I thought that I would take a look at the dolphin poster project as well as the networking poster project (mainly because they are the two that I remember). At first, I was struggling with how I could possibly draw some connections between the two posters--then it hit me: how did I even hear about the dolphin slaughter in the first place? Well, most of my friends heard it from South Park, but I don't watch TV so instead.... I heard it from Facebook since at least four of my friends made references to "fuck you dolphin" in their status updates.
It was then that I realized how quickly people became aware of the situation do to the spread of virtual information on the internet. This goes right back to issues people have with things like Twitter and Facebook and whether or not they are credible sources for news. Ten or fifteen years ago no one would have known that that were eating flipper when they made their tuna fish sandwiches, not unless an article showed up about it in the newspaper or a news station picked up on it. However, now people can just go check their twitter updates to catch of glimpse of what is happening then move on over to their favorite 'legitimate' online news source for the full story. That being said, how do you know if the source is an established company with professional reporters or simply the guy who blogs for a hobby?
So, people find out that they are eating flipper, why does the world freak out about this? Are they saturated with HFCS?? Is the slaughtering of the dolphins any less humane than the slaughtering of every other fish that we eat? I can assure you that the nets with thousands of fish in them are no better than killing dolphins. We freak out because they didn't tell us that we were eating dolphins--as if no culture could possibly eat them. Yet, most people couldn't pronounce half of the ingredients on most of their everyday food, let alone explain the origins. Who is to say that one of your ingredients isn't a carefully disguised way of saying 'spark the dog' or 'bald eagle'. Then again, this goes to show you how powerful the speed of information over the internet is through the many social networks.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Lady Gaga x The Social Network
I'm comparing the project from Tuesday on body modification with the project on Thursday regarding the use of social media.
Currently we all have the ability to broadcast ourselves on Youtube, tweet our every move on Twitter and create a profile about ourselves on Facebook. Especially when I think back to the now archaic social media website Myspace - more popular when I was in middle school and 9th grade - these websites allow one to project the desired version of oneself online that they may not be in real life.
The first aspect of this projected "self" is the profile picture. Being able to present oneself online allows a person to use photos that may not look so much like them, or be them at all. While this has changed since my "friends" have gotten older, I specifically remember the stereotypical Myspace photo - photo taken from above, super side swept hair that's severely parted on onside and covering one eye, with the other eye looking off in the distance. This was meant to make one looks cooler and older, I imagine, but also created the an online phenomenon where no one looked like themselves, and everyone instead looked like some version of a emo version of cousin It.
Not only through photos, but through the information that one presents, a person can weed out the information about them that they deem unworthy to be projected to the outside world from those details about them that they would like to highlight.
Being completely online, this is obviously not modification of the body, but definitely is modification of the self, whatever that "self" may be. It is giving people the opportunity to change the "self" that they are in reality into the "self" that they want to be identified as, and projecting that desired person to society. It's interesting to me that now with these websites, people not only have the ability to physically change themselves through surgery and body modification, but they can choose to alter their being socially using these online mechanisms. They don't cost money, aren't permanent, but are they still dangerous? While body modification may only be a danger to the person that desires the change, is projecting an altered state of oneself online more harmful because it effects all and allows them to perceive "you" as "not you"? Or is this "online you" actually a more proper projection of your being, because it is what you identify as your "true self"?
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Blog Post #9 (Due Sunday 01 May 11:59 PM): '2 X 2' responses to the Poster Projects
Let's look back at the Poster Presentations, link a couple together in some interesting ways and use some of the terms / concepts from our work to do it. I'm calling this a '2 X 2' project: TWO posters, TWO concepts or terms, and as interestingly dense a linking as you can get.
I'm currently focused on horrors and fascinations of body modification and cosmetic surgeries. I think Lady G just may be right when she says that her 'art' is different from the things reported in the Strib this morning about men scheduling liposuction a year before their beach vacations. In an old Susan Bordo (feminist, smart, rules) article, she observes that every woman who has breast augmentations says she 'did it for herself.' Bordo says 'where is this "self" located? On Mars? And how did it decide it needed bigger breasts?"' Who's Lady G or Orlan 'doing it for'? Yikes!, there's a field day here—theory and material.
Go for it. Make sure that we all find ourselves clearer on our common topics and ideas, and seeing things in the Poster Projects that we may have missed after we read your posts.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
The improbability drive
Being a scientist requires one to accept difficult truths, for example, conclusions are never absolute. When it comes to researching things like global warming two truths are undeniable: conclusions are not only provisional but speculative at best, and the human variable goes beyond a source of error and becomes a paralyzing roadblock. What I have read so far of State of Fear reinforces these stubborn realities, and seems to present the difficulty in dealing with them more than analyzing the research.
I had no expectations and no idea about what this book to present save for what Robin intimated in class (that was anti-global warming.) I wanted to think it would be a piece of crap, a handbook for idiots who couldn't grasp greater scientific concepts. But I set that aside. The front and back cover quotes led me to believe I was going on an adventure. And there is a sense of adventure, but it doesn't seem to advance the story of the clash of the scientists; it's obligatory to rein in an audience otherwise uninterested by the "deeper" subject matter. So far, I have failed to find the characters "fierce and compelling" as the critics declare, but instead find myself relating back to Douglas Adams’ Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Kenner is the eccentric Beeblebrox, always two steps ahead in an unpredictable direction, Evans is the lovable goof Arthur Dent, both frustrated and enamored with the companions he joins on this unwitting quest.
Even with the footnotes and the most basic concepts put into layman's terms, I don't feel any pressure to take a side. In fact, by the time we are introduced to the Vanutu team I was confused to which side book’s argument was taking. Researchers don't seem to challenge Mr. Evans's blackbox certainties. Instead, they relate to his sensibilities with the graphs. They don't try to distract him and want him to confirm his confidence in the accuracy of the data (107). They don't exercise the usual rhetoric that you would expect from someone arguing for or against conspiracy theory. By confirming their points at each step, and supporting the fictional story by the fact that they are repairing for a legal argument, they expect that Mr. Evans, as well as the reader, is too smart for the usual sleight-of-hand. If this section of the book is intended to convince me of something, it has yet to do so.
It wasn't until the section where Kenner is arguing the motives behind changing documents that I finally felt a parallel to my own opinion but I needed to defend. I felt a little disgusted when I realized it was a very unscientific one. "You have to speak loudly-and yes, maybe exaggerate a little-if you want to get their attention" (308). As unethical as this statement is to scientist presenting facts, reality that the audience is impassioned, easily skewed, and far from scientific, different tactics must be employed. Sadly, it's like explaining an adult concept to a child in terms to understand only a child will eventually grasp the concept when he is older.
So, I have more to read. Will I change my ideas, those before this book or those about this book up to this point? Sorry, I am a bit behind. As much as I love the class and miss our discussions, I found something that occupies my time and heart much more.
I had no expectations and no idea about what this book to present save for what Robin intimated in class (that was anti-global warming.) I wanted to think it would be a piece of crap, a handbook for idiots who couldn't grasp greater scientific concepts. But I set that aside. The front and back cover quotes led me to believe I was going on an adventure. And there is a sense of adventure, but it doesn't seem to advance the story of the clash of the scientists; it's obligatory to rein in an audience otherwise uninterested by the "deeper" subject matter. So far, I have failed to find the characters "fierce and compelling" as the critics declare, but instead find myself relating back to Douglas Adams’ Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Kenner is the eccentric Beeblebrox, always two steps ahead in an unpredictable direction, Evans is the lovable goof Arthur Dent, both frustrated and enamored with the companions he joins on this unwitting quest.
Even with the footnotes and the most basic concepts put into layman's terms, I don't feel any pressure to take a side. In fact, by the time we are introduced to the Vanutu team I was confused to which side book’s argument was taking. Researchers don't seem to challenge Mr. Evans's blackbox certainties. Instead, they relate to his sensibilities with the graphs. They don't try to distract him and want him to confirm his confidence in the accuracy of the data (107). They don't exercise the usual rhetoric that you would expect from someone arguing for or against conspiracy theory. By confirming their points at each step, and supporting the fictional story by the fact that they are repairing for a legal argument, they expect that Mr. Evans, as well as the reader, is too smart for the usual sleight-of-hand. If this section of the book is intended to convince me of something, it has yet to do so.
It wasn't until the section where Kenner is arguing the motives behind changing documents that I finally felt a parallel to my own opinion but I needed to defend. I felt a little disgusted when I realized it was a very unscientific one. "You have to speak loudly-and yes, maybe exaggerate a little-if you want to get their attention" (308). As unethical as this statement is to scientist presenting facts, reality that the audience is impassioned, easily skewed, and far from scientific, different tactics must be employed. Sadly, it's like explaining an adult concept to a child in terms to understand only a child will eventually grasp the concept when he is older.
So, I have more to read. Will I change my ideas, those before this book or those about this book up to this point? Sorry, I am a bit behind. As much as I love the class and miss our discussions, I found something that occupies my time and heart much more.
Some extra info
So for those who are interested in the topic I'll post a few youtube that very nicely sum up some of the points that were covered in our background report on Thursday. There's far more information available for those who wish to do the research, but these condense the whole thing into half an hour.
Regarding the "Climate-gate scandal"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=channel_video_title
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo&feature=channel_video_title
Regarding the Phil Jones BBC interview. Note that this does not directly discuss the Glenn Beck bit, but it discusses the same interview that Beck discusses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag&feature=relmfu
Edit: The third link was the wrong video (same as the second). I've Corrected the link.
Regarding the "Climate-gate scandal"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=channel_video_title
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo&feature=channel_video_title
Regarding the Phil Jones BBC interview. Note that this does not directly discuss the Glenn Beck bit, but it discusses the same interview that Beck discusses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag&feature=relmfu
Edit: The third link was the wrong video (same as the second). I've Corrected the link.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Jon Kyl on accountability & why you should care
Recently I was watching a short bit by Steven Colbert on his show the Colbert Report on Comedy Central. While I don't usually take much of what they say seriously (it is satirical afterall) they do manage to weave in stories to make fun of which draw attention to points of concern in our republic. For instance take the case of John Kyl who makes wild statistical claims then when proven wrong claims that everything he said was "not intended to be a factual statement" so this opens the door for a "brave new world" of accountability. Lets face it Bush set up the 9/11 hijackings and even funded terrorists themselves, Sarah Palin is a robot, and President Obama was born on the moon (all of these are not intended to be factual statements) but when the people you claim to represent can't assume that the things you say are what you mean what kind of representation or accountaibility can you expect to have. Were this shenanigan by Kyl ignored it would be a great disservice not only to our country but to the image of politicans everywhere, Kyl in my opinon is not a public servant (or if he is he isn't trying very hard to do a good job for those he represents) I believe we should hold our politicans more accountable for what they say and do especially on the floors of our congress and senate, what Kyl said will go into the archives of recorded congressional sessions and may be used in future faulty arguments either for or against Planned Parenthood.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/381484/april-12-2011/jon-kyl-tweets-not-intended-to-be-factual-statements
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/381484/april-12-2011/jon-kyl-tweets-not-intended-to-be-factual-statements
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Blog #8 - Al Gore's Mansion
So, I googled 'global warming is a hoax', and conveniently came up with a site called 'globalwarminghoax.com'. It's exactly the kind of site you'd expect, except that they state that they are not in any way related to religious motivations.
I found an article that describes the new mansion purchased by Al Gore. In it, there are several images provided, as well as some of the environmentally unfriendly aspects of the house.
- Several electrically pumped fountains
- Six carbon-burning fireplaces
- Five huge bedrooms / 9 huge bathrooms
I assume they only included the bedrooms and bathrooms because, as they state afterward, they are unsure of the square footage of the house.
The article continues to comment that Gore flies tens of thousands of miles per year for his fight against global warming, and makes millions of dollars doing it.
Basically, the article is trying to discredit Al Gore's environmental claims by showing that he doesn't live the things he preaches, and that there is an enormous monetary incentive for his political aims. The idea is that, obviously, if you can argue the source as questionable, the information it provides follows suit. In doing this, the website is able to discredit scientific observations without providing any of their own: it's both the classic tactic of 'if i bash my opponent, his views are invalidated' and 'if my opponent is wrong, then I must be correct' at work.
Blog Post #7 (LATE)
(I'm also about to go back to the other #7 blog posts to post a comment)
"Come out now," Kenner yelled to him. "Come out, and everything will be all right."
"Fuck you," the guy said. "Who the fuck are you, anyway? What is your fucking problem? Don't you get it, man? We're trying to save the planet."
"You're breaking the law," Kenner said.
"The law," the guy said contemptuously. "The law's owned by the corporations that pollute the environment and destroy human life."
"The only one killing people is you," Kenner said.
[...]
"Hey, I'm not killing anyone," the guy said. "Not even you."
"You're killing little kids," Kenner said, "in the park. You're killing families on a picnic."
"Casualties are inevitable in accomplishing social change. History tells us that."
Kenner wasn't sure whether the guy believed what he was saying, had been fed it at college, or was just distracted by fear. Then again, maybe it was meant to be a distraction...
With this passage, Crichton succeeds in creating two sides of an incident: the rational, moral, right-wing law enforcement agent (Kenner), and the illogical, extremist, left-wing environmental terrorist.
But little text is spent on making Kenner appear to be the to-the-core superior, for, especially with Crichton's intentions, bashing the opposition is often more effective than promoting the home team (in addition, it doesn't take much text to support a calm and in-control mentality).
With this in mind, and using tools such as frequent swearing, the word 'man' (classic stereotypically moronic hippie), and a fallacious justification of murder in the name of saving lives, Crichton sketches the leftist as an out-of-control, disillusioned, and self-contradicting buffoon.
To take it a step further, Crichton lumps this extremist together with all college-educated leftists by stating the possibility that he was 'fed' this incoherent nonsense in his liberal education. Suddenly an entire demographic of political ideology is perceived as irrational idiocy in the eyes of the uncritical reader: a cultural black box.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Defeating the Gay Agenda by Inventing New Words
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/11/social-conservatives-gay-agenda-words_n_847738.html?ref=fb&src=sp
"He who defines the terms controls the debate, and by extension, public opinion..."
-Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California
A friend of mine posted this on facebook. To say the video, the focus of my analysis, offends my moral sensibilities is a vast understatement. Although this is tangent to our current discussion topics, I thought it fit in interestingly as evidence to the power of words, especially in the realm of politics/religion.
"To give them this term, that is grounded in an identity....we are conceding a premise, that it is an identity," and, "You are your body, your body is pro-creative by natural design," are the significant aspects of Ryan Sorba's argument against the use of the word 'gay'. In replacement, he proposes the terms"same sex attraction", "same sex intercourse" and "sodomy".
Shameless Plug for Oil! and the Jungle
Hey everybody! I'm in a show at Rarig on the west bank; Oil! and the Jungle. We opened last week and it's fun and disturbing and disgusting and kinda sweet all at the same time! It has to do a lot with some of the issues that have come up in class; workers' rights, the meat industry, dehumanization of immigrants, the dangers of capitalism, and so on. Here's the official description...
Oil! and the Jungle facilitates a critical encounter between two of Upton Sinclair’s most famous muckraking novels and demonstrates how the themes of those works - capitalism and the degradation of the human spirit in pursuit of profit - are still relevant today. The play presents two intentionally separate yet inevitably interwoven worlds. One, the struggles of the worker in the Chicago stockyards attempting to survive in a system that values them solely for their ability to produce a profit. The other, the social elite living the "dream" in a realm steeped in corruption and deception where they play out their financial dealing on Wall Street without concern for how it will affect Main Street. The play explores the separation and interaction of these two worlds through highly physical performance, music and poetry.
Come see us! This Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. $5 student tickets on Wednesday and Thursday, then it goes to $7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucu5RgKRxjY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll-BJoE5mEU&feature=related
Oil! and the Jungle facilitates a critical encounter between two of Upton Sinclair’s most famous muckraking novels and demonstrates how the themes of those works - capitalism and the degradation of the human spirit in pursuit of profit - are still relevant today. The play presents two intentionally separate yet inevitably interwoven worlds. One, the struggles of the worker in the Chicago stockyards attempting to survive in a system that values them solely for their ability to produce a profit. The other, the social elite living the "dream" in a realm steeped in corruption and deception where they play out their financial dealing on Wall Street without concern for how it will affect Main Street. The play explores the separation and interaction of these two worlds through highly physical performance, music and poetry.
Come see us! This Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. $5 student tickets on Wednesday and Thursday, then it goes to $7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucu5RgKRxjY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll-BJoE5mEU&feature=related
Sunday, April 10, 2011
BP#6 (LATE) Stupid Commercial Inspired Cravings
So the other day I had a hankering for some salmon after watching a Red Lobster commercial. Rather than spend $5.00 on gas, $12.99 on salmon that I know I could cook better, and whatever my girlfriend wanted, plus the tip, I decided that it would be more financially responsible (joke) to take 2 hours and $80.00 to make it myself. After driving to target, I found that the only salmon they had that was “fresh” cost quite a bit more than I expected (being from Alaska, I was used to getting salmon for a measly 15 minutes with a fly rod in my back yard), not to mention “fresh” was a relative term. I never use a recipe when I cook, but I have a special rub I like to use for fish that takes some relatively easy to find spices. Target had none of these.
In Rochester (southern MN), the most popular grocery stores are “Hy-Vee Food and Drug,” a smaller grocery chain out of Iowa. Being smaller, they tend to have a wider selection than most corporate grocery stores because they have less of them to stock, and they manage to maintain lower costs as well because their customers are very loyal and take a lot of business away from the larger stores. They have much better promotions, and even have their own coffee shops, gas stations, and liquor stores, all of which give coupons (like ten percent off your entire purchase) to their related counterparts. Their organic and Whole-Foods like section is HUGE and relatively cheap compared to other stores as well. Essentially they are a good representation of a smaller, locally owned and locally operated grocery store that promotes organic food, fresh produce, and hormone-free fish, red meat, and poultry. If you hadn’t already guessed, I prefer them over any of the larger corporate stores.
Anyways, I brought a few filets of the salmon at $8.50/lb (ouch), various produce items for garnishes and a salad, all of which seemed higher priced than they have been in the past (most notably corn), and fixings for rice pilaf. Two hours later I had a dinner for two that could have fed five (a habit I’ve picked up from living with three other guys who can’t cook to save their lives) and I began to feast. Dinner consisted of pan seared honey/soy sauce/brown sugar marinated salmon filets, asparagus, Caesar salad, lemon butter rice pilaf and vanilla ice cream for dessert. After stuffing my face until it could no longer be stuffed, I feel swiftly into a food coma that was to last more than a couple of hours.
In essence, I spent five hours, way too much money, and a hell of a lot of energy to make a dinner that was inspired by a 30 second clip on TV while watching a rerun of Jersey Shore when I could have spent 45 minutes and a third the price at a crappy chain restaurant. Not exactly the best way to utilize my time, energy, or modest waiter salary. But, I was fat and happy, and so were my roommates who got the leftovers (of which there were plenty) for free (bastards). Being the only one that actually works more than 20 hours a week, cooks, cleans, buys booze, sober cabs often, and helps with homework, I feel much more like their Dad than their roommate. But hey, if nothing else, I’ll just bill the hell out of them on when we move out of our apartment and call it even.
Oh the humor of it all..
Finally I'm back on the site and blogging again!
For my blog post this evening, I started by looking at the many different forms that global warming has gone viral: From the spoofs, satires, songs, videos, jokes, scientific journals that were provided on Moodle, and others. I decided to focus on how I, as the audience, reacted to each piece. As we spoke about during class Thursday pathos is often much more important that the particular facts that they are presenting tho their audience. For instance, there could be a presentation being presented to a board of directors which has ground breaking new data, however if the rhetoric is too technical the point being made may be lost upon the viewers. At the same time there is an immense demand from the science community to provide the science behind the claims, explain the graphs, and describe how they came up with the calculations.
I examined a few different articles, and tried to contrast my reaction to each of them. The first thing that I did was look up some of the viral spoofs done on global warming, and came across the hilarious George Bush on Global Warming spoof by Will Ferrell. I had seen Will Ferrell’s impersonation of George W. Bush before so going into it I had some idea what I was getting myself into. The video immediately puts the audience into a state of satirical thinking simply because it is an impersonation. I felt myself on the edge of my seat, waiting for ‘President George Bush’ to say something stupid or ignorant. I did not have to wait long. The video is filled with funny lines covering general topics about global warming. Issues such as how it works (which is obviously because the sun’s rays are heating up the lava) and about the legitimacy over the data that these “liberal, godless” scientist s are trying to prove with these “facts.” The bit that stayed with me the longest was as Will Ferrell picked up a pop-up book, scared himself, and then argued with the camera man about what kind of books he should read, one filled with “Facts?!”
This video is an excellent example of modern day media’s comedic spin on public opinion. Because much of the video’s punch lines relied on the audience’s prior exposure to well-known and basic facts, it either 1) reaffirms what the audience member already believes or 2) it conditions the audience member to pick the side not being made fun of by Will Ferrell, and really who would want to be the one Will is making jokes about. With this line of thinking, the video made me automatically pick a reaction, whether it was defensive or amused, based on my political affiliations. Whether I was a skeptic of global warming or not the video was against conservatives, and I was automatically on-board with the liberal and god-less Will, wanting to join in the laughter and jokes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOjfxEejS2Y
But how would I react to a viral video based on the ideology that global warming is a hoax? Evidently I did not react the same way as I had thought I would have. I thought that I would have been sucked into the pathos of the video, and thus be conflicted with my basic global warming morals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
However after watching the infamous ‘Hide the Decline’ viral youtube video, I was somewhat enraged and entertained at the same time. The song is catchy-- don’t get me wrong, but unlike Will Ferrell who is making fun of the ignorance seemingly present in our modern day politics, it goes on the attack. It’s a brief two and half minute video, where the video makers attack Al Gore and Michael Mann for misleading the public into believing Global Warming by “Hiding the Decline,” but besides briefly popping up a graph showing this hidden decline in global temperatures, they do not provide any solid data to back their claims. If you are going to attack scientific claims in a video by stating that they are misleading, maybe don’t back up your own claims in a song where the majority of a song is screaming “NUH-UH!” … I mean “Hide the Decline” but basically the same thing. This video is successful in the fact that those who are going to watch it will be entertained by the cartoon figures with ridiculous pictures of Al Gore, and Michael Mann singing the lyrics to the song. Most of those watching the video will not read up on the actual science behind the claims, having a song back your own beliefs is enough.
In reflection, the “Hide the Decline” youtube video is exactly what Will Ferrell is making fun of in his impersonation-- Ignorant individuals who make public scientific claims in a manner that is misleading. While this can indeed be applied to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, at least he attempts to appeal to the baseline audience while still trying to uphold the scientific integrity of his project. The “Hide the Decline” video is simply accusatory, and doesn’t even show the entirety of the graphs in the video.
However somehow I believe that the anti-global warming group is winning. Not because of the pathos it plays on in its novels and videos, but because it is much easier to convince someone to not change their entire lifestyle. In addition I feel that the apocalypse mentality associated with the Global Warming Movement puts people in an automatic state of disbelief, and can be off-putting. I couldn’t help picturing Al Gore as a man standing on the street corner holding a “The End is Near!” sign. And I am a tree-hugging liberal who went to a hippy school for 9 years of my life! (..called Aldo Leopold nonetheless) So what does this mentality do to the uncertain or doubtful? It is hard to separate the religiousness from the scientific aspect of the global warming movement, and seems quite impossible at this point in the race.
Climate change through a Pro Wrestling Lens
http://www.prisonplanet.com/conspiracy-theory-with-jesse-ventura-global-warming.html
First aired in 2009, this show on the Tru-TV network is a propaganda smorgasbord. The show is hosted by none other than Jesse “The Body” Ventura, Minnesota’s favorite wrestler. Though he will never hold a candle to “The Nature Boy” Ric Flair (also from Minnesota. Whoooooooooooo!) in the ring, Ventura is a good pick as the host of the show. He’s got just the kind of cavalier attitude necessary to “follow the money trail” and expose the people who “pull the strings behind the scenes” of the global warming conspiracy. In a way, the producers are bringing us an alternate version of “State of Fear” hosted by Jesse Ventura.
The show attempts to reinforce their assertion that global warming is a scam perpetrated by wealthy liberals looking to cash in on green products. The show’s producers have many of the “expert” guests tell us how these wealthy liberal-types are really after world domination, hence the conspiracy. Thematically, this is what the show is all about. They also pick on Al Gore quite a bit.
The show has a number of fancy production devices to push their point across. For instance, they hired the narrator from every action movie you’ve ever seen or heard a commercial for. This man foreshadows the juicy bits to come in the show and steers us through dark territory in his rich, somewhat gravelly baritone. While I was watching this, every time the narrator spoke I half expected a Predator to switch off its cloaking device and start killing climate scientists and expert witnesses.
In another scene, reminiscent of something out of a Dashiell Hammet novel (Hammett wrote the “Maltese Falcon” and pretty much invented the 1930’s hard-boiled detective character. A must-read for crime/mystery fans.), While sitting around a table in a darkened, smoky room, Ventura sends some of his minions out to do his bidding and track down the bad guys. This definitely equates Ventura as the Eliot Ness of Climategate. In the producer’s eyes, this is a good association for viewers to make.
There are more than a few elements worth discussing in this show. The interview with “Dr. X”, the scientist in hiding, is perhaps my favorite. Dr. X replies, when asked what was causing global warming, ”The sun is causing global warming.” This is most definitely a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument: Because the sun’s radiation affects the earth, global warming is happening and the sun is the cause. No shit, huh doc? As far as I know, neither side has doubted the sun’s role in global warming. Clearly, without the sun, global warming wouldn’t happen. In fact, without the sun NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN. Period. We wouldn’t be here to have an argument one way or the other. So, therefore, global warming is a liberal conspiracy to get rid of the sun? No. Among other things, global warming is a liberal conspiracy to control the number of kids you may have, according to Doc X. No wonder this guy’s in hiding, he sounds like an idiot, class A.
I want to hate this show. Really I do, because the show’s message and medium are both dubious, at best. But I think I like this show for the same reasons. This could be the same line of reason that causes inmates all over the US to watch the show COPS religiously. It might not be worth 42 minutes of your life, but you can be vindicated by the fact that you’ll, in all likelihood, be able to see this piece for what it is, propaganda.
First aired in 2009, this show on the Tru-TV network is a propaganda smorgasbord. The show is hosted by none other than Jesse “The Body” Ventura, Minnesota’s favorite wrestler. Though he will never hold a candle to “The Nature Boy” Ric Flair (also from Minnesota. Whoooooooooooo!) in the ring, Ventura is a good pick as the host of the show. He’s got just the kind of cavalier attitude necessary to “follow the money trail” and expose the people who “pull the strings behind the scenes” of the global warming conspiracy. In a way, the producers are bringing us an alternate version of “State of Fear” hosted by Jesse Ventura.
The show attempts to reinforce their assertion that global warming is a scam perpetrated by wealthy liberals looking to cash in on green products. The show’s producers have many of the “expert” guests tell us how these wealthy liberal-types are really after world domination, hence the conspiracy. Thematically, this is what the show is all about. They also pick on Al Gore quite a bit.
The show has a number of fancy production devices to push their point across. For instance, they hired the narrator from every action movie you’ve ever seen or heard a commercial for. This man foreshadows the juicy bits to come in the show and steers us through dark territory in his rich, somewhat gravelly baritone. While I was watching this, every time the narrator spoke I half expected a Predator to switch off its cloaking device and start killing climate scientists and expert witnesses.
In another scene, reminiscent of something out of a Dashiell Hammet novel (Hammett wrote the “Maltese Falcon” and pretty much invented the 1930’s hard-boiled detective character. A must-read for crime/mystery fans.), While sitting around a table in a darkened, smoky room, Ventura sends some of his minions out to do his bidding and track down the bad guys. This definitely equates Ventura as the Eliot Ness of Climategate. In the producer’s eyes, this is a good association for viewers to make.
There are more than a few elements worth discussing in this show. The interview with “Dr. X”, the scientist in hiding, is perhaps my favorite. Dr. X replies, when asked what was causing global warming, ”The sun is causing global warming.” This is most definitely a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument: Because the sun’s radiation affects the earth, global warming is happening and the sun is the cause. No shit, huh doc? As far as I know, neither side has doubted the sun’s role in global warming. Clearly, without the sun, global warming wouldn’t happen. In fact, without the sun NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN. Period. We wouldn’t be here to have an argument one way or the other. So, therefore, global warming is a liberal conspiracy to get rid of the sun? No. Among other things, global warming is a liberal conspiracy to control the number of kids you may have, according to Doc X. No wonder this guy’s in hiding, he sounds like an idiot, class A.
I want to hate this show. Really I do, because the show’s message and medium are both dubious, at best. But I think I like this show for the same reasons. This could be the same line of reason that causes inmates all over the US to watch the show COPS religiously. It might not be worth 42 minutes of your life, but you can be vindicated by the fact that you’ll, in all likelihood, be able to see this piece for what it is, propaganda.
The Truth, Still Inconvenient
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&ref=globalwarming
What Krugman is doing here is creating a pro-global warming argument (that is to say one which claims that global warming is very real) by mocking the opposite view. Whether or not you agree with him, you've got to admit that he has a knack for being persuasive without really saying anything at all! Personally, I believe that climate change is a very real and dangerous issue that we all have got to deal with, and Krugman managed to strengthen this view with no facts or “science,” but by merely pointing out the problems with the Republican's witnesses called for at the Congressional hearing on climate science. They didn't call in a scientist, but a lawyer, an economist, and a professor of marketing. So his argument here is not that their case by definition is bad, just that they did a poor job of proving their case because they offered no scientists as “expert witnesses.” And that is true! It's not to say for sure that the people that did end up speaking are not qualified, but because our judgment of people is so heavily based on their occupation, the fact that the word “scientist” doesn't appear off the bat is a bad start. Then Krugman goes on to point out the flaws that the witnesses made. Then we see an argument directly out of State of Fear. Krugman says that he is not the one with the agenda, but it is instead the opposite party who are bending the evidence in order to support what they think is the greater good, that there is no such thing as global warming.
Later on, and it is here that I take issue with what Krugman is claiming, he states that “For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps catastrophic. They could be wrong. But if you’re going to assert that they are in fact wrong, you have a moral responsibility to approach the topic with high seriousness and an open mind. After all, if the scientists are right, you’ll be doing a great deal of damage.” So, it's better to assume the worst because if you ignore it and it's wrong, then we will all be worse off for it. It's better to believe in global warming and be wrong than to ignore it and be wrong. And here, South Park comes into the argument once more. There is an episode where Kyle, a Jewish boy, learns about the tortures of hell, and that all Jewish people are going there because they have not accepted Christ as their savior. He confronts his mother about it, and she explains that Jewish people don't believe in hell. Kyle doesn't see this as an argument at all! He thinks that it is better for him to convert to Christianity and be wrong about the existence of hell, then to believe that there is no hell, and if he's wrong, end up there! Naturally, we see the flaw in this logic. You can't convert just in case you're wrong. This is something you believe with all your heart and soul, a religion, not a whim. So one can't just make people act as though global warming is real just in case their views are wrong, just to cover all their bases. I believe what Krugman is saying, but his logic has just as many holes as the Republican defense which he scrutinizes so harshly.
What Krugman is doing here is creating a pro-global warming argument (that is to say one which claims that global warming is very real) by mocking the opposite view. Whether or not you agree with him, you've got to admit that he has a knack for being persuasive without really saying anything at all! Personally, I believe that climate change is a very real and dangerous issue that we all have got to deal with, and Krugman managed to strengthen this view with no facts or “science,” but by merely pointing out the problems with the Republican's witnesses called for at the Congressional hearing on climate science. They didn't call in a scientist, but a lawyer, an economist, and a professor of marketing. So his argument here is not that their case by definition is bad, just that they did a poor job of proving their case because they offered no scientists as “expert witnesses.” And that is true! It's not to say for sure that the people that did end up speaking are not qualified, but because our judgment of people is so heavily based on their occupation, the fact that the word “scientist” doesn't appear off the bat is a bad start. Then Krugman goes on to point out the flaws that the witnesses made. Then we see an argument directly out of State of Fear. Krugman says that he is not the one with the agenda, but it is instead the opposite party who are bending the evidence in order to support what they think is the greater good, that there is no such thing as global warming.
Later on, and it is here that I take issue with what Krugman is claiming, he states that “For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps catastrophic. They could be wrong. But if you’re going to assert that they are in fact wrong, you have a moral responsibility to approach the topic with high seriousness and an open mind. After all, if the scientists are right, you’ll be doing a great deal of damage.” So, it's better to assume the worst because if you ignore it and it's wrong, then we will all be worse off for it. It's better to believe in global warming and be wrong than to ignore it and be wrong. And here, South Park comes into the argument once more. There is an episode where Kyle, a Jewish boy, learns about the tortures of hell, and that all Jewish people are going there because they have not accepted Christ as their savior. He confronts his mother about it, and she explains that Jewish people don't believe in hell. Kyle doesn't see this as an argument at all! He thinks that it is better for him to convert to Christianity and be wrong about the existence of hell, then to believe that there is no hell, and if he's wrong, end up there! Naturally, we see the flaw in this logic. You can't convert just in case you're wrong. This is something you believe with all your heart and soul, a religion, not a whim. So one can't just make people act as though global warming is real just in case their views are wrong, just to cover all their bases. I believe what Krugman is saying, but his logic has just as many holes as the Republican defense which he scrutinizes so harshly.
Forgetting the global aspect of global warming
When reading anti-global warming conspiracy nonsense, one of the things I always notice is the tendency for these arguments to contain temperature data of a particular climate. State of Fear does this as well, with detailed graphs regarding the average temperatures of the U.S.A. over the last several decades.
This is something similar to the "it snowed last winter, therefore global warming is a myth" argument perpetrated by the scientifically illiterate, but in a slightly more sophisticated form. Indeed, certain climates have not been getting warmer, and others have actually been getting cooler. Global warming deniers will point to these graphs of localized climates as proof of their claim that global warming doesn't exist.
Of course, what you won't see are graphs detailing the global temperature averages over the last century. And you would think this data might be important when your talking about global warming.
This type of rhetoric takes advantage of the fact that the most immediately noticable of global warming's effects are occurring over the oceans, not over landmasses. Now I'm not going to make a claim as to whether this dishonesty by omission is indeed deliberate falsification, or mere misunderstanding of what global warming entails. But this type of "it isn't happening in here, therefore it isn't happening anywhere" arguments are becoming a staple of anti-global warming rhetoric.
The overall problem with this is the very human tendency to ignore something if it isn't happening in immediate spatial and temporal proximity to yourself. These arguments take hold because of this, and an entire claim (global warming doesn't exist) that has been very easily debunked becomes a widespread belief.
This is something similar to the "it snowed last winter, therefore global warming is a myth" argument perpetrated by the scientifically illiterate, but in a slightly more sophisticated form. Indeed, certain climates have not been getting warmer, and others have actually been getting cooler. Global warming deniers will point to these graphs of localized climates as proof of their claim that global warming doesn't exist.
Of course, what you won't see are graphs detailing the global temperature averages over the last century. And you would think this data might be important when your talking about global warming.
This type of rhetoric takes advantage of the fact that the most immediately noticable of global warming's effects are occurring over the oceans, not over landmasses. Now I'm not going to make a claim as to whether this dishonesty by omission is indeed deliberate falsification, or mere misunderstanding of what global warming entails. But this type of "it isn't happening in here, therefore it isn't happening anywhere" arguments are becoming a staple of anti-global warming rhetoric.
The overall problem with this is the very human tendency to ignore something if it isn't happening in immediate spatial and temporal proximity to yourself. These arguments take hold because of this, and an entire claim (global warming doesn't exist) that has been very easily debunked becomes a widespread belief.
Realclimate.org
I often rely on a site called realclimate.org for information about climate science. The tag line of the site is “Climate Science from Climate Scientists” and the writers are some big players in the field. So before you even read an article you’re told this is ‘real’ climate info, the .org sells the institutional authenticity even more, and the writers are professional climate scientists (for instance, Michael Mann of ‘hockeystick’ fame is a contributor). The site is very explicitly leverages professional credibility from the outset, and I think current researchers in a particular field of science are the people I would want to consult for information. The starting point for the website has several different summaries on the basic science of climate from multiple independent credible sources. (By the way, I first found this NOAA primer on Climate Literacy through the site. It’s really really good: accurate, non-technical, and non-preachy)
An important feature of the site are point by point rebuttals of common arguments against climate change and information is both ala carte and indexed by knowledge level. It’s very easy to find what you are looking for aside from there own content there are staggering numbers of links to other sources of information. Since these are scientists in the field, they tend to reference the journal articles and original research. Again all this has the effect of enhancing the credibility of the information for readers with varied knowledge levels. What's funny is that I was annoyed by Crichton's avalanche of references, manly because I couldn't immediately click on a link, but also because they were so vague in what they were actually referring to in the text that actually checking it was a real chore. In contrast, with online links and meaningful citations those references become truly useful rather than just piling exhibits with no real organization.
One of the ways the site works to construct it's view is the open source feel of it and that rather than being written for a single generic audience, it really seems written for multiple overlapping audiences of different education and interest levels. That allows it to employ the best arguments to each potential reader by in a sense meeting them where they are. There are numerous individual arguments and constructions in varying styles, but the broad sub rosa argument of the site is that climate science is credible and there really is overwhelming consensus on the key points. Evidence matters, studies matter, scientific plausibility matters and even just letting people know they exist in important. In a sense that is more powerful than singular rebuttals, because the credibility argument is one playing out in public.
The Man-Made Global Warming Hoax
The source that I found to be most interesting was the extensive "globalwarminghoax.com" particularly their documentary titled, "The man-made Global Warming Hoax." As you might expect this organization directly opposes the theory that global climate change is caused by human interaction, and supports the theory that gradual climate change is nothing new, and is completely natural.
A major argument is that if the Co2 increases in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, than the temperature will rise. General consensus is that the levels of Co2 are at an all time high, which would in-turn mean a serious problem. To refute this idea, the documentary uses several arguments. One argument is that the co2 levels were this high before, during the Holocene Maximum period (7-4 thousand years ago), which means it has little to do with pollution, plus it lasted 3 thousand years. These "warm periods" have occurred frequently throughout the past, and climatologists refer to them as 'hypsithermals".
Back to the idea that high-levels of co2 raise the earths temperature; the researchers in the film lay out a time-line of the 20th century, and we are shown the steady increase in temperature. The information proves that there has definitely been a an obvious increase in temperature, but at the opposite times you'd expect. The majority of increase takes place prior to the 1940's, which is significant because this is before the industrial revolution got underway, which theoretically should have been the reason for a heavy increase of co2 in the earth's atmosphere. And what happens during the post-war economic boom? When thousands of corporations were pumping out unrefined emissions by the day? the earths temperature decreased! So again it's far from black and white when it comes to the actual answer in co2 levels.
This comes up again in the mention of the "Ice core." What is the ice core?(I asked myself)
The ice core- is a record of environmental surface activity, depending on periods of extended sunlight, where surface snow can form in different layers in the Arctic. ---"The ice cores can provide an annual record of temperature, precipitation, atmospheric composition, volcanic activity, and wind patterns. In a general sense, the thickness of each annual layer tells how much snow accumulated at that location during the year." ---Paleoclimatology the ice core record.
A very interesting argument, and it was surprising to me that so much opposition towards the case of global warming was coming from Europe, and majority of the scientists were from the UK.
A major argument is that if the Co2 increases in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, than the temperature will rise. General consensus is that the levels of Co2 are at an all time high, which would in-turn mean a serious problem. To refute this idea, the documentary uses several arguments. One argument is that the co2 levels were this high before, during the Holocene Maximum period (7-4 thousand years ago), which means it has little to do with pollution, plus it lasted 3 thousand years. These "warm periods" have occurred frequently throughout the past, and climatologists refer to them as 'hypsithermals".
Back to the idea that high-levels of co2 raise the earths temperature; the researchers in the film lay out a time-line of the 20th century, and we are shown the steady increase in temperature. The information proves that there has definitely been a an obvious increase in temperature, but at the opposite times you'd expect. The majority of increase takes place prior to the 1940's, which is significant because this is before the industrial revolution got underway, which theoretically should have been the reason for a heavy increase of co2 in the earth's atmosphere. And what happens during the post-war economic boom? When thousands of corporations were pumping out unrefined emissions by the day? the earths temperature decreased! So again it's far from black and white when it comes to the actual answer in co2 levels.
This comes up again in the mention of the "Ice core." What is the ice core?(I asked myself)
The ice core- is a record of environmental surface activity, depending on periods of extended sunlight, where surface snow can form in different layers in the Arctic. ---"The ice cores can provide an annual record of temperature, precipitation, atmospheric composition, volcanic activity, and wind patterns. In a general sense, the thickness of each annual layer tells how much snow accumulated at that location during the year." ---Paleoclimatology the ice core record.
A very interesting argument, and it was surprising to me that so much opposition towards the case of global warming was coming from Europe, and majority of the scientists were from the UK.
Michele Bachmann, Scientist?
You can see a lot of anti-global warming arguments in her speech here (which is pretty long but if you watch the first four minutes, you'll be able to see what she's doing). She has the idea of economic harm nailed down and she really twists the argument about how much fossil fuels the U.S. uses into patriotism, arguing that the U.S. could be the leading exporter of energy if we would just embrace coal, natural gas, and additional oil production. She also has the notion that carbon dioxide is not harmful, but harmless and a "natural by-product of nature" throughout her argument. She also cites "studies" that have never shown that carbon dioxide is harmful in a manner at least as reckless as anything that ever upset Kenner during State of Fear.
I think that it really highlights the ways that nothing is apolitical in that if any scientist (or journalist or author) is willing to write it down, an idea becomes enmeshed in the political arena regardless of the author's intent.
Global Warming SCAM!
Even before our class read State of Fear, I had been curious as to why people were so ready to jump on the "global warming is a hoax" train. I mean, the two texts I have read about it, "Climate Change: Picturing the Science" and "The Climate Crisis: An Introductory Guide to Climate Change" were assigned by my high school meteorology teacher as supplemental readings. Our textbook had a few short pages that gave a VERY rough outline of theories. Given this as my background, I was confused as to what people had read/watched/been told that would cause their contrary view.
I suppose many people would watch something like this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRSOkHU2ZcQ&feature=related, a video of a southern middle-class man without formal schooling in the subject, and be semi-convinced, and keep looking for similar arguments.
Why do people take to strange, unfounded documents such as this? Although the man's slogan, "go out and find information yourself" is the right idea, I hesitate to agree with him. Who should we trust to give us information? Personally, I trust scientists and doctors, since I would think they have the greatest grasp on ideas. However, many people seem willing to trust Allan instead of a climate specialist.
Reasons behind the allure, I would think, are feelings. First is the hope that the "average person" can grasp a scientific concept and problem as complex as climate change- the emotion spurning many of the 755,140 views of the video I cited.
Second is the unwillingness of a populace to read. As an English major, I feel I have a bit more introspect into the amount that my peers and others read, since it often comes up after I say I am and English major. People are likely to respond, "Wow, that must be difficult. I don't think I have read a book in months. (Sometimes years!!)". So people are much more likely to watch this man's 5:56 min video than go and pick up a scientific text about it.
In the end, I feel people would trust this man because he tries to debunk politicians and scientists, two groups of people that general populace (in my opinion) enjoys degrading. But he also constructs this ideal that, YOU, as an average person, are more informed/smart or less biased than pretty much whoever is telling you about something you don't want to hear. Right now, that is global warming. Tomorrow, who knows?
Lastly, this man, just like all of the other people in these conspiracy videos, is not proposing a better way to understand the environment or deal with the extent to which we pollute it, which would be why I have a tendency to think of him as less than worthless.
3032 articles
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
The average person looks to the news, be it the newspaper, TV, or a website, for important information and unbiased stories. Although there are sources known for their outspoken bias, some find comfort from a source with agreeing ideas and values. Personally, I find it hard to trust most TV news shows and websites for many issues, as many do not include both sides to the story nor do not dig deep enough into the issue itself to be credible. The New York Times is a credible enough source for news, read and consumed by many of us average citizens- I myself have looked to nytimes.com for articles related to issues in my classes.
As I do a general google search for the phrase "global warming", nytimes.com comes up on the first page, along with the wikipedia page and globalwarming.org. It seems to be a pretty neutral, yet credible site compared to the others before and after it. And as I browse the site, there is an entire set of articles under Global Warming, 3032 articles related in fact. That is quite a few. Some of these are opinionated articles, some are scholarly, and some are written for the general public. There are articles skeptical about the climate shift, articles confident that our actions are harming the environment and the temperature of the earth, and some articles function to merely relay information. What I enjoy most about this site is that although there are 3032 articles on the controversial topic of global warming, it is not overwhelming. Many credible articles are too scientific or go over my head, but this site contains the everyman's article on important topics, easy to read, yet very informative. Perfect for someone like me.
Global warming and climate change is an important issue, no matter what side you are on, but the details can be pretty complicated. A few of the articles break things down, while others are over my head. Overall, I like the accessibility of articles that this website has to offer, the depth, and the variety of the articles.
9/10 scientists agree; global warming is a hoax
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22624
In this April 2010 article from the Canada Free Press titled 30,000 Anti-Global Warming Scientists Can’t be Wrong, the argument is made that the level of authority of educational institute is what can deem global warming a non siquitur. The article lures you in with a movie-like trailer hook that basically says “From the magazine that introduced us to the world of X-rays, DNA helix and genome mapping; now brings you the truth on CO2 little to non-existent role in global warming.” Obviously this article is crediting all the major discoveries that Nature has been able to publish under the premise that all of the articles it runs are the next big ‘scientific truth.’ Nature, a peer reviewed journal, is highly renowned in the publications of new insights of scientific work. However, in academia of science, usually a initial paper on a topic is only an door opener to replication and possible debunked even if the data has been approved by editors to be gathered in a scientific manner eligible for publication. All too often in mainstream news the public is introduced to a “new study just out” that indicated one thing or another. Just like the publications that were seeming used in State of Fear to disprove global warming, this article picks and chooses one of the possible 1,000’s of articles on global warming and chooses to further legitimize it by backing up where the 30,000 scientist were educated.
They rely on the prestige of former Nobel Prize winners and MIT, UCLA, Princeton, Harvard who have signed a letter to the Council of American Physical Society that states that the data does not support global is caused by increased CO2 concentrations. The credibility is established by just dropping prestigious schools that these dissenters came from. These schools are well renowned and have probably produced many of the brightest minds of our nation. However, Ted Kaczynski also went to Harvard and even taught at UC Berkeley let alone mention the numerous prestigious institutions, including U of MN, that assisted in research of the eugenics movement. By gaining clout by just naming institutions we see how the general public will seemingly take any ideas that come from pedigree scientists as ‘truth.’ These credentials as well as the news media propagating only parts of a whole dialog is what can lead to false information spreading as public knowledge. The damage of not fully understanding or wanting to just merely discredit one aspect of scientific thought like global warming in which it doesn’t produce new insights to further study seems to me that the 30,000 scientists that can’t be wrong, don’t want to find the right way either they just want to buck a trend and see if they come out on top at the expense of taking for granted the authority that they have used to misinform the general public.
Global Warming and blowing people up
I stumbled across this website, Global Warming Hoax: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
This site even has a little slogan - "Where only the truth heats up" (and note on their website that it's been trademarked). They claim to have "arguments based on science, news and common sense." Beneath this, the website states:
This site is non-partisan and non-religious based. In fact we fight the new faith based religion of global warming. Don't keep arguing the subject, just tell them to go to GlobalWarmingHoax.com!
I'm assuming by "them," the site is referring to the "enemy" - aka, people who believe in global warming. As a member of the "enemy" category, I have to admit that I found this website pretty unconvincing. Any site that pairs a picture of the bald eagle with Earth behind it as their logo makes me kind of uneasy. But the articles the site includes certainly build an interesting case. The site lists off the purchase of a new "Mac Mansion" by Al Gore and a video about killing coworkers and children in the name of climate change. Feeling that this was way too Crichton-esque to be true, I watched the video.
According to Global Warming Hoax, it's written by the same screenwriter who wrote "Blackadder" in the UK and "Notting Hill." At first, I thought maybe it was a tongue and cheek short with dark British humor throughout. A teacher introduces the idea of the 10:10 program to get people to cut their carbon emissions by 10%. Most students agree that they are willing to try this and those that aren't are magically blown up when the teacher presses a button, all with gross sound affects and splattering gore, terrifying the other kids in the classroom. It continues on, in an office setting, on a football/soccer field. Then the video cut to title slides, showing the large amount of support for the 10:10 program. "Care to join us? No pressure," the narrator (Gillian Anderson from The X Files, actually) says with a sort of eerie threat in her voice. Then at the end of the video, Gillian Anderson herself is blown up for not being involved enough in the program.
Okay, I admit that British humor is difficult for me. It's either a total hit or miss, in my opinion. But I can't tell if this was meant to be humorous or just disgusting. In the context of this website, obviously it's seen as threatening and dangerous. Global Warming Hoax describes it as, "'No Pressure' celebrates everybody who is actively tackling climate change... by blowing up those are aren't." But I wonder what this video would have been like in a different context. Less terrifying? Less insulting?
I sort of doubt it. The makers of this video ended up having to pull it from their own website (according to Global Warming Hoax, at least). No matter the context, I think it would be in poor taste. But I don't want to align myself with the Hoax website either (especially as I can't find who contributed this video to the sight, their about page makes the website sound like some sort of entity, devoid of actual people posting things behind the scenes, and a "donate" button is constantly lingering on the right side of the page. "Donate to what? To who?" I wonder). But this argument has delved into a strange arena, split into two unlikable sides - people who are crass enough to blow people up in videos to (threateningly) support cutting carbon emissions, and people who believe that global warming supporters are out to brainwash and kill those who don't support them. There are certainly no "facts" in this situation and it's impossible to have a serious discussion when these are the options for support. It's a "friends versus enemies" battle to the extreme, and one that doesn't allow for any sort of middle ground or explanation. "Either your with us or against us." But what if I'm against them both?
This site even has a little slogan - "Where only the truth heats up" (and note on their website that it's been trademarked). They claim to have "arguments based on science, news and common sense." Beneath this, the website states:
This site is non-partisan and non-religious based. In fact we fight the new faith based religion of global warming. Don't keep arguing the subject, just tell them to go to GlobalWarmingHoax.com!
I'm assuming by "them," the site is referring to the "enemy" - aka, people who believe in global warming. As a member of the "enemy" category, I have to admit that I found this website pretty unconvincing. Any site that pairs a picture of the bald eagle with Earth behind it as their logo makes me kind of uneasy. But the articles the site includes certainly build an interesting case. The site lists off the purchase of a new "Mac Mansion" by Al Gore and a video about killing coworkers and children in the name of climate change. Feeling that this was way too Crichton-esque to be true, I watched the video.
According to Global Warming Hoax, it's written by the same screenwriter who wrote "Blackadder" in the UK and "Notting Hill." At first, I thought maybe it was a tongue and cheek short with dark British humor throughout. A teacher introduces the idea of the 10:10 program to get people to cut their carbon emissions by 10%. Most students agree that they are willing to try this and those that aren't are magically blown up when the teacher presses a button, all with gross sound affects and splattering gore, terrifying the other kids in the classroom. It continues on, in an office setting, on a football/soccer field. Then the video cut to title slides, showing the large amount of support for the 10:10 program. "Care to join us? No pressure," the narrator (Gillian Anderson from The X Files, actually) says with a sort of eerie threat in her voice. Then at the end of the video, Gillian Anderson herself is blown up for not being involved enough in the program.
Okay, I admit that British humor is difficult for me. It's either a total hit or miss, in my opinion. But I can't tell if this was meant to be humorous or just disgusting. In the context of this website, obviously it's seen as threatening and dangerous. Global Warming Hoax describes it as, "'No Pressure' celebrates everybody who is actively tackling climate change... by blowing up those are aren't." But I wonder what this video would have been like in a different context. Less terrifying? Less insulting?
I sort of doubt it. The makers of this video ended up having to pull it from their own website (according to Global Warming Hoax, at least). No matter the context, I think it would be in poor taste. But I don't want to align myself with the Hoax website either (especially as I can't find who contributed this video to the sight, their about page makes the website sound like some sort of entity, devoid of actual people posting things behind the scenes, and a "donate" button is constantly lingering on the right side of the page. "Donate to what? To who?" I wonder). But this argument has delved into a strange arena, split into two unlikable sides - people who are crass enough to blow people up in videos to (threateningly) support cutting carbon emissions, and people who believe that global warming supporters are out to brainwash and kill those who don't support them. There are certainly no "facts" in this situation and it's impossible to have a serious discussion when these are the options for support. It's a "friends versus enemies" battle to the extreme, and one that doesn't allow for any sort of middle ground or explanation. "Either your with us or against us." But what if I'm against them both?
Saturday, April 9, 2011
EPA says global warming is affecting environment
My site: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
When I read this blog post I went straight to the Environment Protection Agency’s website. Right away I thought of the EPA because it was so standard, and I figured they would have a lot to say on global warming. I wanted to see how they broke it down, and I was not disappointed. The first sentence on their page for climate change immediately made me chuckle a little. It read, “Climate change is a problem that is affecting people and the environment.” …No way! Climate change? A problem? It affects the environment?! My mind had been blown.
Unfortunately for the site, but fortunately for my entertainment, information never got much more complicated than that. It was filled with a series of oversimplified diagrams, generalized statements, and a host of very basic climate change terms and definitions (…Did you know green house gasses are ”gasses that trap heat in the atmosphere”?). I felt like I was reading a 5th grade text book, or watching that cartoon video we saw in class of chemical imbalance in the brain causing depression.
My intelligence had been insulted, but I could understand why the EPA chose to go the rout they did. After all, global warming is big topic and for some conceptually very hard to grasp. Every winter seems to feel colder and colder to me, so why should I believe the planet is heating up? And it doesn’t help that much or research and evidence is either contradictory or over the heads of anyone not in the field. Breaking global warming down into easy to understand terms humanizes it in a way, makes it less intimidating and confusing. And this makes it all the more real. If I don’t understand something it is probably speculation or a conspiracy theory. However, if something can conceptually be understood then why wouldn’t it be real? Thanks to the EPA next time its readers are told global warming isn’t legitimate they can respond, “It is too! I can draw a diagram to prove it!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)