The Age of Stupid, tonight 10pm BBC4

Thoushaltnot

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pft7f

"Drama-documentary-animation hybrid starring Oscar-nominated Pete Postlethwaite as a man living alone in the devastated world of 2055, watching archive footage from 2008 and asking why climate change wasn't stopped before it was too late."

There are also options to download the movie from the main site (free for home viewers);
http://www.ageofstupid.net/download

Toiletroll

It is nothing but a propaganda piece.

SeanW

Lord have mercy when will the madness end :mad:

The more of this crap I read about, the more it starts to look like AGW is a fabrication.

bonkey

SeanW wrote: »

The more of this crap I read about, the more it starts to look like AGW is a fabrication.

Indeed, because the best way to judge science is by the media reaction to it, rather then by the merits of the science itself.

bonkey

bonkey wrote: »

Indeed, because the best way to judge science is by the media reaction to it, rather then by the merits of the science itself.

The IPCC had no problem being associated with Al Gore and his lies when it came down to the Nobel Peace Prize

Toiletroll

Deleted User wrote: »

The IPCC had no problem being associated with Al Gore and his lies when it came down to the Nobel Peace Prize

Indeed... Also the whole eco-warrior agenda is fabricated anyway.

SeanW

bonkey wrote: »

Indeed, because the best way to judge science is by the media reaction to it, rather then by the merits of the science itself.

The science behind AGW denial was explained very well in a video posted in another thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63480537&postcount=7

Ok, I'm not a scientist so I can't analyse the claims for myself, but I'd sooner listen to a reasoned analysis than "give us carbon taxes and trans-national authorities, or the polar bear gets it."

Then we look at the people primarily pushing the AGW agenda: Al Gore, who jets around the world making speeches telling people about the importance of living like paupers, while presumably he and other politically connected people will be making a fortune running CCX (Carbon Credit Exchange) houses.

Then I look at Greenpeace and the Green Parties of the world and I find more disturbing reason to question the AGW agenda. That is, the almost unanimous aversion of the above to the one proven technology we have today that avoids carbon dioxide issues: Nuclear energy.
Take for example this page:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear
which is a pack of lies, as anyone who has studied the nuclear electricity option and the Chernobyl accident knows. Go to any national Green Party website in the world, and you'll find similar materials.

Now compare this to the worst predictions for AGW, where at worst you will have read scare stories about many major cities being flooded, the polar bears being exterminated, more hurricaines and extreme weather, a collapse of the agricultural system, equatorial countries being rendered uninhabitable due to obscene temperatures, famines, wars over water, etc, etc, etc.

Even if I (still) believed any of the den of lies and half truths being spun by the eco-whackos, I would then have to compare the possibility of more nuke weapons and a Chernobyl every decade, to the potential to avert some of the above.
Even though France has quietly shown us that this is not the choice we face, and done this consistently since the '70s when we were letting the hippies derail our nuke plans at Carnsore point.

It is partly on the belief that climate change was a real threat that I have been promoting copying the French for the last few years on these boards.

Why then, if we are facing unimaginable climate carnage, are the leaders of the environmentalist movement taking such an asinine stance to scaremonger and spin the nuclear option out of existance? Particularly when nuclear is our only scalable, reliable non-fossil energy option?

Even though I am not into conspiracy theories, the only plausible explanation is that it is an excuse to implement global governace institutions and/or take control of how individuals live their lives, with perhaps a Caucescau style move to hi-rise apartments or energy/carbon allowances, or who knows what else.

Thusly, an irrational opposition to nuclear energy becomes perfectly rational understandable if the real agenda isn't actually combatting AGW - it would give the people of the world at least some measure of an end-run around the mess of carbon taxes and other plans. For that reason, it would have to be removed from the table by any means necessary.

djpbarry

Toiletroll wrote: »

It is nothing but...

...a film?

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Then I look at Greenpeace and the Green Parties of the world and I find more disturbing reason to question the AGW agenda. That is, the almost unanimous aversion of the above to the one proven technology we have today that avoids carbon dioxide issues: Nuclear energy.

So because Greenpeace are anti-nuke, you must therefore take the opposing “side” to them on every other issue?

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

So because Greenpeace are anti-nuke, you must therefore take the opposing “side” to them on every other issue?

No, at least not necessarily.

My point was the issue of the link between nuclear energy and climate change. I'm known for being a pro-nuke on these boards so I won't bore anyone with a rehash of my points, suffice to say I contend that everything on the GP page I linked to is a pack of lies.

As to the link, the prevailing wisdom is that Energy use = fossil fuel energy = CO2 Emissions = Dead polar bears and climate chaos. Breaking that chain is CO2 free or CO2 limited technologies like renewables, biofuels AND nuclear. France has shown us how it should be done, their electricity supply is 90%+ non-fossil, with nuclear making up the bulk of that and hydroelectricity making the bulk of the remainder.

This should be ideal, but (putting on my tin foil hat) supposing the objective was not saving the planet from climate catastrophe, but something more nefarious? Were the leadership of Greenpeace (and other environmental movements) not to themselves believe in global warming, but instead be promoting carbon taxes and transnational governace to advance a conspiracy, it would make sense that any practical CO2-limited energy technology would have to be opposed, quite hyperbolically if that needed be.

In that respect nuclear power is not unique, if there is an AGW conspiracy and the technology in question were something different, like microwave collectors, fusion, or rotating magnets or whatever, in that case, the response of Greenpeace et. al. would be the same, i.e. whipping up irrational fearmongering using any means necessary.

If the people of the world were to take ownership of a CO2-free or CO2-limited energy technology, this would be the ultimate nightmare for anyone pushing a (hypothetical) man-made Global Warming conspiracy.

Now, I'm not accusing Greenpeace and/or world Green Parties of being involved in a conspiracy, but I consider the possibility to be real, and for that reason, I would like to know more about the science behind the claims of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Akrasia

Toiletroll wrote: »

It is nothing but a propaganda piece.

Of course it's propaganda, It doesn't pretend to be anything else. Propaganda by definition is

Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Whether it is honest propaganda, or whether it is incideous propaganda that tries to mislead the viewer is the question we ought to debate here.

The Great Global Warming Swindle and Not Evil Just Wrong are also two pieces of propaganda, but these pretend to be impartial documentaries and both use information that is demonstrably false, sometimes to the point of fraud.

I notice that when The age of stupid was mentioned, there were about 5 or 6 immediate reactions from the 'skeptics' "propaganda, unbalanced, biased etc"

but there is a 13 page thread on the great global warming swindle and not one of the 'skeptics' ever questioned whether there was any bias in that documentary.

That doesn't look very skeptical to me. In fact, accepting one side unquestioningly while challenging everything from the other side is almost the definition of ideologue

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

The IPCC had no problem being associated with Al Gore and his lies when it came down to the Nobel Peace Prize

I think it's quite funny that you lie about al gore lying in his film.

There was a UK court case, about 9 discrepancies were discovered, most of those were specific claims that were not fully supported by the evidence (eg linking Katrina to AGW or the melting Ice on Kilimonjaro) but on balance the court found that the information in An Inconvenient Truth was an honest representation of the climate science.

I very much doubt the same conclusion would be reached given a similar analysis of The great global warming swindle or Not Evil Just Wrong

loyatemu

I watched this last night, and it was a powerful film. But it was also terrifying in a way that reminded me of the anti-nuclear propaganda films of the 80s (Threads, When the wind blows etc).

Which ironically made me more sceptical about it - 80s nuclear paranoia turned out to be way over-hyped.

Akrasia

loyatemu wrote: »

I watched this last night, and it was a powerful film. But it was also terrifying in a way that reminded me of the anti-nuclear propaganda films of the 80s (Threads, When the wind blows etc).

Which ironically made me more sceptical about it - 80s nuclear paranoia turned out to be way over-hyped.

I loved threads, extremely powerful television. It sure as hell makes you hope that a nuclear war never happens.

I watched the age of stupid last night too, it was a bit ropey in places but had some very nice scenes and a powerful message.

Your point about nuclear paranoia being over hyped? Are you sure? Didn't all that paranoia lead to the non proliferation treaty and the IEAE inspections regime to ensure that the main superpowers could be more trusting of each others intentions and less likely to try and sneak up on one another...

The threat of nuclear war is still present by the way, It's not as likely as during the cold war, but the pandoras box is open and given the number of armed conflicts in the 20th century, it is impossible to predict what will develop over the 21st century (especially if there are extra pressures over resources due to global warming)

bonkey

SeanW wrote: »

Ok, I'm not a scientist so I can't analyse the claims for myself, but I'd sooner listen to a reasoned analysis than "give us carbon taxes and trans-national authorities, or the polar bear gets it."

I'm not aware of any scientific research which mentions carbon taxes, or trans-national authorities. Polar bears have been mentioned, but they're generally not the focus of most climate-related studies.

I find it ironic, though that you're comparing a video explaining the science on one side, with the most hyperbolic non-scientific aspect of the other side.

Then we look at the people primarily pushing the AGW agenda:

As I said...the best way to judge science is to look at the media reaction to it.

I was, in case it wasn't blatantly obvious, being completely sarcastic. The best way to judge science is on the merits of the science itself. But time after time after time, people seem to confuse the political
movement, the media circus, and the science.

Even if I (still) believed any of the den of lies and half truths being spun by the eco-whackos, I would then have to compare the possibility of more nuke weapons and a Chernobyl every decade, to the potential to avert some of the above.

And now you're turning the issue into a platform to advocate for your own issues...despite spending the first half of your post complaining about others doing just that.

Why then, if we are facing unimaginable climate carnage, are the leaders of the environmentalist movement taking such an asinine stance to scaremonger and spin the nuclear option out of existance?

Well, given that they haven't taken a non-asinine stance on anything relating to cliamte change other than the acceptance of its existence.....I'm not entirely sure why your chosen issue is worthy of special note.