Thoughts?
If......
Thoughts?
I want my 4:39 minutes back please...
If I wanted this video to fail, I'd use melodramatics and play on peoples fears instead of presenting facts to my audience like they're educated adults instead of 12 yr old children, or toothless hillbillies.
If I wanted this video to fail, I'd misinform people about climate change, while being misinformed about climate change myself. I'd tell them my activities didnt have an impact on my environment
I suppose I wouldnt change a thing....
So what about it is melodramatic and so far out of line?Originally Posted by .blank cd
Videography. He's sitting in a dark room with half his face lit, with dramatic minor chord music, talking in almost monotone voice using words like lie, fear, fail, illegal, expensive. On and on and on. Anyone with a high school reading level should feel insulted by this. But most of its target audience doesn't have a high school reading level. That's why it works.
Not to mention its sponsored by the Koch bros.
I was more interested in the content than production value, but I guess that's an easy way to dismiss it. Go ahead and educate me on what parts of that video are wrong (the information, not the way in which it was filmed).
For starters, he's grossly misinforming viewers about climate change and the impact industrial activity has on the environment. That's the part that stuck out the most. I could watch the video again and pick apart the rest of it
The fact that he's using Earth Day to push his political agenda is pretty disturbing too.
"If I wanted America to fail, I'd start with energy..."
Really guy? No one, except speculators, is actively trying to make fossil fuel arbitrarily more expensive or making you feel guilty about using it. The fact is, as a developed nation we are actively trying to pursue alternate, cheaper, more efficient forms of energy. The fact is fossil fuels are finite. We will run out one day.
What did he misrepresent about climate change? The consensus 40 something years ago was that another ice age was imminent, now the consensus is that the earth is warming and we're all doomed. So which is it?
Steven Chu, the energy sec saying we need European level gas prices.
Obama saying how his policies will bankrupt the coal industry and cause electricity rates to skyrocket.
EPA regulations choking out industry.
Yeah, just those speculators running up energy costs, no one else.
The fact is, we are throwing MILLIONS of dollars of borrowed money at green energy companies that are failing right and left. Why are the failing? Because there is no market for their products, they are too expensive and inefficient to be practical. The only market for all this green energy technology is the false market created by the gov't sticking their hand into the marketplace where it shouldn't be.
The scientific consensus, the only consensus that matters, is that the earth is warming and that humans are partially responsible. The politicians and pundits and MSM are the only ones that are saying we're doomed. Scientists say that it would be irresponsible to have the ability to do something about it and just sit on our hands.
How long ago was that?
So then your solution would be to not use the technology we have, and sit back and relax til we run out of oil, then think of something then. What happens when China or India comes out with a breakthrough in clean energy technology, would you rather just pay them for it? Lol
They said the same thing 40 years ago, and they were dead wrong. Granted technology has improved in the past 40 years, but what makes them unequivocally right now?
2008, your point? It was his stated position, still is. What has been done in the past 4 years to reduce the cost of energy? Nothing.
Did I say we just sit back wait for someone in China or India to come up with something? No. Is it the gov't job to come up with new technologies? No. Throwing millions upon millions of borrowed dollars at "clean" energy doesn't guarantee that we will be the first either. We're also not running out of oil anytime soon.
I can't tell if you're being serious or trolling right now.
I'm not trolling. For one thing, climate change data and interpretations have been manipulated more times than Pamela Anderson's tits. 40 years ago they said the earth is cooling because of us and we must stop it, now they say the earth is warming because of us and we must stop it. The data may support that there is warming, but where is the conclusive data that says it is anthropogenic and not merely another natural cycle? There's been climate variations long before we had planes, trains and automobiles. How far back does reliable climatological data go? 100-150 years? Maybe longer, even at a 1000 years that's a relatively minute sample. The earth has been around for how long? 4.5 billion give or take? Somehow we've managed to figure out the nuances of climate change from a sample set of 0.0000033333333333333333% of the age of the earth? Sounds reliable to me.
Care to comment on any other points from the video or is climate change it?
Global cooling was a conjecture, there was NEVER any scientific concensus on that. Data has not been manipulated. All current conclusive data says its man made. Carbon from fossil fuels has a certain signature which has been found in the upper layers of the atmosphere. We've known about the greenhouse effect and global warming since the early 1800s. Only recently has it been politicized and criticized. The data is all there, but deniers are scared of it because it's scientific. Scientific means liberal.
lol. Maybe manipulated was a poor choice of words. Misconstrued or selectively interpreted probably would have been a better choice.
Well that directly contradicts with the idea of global cooling now doesn't it? If it's been such solid science for so long why was it disputed?
Misinterpreted by the wrong people.
because there's a difference between dispute and skepticism.
What if they weren't finite. What if the Earth churned out oil on a regular basis...
Would your views change?
I mean, we have made it cleaner as technology has progressed. Not sure why that trend wouldn't continue.
If that were the case, I still wouldn't be against finding cheaper, more efficient sources of energy. However if oil was renewable, I don't think there would be as big of a push to do so sooner
Think about it. We only use about 10-15% of gasoline's potential energy, and that's after crude has been cut down. That's pretty inefficient. What if there was some element out there that was 100% renewable, 80-100% efficient, and an order of magnitude cheaper to extract and refine? The problem is people are scared of an infrastructure change.
Agreed. I wouldn't be against that either, however there is a theory... Not sure I buy into it fully, but there has been a theory about abiotic oil. Some of it makes sense to me, some of it not so much. Supposedly this Vladimir Kutcherov guy has "proved it"... I'm not sold yet. But it is food for thought. Makes more sense than most of the dinosaurs died in a big heap in the Middle East (yes I know oil doesn't really come from dead dinosaurs).
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...orth-exploring
http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html
The theory actually first originated with Nazi scientists, but everyone like to conveniently leave that part out. As to why everyone has kept it secret (assuming it's true)... The same old answer.
Money. And with that also comes control.
If you have a finite resource you can charge more for it.
Anyway, it's night-night time for this old man.
Does it matter if we're first though? Why not use the money for our own "energy independence" as people coin it. Why not? It actually wouldnt matter who is first or last, so long as we're doing it. Developing new technology for the sake of the future is awesome. Why stop it over money? You DO realize that money is just made up right? People ask "oh how will we pay for it, where will the money come from?" WE PRINT IT and VALUE IT. Just make it and STFU, it's for the future.
And we will run out of oil soon, or we'll just die from overheating our lil green and blue home. We may be able to air condition ourselves, but cows can't, soybeans can't, trees can't. Support "green" energy, it's clean, fukin use it.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
I don't even know where in the hell to start with this post.
"Where does the money come from? WE PRINT IT and VALUE IT" Certainly you're not so dense as to think we can just infinitely print money with no consequences. The more money we print the less it is worth. There's a metric shit ton of places to better spend money right now than unicorn farts and fairy dust.
Wow... I'm not even sure where to begin. So I will gracefully bow out of this high-brow conversation.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
