Merged "Eco-Fascist Snuff Movie"

[TraneWreck]

The ad is simplistic, this is about all it is about. There is no second level of interpretation, this is what it says.

I'm arguing that I don't think there's a first level of interpretation. I think it was an attention grabbing ploy with little meaning. Possibly the writers thought it was funny.

It begins like all boring-ass environmental PFA's. EVen the people in the add look bored, then BANG.

I really don't see any message beyond that. Do you really think the theme was, "support environmentalists or die?"

 

[Pardalis]

I'm arguing that I don't think there's a first level of interpretation.

You think it's really that dumb?

Do you really think the theme was, "support environmentalists or die?"

Yes.

Environmentalists are known for their shock campaigns. This is one of them.

You think I'm making too much of it, I think you're trying to excuse it by diminishing its content.

 

[TraneWreck]

You think it's really that dumb?

Yes, I do. I think some misguided writers were trying to be funny and grab some attention.

Environmentalists are known for their shock campaigns. This is one of them.

I'll agree with that much.

 

[DC]

When do you predict this extinction of humans?

when there are enough red buttons

you know, go to the people in Tuvalu and explain to them that there is no problem.

 

[bit_pattern]

What? According to scientists, the problem in the 1970's was that the Earth was cooling.

No, according to TIme and Newsweek we were about to plunge into an ice age, the scientific community was much more considered and while there were a small handful of papers supporting global cooling, the VAST majority of papers published in that decade were either supportive of a global warming or remained neutral.

During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different from what you see today. There was far less integration among the various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

* 7 articles predicting cooling
* 44 predicting warming
* 20 that were neutral

In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales.

We do not expect that this work will stop the mole from popping its head back up in the future. But we do hope that when it does, this analysis will provide a foundation for a more thoughtful discussion about what climate scientists were and were not saying back in the 1970s.

Update: Full paper available here.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/

Once again, a denial talking point is exposed as the empty shell of an argument it really is.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Oh dear, we have a JREF AGW thread discussing science. Does this mean thread deletion in 3.. 2..

And as usual there is no sign of understanding the papers. The Miskolczi paper includes a constraint in the atmospheric model that has no physical or empirical support. The paper is dross, worthless as it stands. The only reason it attains noteriety is that "realclimate" haven't explained what is wrong with it, leaving the AGW advocates who normally just link to realclimate with no way of answering.

And the nature paper in response? Despite the flowery language in the abstract, all it does is confirm the constituent parts of the atmosphere are as expected, and that the spectral lines are exactly what we measure them to be in the lab. It doesn't address any of the real issues and uncertainties surrounding AGW, nor does it provide any kind of a counter to the Miskolczi paper.

I'm still yet to read an AGW thread in which people understand the science, rather than just pitch random papers past each other, link to blogs, and label their own understanding as "the science". (Sometimes even with a capital "S"!) But then, understanding is not an algorithmic process.

 

[DC]

Oh dear, we have a JREF AGW thread discussing science. Does this mean thread deletion in 3.. 2..

And as usual there is no sign of understanding the papers. The Miskolczi paper includes a constraint in the atmospheric model that has no physical or empirical support. The paper is dross, worthless as it stands. The only reason it attains noteriety is that "realclimate" haven't explained what is wrong with it, leaving the AGW advocates who normally just link to realclimate with no way of answering.

And the nature paper in response? Despite the flowery language in the abstract, all it does is confirm the constituent parts of the atmosphere are as expected, and that the spectral lines are exactly what we measure them to be in the lab. It doesn't address any of the real issues and uncertainties surrounding AGW, nor does it provide any kind of a counter to the Miskolczi paper.

I'm still yet to read an AGW thread in which people understand the science, rather than just pitch random papers past each other, link to blogs, and label their own understanding as "the science". (Sometimes even with a capital "S"!) But then, understanding is not an algorithmic process.

there are a handful of people on JREF Forum that do understand the science, why don't you go tell them, i would like to see them getting challenged for once.

 

[Pardalis]

there are a handful of people on JREF Forum that do understand the science, why don't you go tell them, i would like to see them getting challenged for once.

That's for another thread. This one is about the ad campaign.

 

[DC]

That's for another thread. This one is about the ad campaign.

when i said go tell them, i meant they should go and post in the other thread.

 

[a_unique_person]

In the 1970's, even with all those C02 emissions, scientists insisted the Earth was cooling. Imagine the temperature changes today if back then their acolytes made a video of exploding school kids to spook the heretics.

"Scientists" didn't. A few scientists thought the idea was worth pursuing, as scientists often do. After a few years, it was realised the earth was warming, not cooling, and the idea died off. After 30 years, AGW is still around, and the more research that is done, the more the reality of it is confirmed.

 

[CoolSceptic]

there are a handful of people on JREF Forum that do understand the science, why don't you go tell them, i would like to see them getting challenged for once.

JREF has some posters who I consider to have an incredible, deep and thoughtful knowledge and understanding of science. None of them post on AGW threads, and I can't blame them. You just get flooded with nonsense not dissimilar from "there is no science debate".

Pardalis is right, though, for the same reasons I gave in #146, so lets get this back to the ad.

It appears, following the exit of Sony and Kyocera, O2 are going to try and weather the storm - so 10:10 may retain one of its three main corporate sponsors. It now appears one of their media partners may be withdrawing - NatMag is conspicuously absent from the 10:10 page, leaving just the Guardian.

Despite the views of many here that it is no big deal, it seems those who actually have to conduct business in the real world disagree.

 

[TraneWreck]

Oh dear, we have a JREF AGW thread discussing science. Does this mean thread deletion in 3.. 2..

[...]

I'm still yet to read an AGW thread in which people understand the science, rather than just pitch random papers past each other, link to blogs, and label their own understanding as "the science". (Sometimes even with a capital "S"!) But then, understanding is not an algorithmic process.

It must be difficult to be the lone voice of sanity and credibility in such a terrible world.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

hahahaha, nice try, almost fell for it.

you used some in relation to some people imagen they are fascists but you didnt use in reference to the Global Warming advocates.

Whatever (I actually don't understand what you are saying), but you haven't shown why it (I) is groupthink.

He is wrong.

Again, how?

I gave a specific symptom of groupthink that related directly to bitpatterns post. You give... well nothing actually.

 

[Travis]

Yeah, but in all due respect, the people living around you weren't the target demographic and, quite frankly, those people are going to believe everything they hear about AGW through the denialosphere echo-chamber is proof that it just a communist plot. Nothing is going to change their minds so who gives two hoots what they think? They probably think evolution is a communist plot and that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim hell bent on ushering in the Fifth International too. I don't think AGW activists should really bother wasting the brain-cells on worrying what a bunch of uneducated, reactionary, hicks from America, who only hear about climate change news through the usual denial-channels anyway, think about what they do. Really, those people couldn't get anymore irrelevant.

I think this incorrect. A lot of them are genuinely confused. A great deal of them remember the "global cooling" scare and think this is similar. They actually aren't aware of the differences and open to hearing about them. But someone has to be willing to tell them. Many see the light when you explain it from a pure physics/chemistry perspective explaining how the whole thing words as a mechanical model. They then get it. What they often don't get is just the nebulous "warming" thing they hear only sparse things about on the evening news and then usually only in the context of a political debate in the legislature.

What they do rather correctly see is that there are a lot of alarmists that are using this for their own political purposes: see Greenpeace. Getting them to look past such brazen eco-political-manipulators is hard and things like this advertisement will only make it harder. I know it took many years for me to come around on this because of my own distrust of the crooked environmental groups.

 

[CoolSceptic]

It must be difficult to be the lone voice of sanity and credibility in such a terrible world.

Interesting that you think JREF AGW threads are synonymous with the entire world. Is this a mistake that you make frequently? It could go some way to explaining your interpretation of the 10:10 ad.

 

[TraneWreck]

Interesting that you think JREF AGW threads are synonymous with the entire world. Is this a mistake that you make frequently? It could go some way to explaining your interpretation of the 10:10 ad.

I must say I'm relieved to learn that your cross is just a small one.

 

[CoolSceptic]

I must say I'm relieved to learn that your cross is just a small one.

Ew. That's about an 8 or 9 on the creepy scale, sarcastic or not.

Seriously though, the lack of scientific understanding on JREF AGW threads isn't a cross to bear, it is fascinating. In principle, sceptics (/skeptics) are supposed to be rational, critical thinkers yet the whole AGW debate shows a complete breakdown of reasoning. I'm amazed by the dynamics of it.

But that's the thing: when a scientist, by their very nature, sees an anomaly, they are fascinated by it, and want to investigate and understand it. If you don't share that same passion, you'd never understand.

 

[TraneWreck]

Ew. That's about an 8 or 9 on the creepy scale, sarcastic or not.

Seriously though, the lack of scientific understanding on JREF AGW threads isn't a cross to bear, it is fascinating. In principle, sceptics (/skeptics) are supposed to be rational, critical thinkers yet the whole AGW debate shows a complete breakdown of reasoning. I'm amazed by the dynamics of it.

But that's the thing: when a scientist, by their very nature, sees an anomaly, they are fascinated by it, and want to investigate and understand it. If you don't share that same passion, you'd never understand.

No, you really are probably the sweetest, most awesome person anyone will have a chance to talk with. It's incredible you don't have a Nobel yet.

I've seen your passion at work. Although, to be fair, it's mostly a passion for sanctimony and triviality.

 

[Cicero]

I guess the Holocaust wasn't much of a problem, then, since some Jews survived...

After learning about the existence of the death camps, the Allies continued to concentrate on defeating the Axis by going after military targets in Europe rather than target the death camps and the rail lines to them. So while it was a "problem," there were more pressing problems like winning the war.

Are the warmers making an equivalency of MMGW to the holocaust?

Things can be very bad long before "extinction" occurs.

Since you have no general time period for this extinction of all of mankind due to MMGW, your "long before" moment for the "very bad" episode in this upcoming apocalypse is equally nebulous.

 

[TraneWreck]

After learning about the existence of the death camps, the Allies continued to concentrate on defeating the Axis by going after military targets in Europe rather than target the death camps and the rail lines to them. So while it was a "problem," there were more pressing problems like winning the war.

Are the warmers making an equivalency of MMGW to the holocaust?

Wow, you really missed the point.

Since you have no general time period for this extinction of all of mankind due to MMGW, your "long before" moment for the "very bad" episode in this upcoming apocalypse is equally nebulous.

No, I don't. In fact, I strongly doubt AGW will lead to the "extinction" of humanity. I do think it will make things very miserable for a massive number of folks.

It will also destroy a huge portion of existing flora and fauna. I don't want to live in a ****** world.

Why do damages need to be Apocalyptic before we can intervene?