Interesting

[Ludwig]

No, it's not in the least funny and Roger Helmer is a ...no President Obama says we mustn't be nasty to people who are...oopps,, nearly said it.

Who are what?

[UndercoverElephant]

"When you are trying to save the planet every lie helps!"

Lol

Extractorfan gets it...

The scientists in question aren't actually trying to save the planet. They are trying to save the credibility of climatology from a tidal wave of politically-motivated propaganda and widespread denial from people who are more inclined to believe that propaganda than scientists who are saying something they do not want to hear. And they are getting pretty desperate, because the propagandists and denialists appear to be growing in numbers. Some of them genuinely believe they have won they argument, even though the scientific consensus about AGW which has existed for the last decade has shown absolutely no sign of breaking down. The problem appears to be that the general public, especially in the United States, does not understand how science works and why you can't overturn scientific theories with tidal waves of anti-scientific propaganda. This is not all that surprising given that 75% of the US population think Darwin was wrong and that evolutionary biology is equally discredited. What is more alarming is the rise of climate change denialism amongst the public in the UK too. I can't do anything about everything that goes on in internetland, but I can do my part to make sure this affliction doesn't get a toehold established on this particular bulletin board.

This situation could not be more serious. There is nothing funny about it.

[extractorfan]

Let me tell you what the point in that video is: to spread politically-motivated anti-scientific propaganda. If your reaction to it is amusement rather than anger, then you do not understand what is currently going on in the world because you have already been influenced by propaganda just like this.

It seems to me that the point is, Climate Science has been and continues to be used to support the arguments of people with an agenda. I think this agenda is one of voluntary lifestyle change where rich people willingly reduce their carbon footprint and set an example to the rest of the world.

Now people should be honest about their agenda’s, and there is nothing wrong in itself in arguing for voluntary lifestyle change, but climate science is just that, a science, it doesn’t dictate anything other than facts. Because people with an agenda are using climate science to sort of promote their cause, often the arguments for anthropogenic climate change are presented by people who have not actually read the science, like the female character in the video. They are merely brainwashed followers of a cultural dogma, the fact that there may be something fundamentally correct about climate science does not mean there is something fundamentally correct about their particular dogma.

So they present the case for AGW with religious zeal, calling any who question the science as climate change deniar, and the person doing the questioning is left feeling vaguely similarly as an atheist being called an infidel, like “who gives a……?”

Just because someone questions an accepted scientific theory, however well grounded, does not make that person ignorant, in fact possibly the opposite. I will accept the evidence for AGW until some very strong evidence to the contrary is provided, and that is how everyone should take every well founded scientific theory.

So the point? That arguing with a person with an unknown agenda about a subject they know little about but are certain of its accuracy can lead to the sort of conversation seen in the video. The people that are the most vocal proponents of AGW are often the ones doing the most damage to the cause of educating people. That’s why it’s funny…..to me.

[UndercoverElephant]

No, it's not in the least funny and Roger Helmer is a ...no President Obama says we mustn't be nasty to people who are...oopps,, nearly said it.

Who are what?

Ignorant wankers.

[Ludwig]

Let me tell you what the point in that video is: to spread politically-motivated anti-scientific propaganda. If your reaction to it is amusement rather than anger, then you do not understand what is currently going on in the world because you have already been influenced by propaganda just like this.

+1.

The propagandists are going to have an easy time of it, because people these days are far more hungry for entertainment than for information.

[UndercoverElephant]

Let me tell you what the point in that video is: to spread politically-motivated anti-scientific propaganda. If your reaction to it is amusement rather than anger, then you do not understand what is currently going on in the world because you have already been influenced by propaganda just like this.

It seems to me that the point is, Climate Science has been and continues to be used to support the arguments of people with an agenda.

If by "agenda" you mean "not hopelessly screwing up the climate" or "leaving the planet in an inhabitable state" then yes I guess they've got an agenda. You've got it exactly backwards. The people who are trying to "save the planet" are simply taking the science at face value. It is the people who are systematically denying the credibility whose political agenda is distorting the science, not the ones who are accepting the science at face value.

I think this agenda is one of voluntary lifestyle change where rich people willingly reduce their carbon footprint and set an example to the rest of the world.

Now people should be honest about their agenda’s, and there is nothing wrong in itself in arguing for voluntary lifestyle change, but climate science is just that, a science, it doesn’t dictate anything other than facts.

And it is precisely those facts which are routinely denied by the denialists and propagandists.

Because people with an agenda are using climate science to sort of promote their cause, often the arguments for anthropogenic climate change are presented by people who have not actually read the science, like the female character in the video. They are merely brainwashed followers of a cultural dogma, the fact that there may be something fundamentally correct about climate science does not mean there is something fundamentally correct about their particular dogma.

A far greater percentage of the environmentalists in question are familiar with the relevant science than the denialists.

Science is not dogma. Accepting scientific consensus is not "being a brainwashed follower of cultural dogma." It is perfectly acceptable to see that there is a scientific consensus and believe something on that basis rather than checking every scientific paper that is issued on the subject. If this was not true, modern science simply would not work, because nobody can follow all of the literature in all branches of science.

So they present the case for AGW with religious zeal, calling any who question the science as climate change deniar,

That is because 99% of them are precisely that.

Just because someone questions an accepted scientific theory, however well grounded, does not make that person ignorant, in fact possibly the opposite. I will accept the evidence for AGW until some very strong evidence to the contrary is provided, and that is how everyone should take every well founded scientific theory.

So the point? That arguing with a person with an unknown agenda about a subject they know little about but are certain of its accuracy can lead to the sort of conversation seen in the video.

I do not believe the conversation we saw in that video ever actually happens. It is a denialist's fantasy, nothing more.

[clv101]

The scientists in question aren't actually trying to save the planet.

That is a very good point! The scientists, are overwhelmingly just normal people living normal lives, many driving to work and having their two weeks in the sun each year. Scientists are trying to change the world, change behaviours etc - they are just doing science. If it was climate it'd be something else.

There is a fairly low correlation between climate scientist and climate change activist. How many of the people attested in associated with Climate Camp last year had doctoral degrees in climate related subjects?

Not confuse the scientist with the activist.

[Ludwig]

Just because someone questions an accepted scientific theory, however well grounded, does not make that person ignorant, in fact possibly the opposite.

This video does not question a scientific theory, it simply casts unqualified aspertions on the motivation of all those who accept the theory.

The way to win a battle of ideas is to ridicule your opponent enough to make people scared of taking him seriously, for fear that they'll be next.

So the point? That arguing with a person with an unknown agenda about a subject they know little about but are certain of its accuracy can lead to the sort of conversation seen in the video. The people that are the most vocal proponents of AGW are often the ones doing the most damage to the cause of educating people. That’s why it’s funny…..to me.

Does it not cross your mind to wonder if the person/organisation that made this video has their agenda? No, as long as you're entertained, you question nothing. Such, indeed, is the power of entertainment.

The way to win supporters for a cause is to deflect debate away from facts and simply ridicule the other side.

[extractorfan]

I do not believe the conversation we saw in that video ever actually happens. It is a denialist's fantasy, nothing more.

It is precisely because of conversations like that (albeit on the internet) that lead me to have to look at (some of) the science myself, because I had relevant, non stupid questions to ask. Not all of my questions were answerable and it could have been argued as such, but no, I was Mr climate change deniar, enemy of the children of the future.

"Science is not dogma" is EXACTLY what I was saying.

I will never believe anything just because a lot of people, even a majority of well respected scientists, say something is so, I want to know why, and so should all thoughtful people.

[extractorfan]

Does it not cross your mind to wonder if the person/organisation that made this video has their agenda? No, as long as you're entertained, you question nothing. Such, indeed, is the power of entertainment.

of course, I was just pointing out why I found something funny. And similarly to questioning something innocently, I was attacked as ignorant.

That my friend, is biggoted.

Edit: not well worded: i was called ignorant only in the first instance, and felt the need to defend myself!

[Ludwig]

The problem appears to be that the general public, especially in the United States, does not understand how science works and why you can't overturn scientific theories with tidal waves of anti-scientific propaganda. This is not all that surprising given that 75% of the US population think Darwin was wrong and that evolutionary biology is equally discredited. What is more alarming is the rise of climate change denialism amongst the public in the UK too. I can't do anything about everything that goes on in internetland, but I can do my part to make sure this affliction doesn't get a toehold established on this particular bulletin board.

It's been pointed out that you can never win over the general public by appeal to reason but only by appeal to emotion. Like it or not, most people can't follow a scientific or logical argument, and among those who can, a large proportion are blinded by denial.

[clv101]

I will never believe anything just because a lot of people, even a majority of well respected scientists, say something is so, I want to know why, and so should all thoughtful people.

This only works in practice up to a point. The world is far far far too complicated for you to understand any more than a tiny little bit of it. Think about healthcare, we trust our lives to the diagnosis and prescriptions of doctors without understanding, we trust the engineers who designed our safety critical infrastructure without understanding how it works... all over the place we trust specialists, unquestionably. Yet somehow climate science it different? It's only different as the conclusions have rather inconvenient ramifications for life.

Rationally, we'd trust the climate scientists as we trust the other specialists.

[extractorfan]

Rationally, we'd trust the climate scientists as we trust the other specialists.

No, because climate scientists are predicting something cataclysmic. That sort of prediction requires special attention. Same with peak oil.

And as for everyday things we do, yes to a certain extent, but I researched the MMR scare thing and found that to be a load of baloney. I also researched (as far as possible) the dangers of pregnant women taking the flu vaccine, and found them to be negligable. But to a certain axtent I accept your point, there's only so much time, otherwise there's no time left to watch funny videos.

[clv101]

Rationally, we'd trust the climate scientists as we trust the other specialists.

No, because climate scientists are predicting something cataclysmic. That sort of prediction requires special attention. Same with peak oil.

Special attention indeed - and climate science has had it. I don't think many people realise just was an amazing thing the IPCC is. No area of science has ever experienced the scale of analysis and synthesis that the IPCC has brought to the field. It came out of the UN some 22 years ago now (long before the area became politicised as it is now). Climate change received this exceptional interest from the global community almost a quarter century ago just because there was a change it was cataclysmic.

[UndercoverElephant]

Rationally, we'd trust the climate scientists as we trust the other specialists.

No, because climate scientists are predicting something cataclysmic.

So we trust a scientific consensus under normal circumstances, but not when it is predicting something cataclysmic? How does that work, logically? It would appear to imply that scientists are more likely to arrive at an incorrect consensus when that consensus has major negative consequences than they are when there are no major negative consequences. Again, this is precisely backwards. Given the seriousness of the conclusions, the chance that the scientists have arrived at an incorrect consensus is virtually nil.

Rationally, we should accept the consensus. You aren't being rational.