT'S SNOWING as relevant scientific data, which shows how low the public understanding is.

However, to directly steal from RBJ:

Quote:

I'm pretty happy going along with the rational 99% of the scientific community who can look at the totality of the evidence and say "Yeah, there's definitely SOMETHING fucked up going on here. Even if we don't know all of the causes and effects yet, we're starting to get a handle on it."

That's roughly where I am with this too.

I can't really buy into any idea of "people warning about damage to the environment are doing it to be noticed!" There are two figures who have risen to prominence in connection with Climate Change. One is Al Gore, and he is AL GORE - HE WAS ALREADY KIND OF IMPORTANT. I don't think he'd have been struggling for appointments without his film career.

The other one is Captain Planet.

Captain Planet, helpfully, being a reminder that this isn't an issue which arrived out of nowhere to perk up an electorate. Greenhouse Gases, Melting Polar Icecaps - all of this stuff has been around since at least the 90s. Presumably earlier in scientific publications, before it filtered into the public consciousness.

Also, no-one would ever apply this argument to any other areas of scientific study - so why this one?

"He doesn't really want to cure aids, he's just doing it to be famous/get a grant/join a bandwagon!"

I mean, what? That's not really a consistent or sustainable viewpoint if you apply it beyond this single issue.

The problem, as ever, seems to be that certain parties have decided this is something over which there is a need to take "sides."

Vivian on 2/3/2007 at 13:33

Scientists don't make stuff up. (Well, not often. There was that cloning guy recently, but he got mauled for it).
Why is it, when it comes to stuff like this, that everyone think that their own opinion is worth decades of painstaking research? The consensus amoung climate modeling scientists is that something wierd is happening as a result of all the stuff we're digging up out the earth and farting back into the atmosphere. This is backed up by a wealth of photographic, sonographic, geophysic and anecdotal evidence of mealting ice-shelves and permafrost all over the world, evidence of disruption to deep water current systems, wierd fish migrations etc etc. Go search nature or science or even new scientist if you don't believe me.
Anything else, people would say, 'Oh. Well I guess you're the experts, and you have a rigorous philosophy of self-review and error checking, so I believe what you say', but with climate change there seems to be an abundance of dingbats who look outside their (temporate zone) house and say 'Doesn't feel any hotter to me! These scientists don't know what they talk about!'.

I mean, fuck! You don't get people debating the existence of hawking radiation based on what some crackerjack stinkpot said about it at the local bar.

Bugs on 2/3/2007 at 13:50

I guess it comes down to the fact that there are various political parties who don't want to face up to the problem due to the financial/economic commitments it would necessitate. It would cost money, consume time and effort now to fix these problems, which would be the current government/peoples problem.

Now if we put it off, it's someone else's problem, let them deal with it, we can continue milking the planet, having it good etc.

See, there is a vested interest in saying it is not true, far more so than in those that say it is, in my humble opinion.

All kind of reminds me a bit of the scientific proof of the connection between smoking and cancer...

Fingernail on 2/3/2007 at 13:54

Besides, the original post here ridicules the "tiny" overall average whatever temperature change.

Ice ages usually represent, if I recall correctly, average global temperature changes of perhaps 1 - 3 degrees Celsius. LOL I'D BETTER GET OUT MY SCARF.

So yes, even a fraction of a degree could be quite a step out of line, when you take into account thinning of polar ice, and the rest of the evidence.

Convict on 2/3/2007 at 16:37

Quote Posted by Paz

I would like to know the theoretical basis for humanity's impact on the global environment being some sort of conspiracy. The idea intrigues me.

Anyone who subscribes to this view, please outline the following:

~ Who or what is at the head of this conspiracy - the illuminati/aliens/communists/other?

~ What is to be gained from this conspiracy?

~ And by which parties/people/organisations?

~ By what means has this conspiracy been perpetrated?

~ How have large chunks of the worldwide scientific community been brought "on side" for this?

~ Anything else relevant you'd like to throw in.

I'm not trolling here, I really want to know what the structural argument behind a belief of this kind might look like. I can't promise that you'll avoid ridicule, but I'd still like to know.

~ Who or what is at the head of this conspiracy - the illuminati/aliens/communists/other? aka
~ And by which parties/people/organisations?
The liberal media, Democrats, Hollywood.

~ What is to be gained from this conspiracy?
Power and furthering of their leftist liberal agenda. By convincing the sheeple of this lie then the Democrats and liberal Left gain respectability and credibility with the average mum and dads of America and the world. By convincing the sheeple of this lie then the limousine liberals and chardonnay socialists can push their other more radical ideas into mainstream thought of the nation.

~ By what means has this conspiracy been perpetrated?
Gathering pieces of information and amalgamating them in arbitrary and unscientific manners to yield spurious conclusions. Funding research into areas likely to yield results which can be inferred to the desired conclusion.

~ How have large chunks of the worldwide scientific community been brought "on side" for this?
Large chunks of the scientific community believed bloodletting cured illnesses and large chunks of the scientific community rejected hand washing as a method for preventing infection (childbed fever).

~ Anything else relevant you'd like to throw in.
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”

Paz on 2/3/2007 at 16:53

I'm glad you've developed enough of a sense of humour to attempt parody - not a bad effort either!

Convict on 2/3/2007 at 16:54

parody? :(

Paz on 2/3/2007 at 16:56

Oh come on, you needed to tone it down a bit to really rope people in. That first paragraph gives it away.

The rest was top-notch though.

Gestalt on 2/3/2007 at 17:14

Quote Posted by Convict

By convincing the sheeple of this lie then the limousine liberals and chardonnay socialists...

You need to be more subtle at the beginning if you want to write better satire. If you'd ramped up to something like this at the end, it would have been more believable. One thing that works pretty well is to start out sounding reasonable and then slowly add in more ridiculous statements as you go on while maintaining that original serious and earnest tone. In your case you ruined the pacing by throwing out the deranged stuff right near the start, and missed the chance for an amusing build-up.

Aerothorn on 3/3/2007 at 05:20

What I love is that Thief is in Florida :)

Anyone remember how flat Florida is? And how high it is above sea level? And that global warming involves rising oceans?

I just hope he and TTLG will be around in 50 years when half of the state is underwater.

"OH IT'S NOT REALLY GLOBAL WARMING, IT'S JUST THAT WATER NATURALLY EXPANDS EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE"