The Big Picture: Conspiracy Weary

[A Pious Cultist]

9/11 was caused by a two fucking passenger jets.
"Wake up sheeple." >_>

Nothing more to say to that, still ashamed that loose change was even given so much as the time of day. Not to mention the sheer amount of disrespect in claiming all those dead firefighters were "in on it" or that the phone calls from the passengers to their families were "hurr hurr fake".

 

[Sylveria]

Global warming is real. Whether or not we are significantly affecting it is the debate.

Conspiracy theories are stupid. Personal agendas should always be considered.

Pff nah uh. It snowed today AND it's below freezing, that means global warming is unequivocally proven false.

The moon landing was faked though to just sorta wave our big red, white, and blue junk at Russia and Cheney is Satan in disguise, not a Specter agent, silly Bob.

 

[WaderiAAA]

Really good episode. And yes, reality is pretty frightening sometimes, but personally I just find conspiration theoriest to be funny and silly.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

...

To anyone who criticizes a scientific theory for not being proven... gravity isn't proven. In fact, there isn't a single thing in science that is proven. That's why they're called theories. However, for something to even become a theory it has to tested rather extensively, so it's not so easily dismissed.

That's not entirely true, some basic concepts have been proven beyond any doubt. For instance, the existence of cells, the fact that a ind can be conditioned, mostly psychology and biology. Though that's really fairly irrelevant here. I'd like to say that climate change is among the more tested theories and it's one that's more likely to be true. Again, not being cautious becomes an unwise risk to take.

...

Right, the important part. See, I'm better at waffling through things without ever getting to the actual point, so I'm going to insult this rather than respond to it.
No.

Weather system: We understand it fairly well, just not as well as other things, so there is a fairly wide margin of error.

It also stands to reason that increased carbon dioxide (refuse to write CO2 to refer to it because the notation makes no scientific sense and you can't get subscript here) will increase temperature, and based on what we do know of meteorology, we can guess (not beyond any doubt, but beyond a reasonable one) what will be affected worse if we persist. It doesn't look pretty.

Then the other gasses that never were there... yeah, that makes it even worse.

Honestly, it's fix it now or wait twenty years to see if the hypothesis is proven. I have to take the unscientific route here, unfortunately.

And as for your moral question:

Economic collapse. Any day. Society has gotten fat and lazy, perhaps a shake-up (even if it shoves me and others below the poor bracket) is what we need. It would at least make things interesting for a couple decades. But that's philosophy again.

My point is essentially, it's an unnecessary and unwise gamble to take. I'd prefer to fix things up before they get worse. And they can get worse.

I more or less agree. Though I would point out that

1) My main point about theories was that the term 'theory' does not signify uncertainty in scientific academia like it does in general language. I think I came off as more skeptical than I intended, as I certainly acknowledge that the existence of cells etc. has more or less been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, generally speaking that is no longer considered a theory, and is more like a law. Although, even laws can be doubted (not in whether they describe something that does happen, but whether they quite explain what is happening, i.e. Newton's law of gravity). But then again, this doesn't boil down to the theory being 'wrong', but in not quite being nuanced enough.

2) In terms of the weather: it's emergent complexity. Emergent complexity is always very difficult for us to deal with because it doesn't break down into isolate-able parts that can be studied separately. It also doesn't lend itself to scientific experimentation because the forces at work can't be put into a lab with controls, and indeed the very placement of controls could affect the emergent complexity. This is why we aren't able to understand the brain by simply looking at one neuron, and is why neuroscience in general progresses more slowly than biology does. We understand how certain weather phenomena work (e.g. what causes a hurricane), but I'm not sure if we can say we understand the entire weather system of the planet, which is really the point at issue. There's just too many factors and it's really difficult to test. Though I do agree that it isn't reasonable to ignore our impact and say climate change is probably natural when 1) there is so much at stake, and 2) we know the chemical effects of the stuff we produce, that couldn't possibly be part of the natural cycle.

3) I largely agree with your stance on the ethical argument. It seems to me that it's sheer laziness on our part on not wanting to switch over from fossil fuels. Not only that, but oil has a lot of other important uses (polymers, plastics, etc.). I think it would be a huge boon to American industry if we made the shift. Right now we're moving into becoming a service based economy, which is crap. We were powerful when we made stuff. We still make some computers and what not, but I don't see how we can stay on top economically by just having a service industry. There's really no reason to switch over other than temporary inconvenience, and the people in the oil industry loosing money. Not only that, but we could stop giving a crap about the middle east, and can just let them flounder in their own religious fanaticism. But everyone tends to be shortsighted.

4) About Bush: Great president? No friggin' way. War criminal? Maybe a little. But he's nothing compared to Lincoln, who suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, ordered mass executions, ordered a scorched earth policy against civilian targets and even denied the Confederate's request that union doctors come to take care of the union prisoners because he thought it would be better to let union prisoners die of disease if it helped to strain the confederacy's resources. Now he's worshiped as a hero as the freer of the slaves. (Which is even funnier because he offered seceding states slavery in perpetuity if they rejoined the union on multiple occasions.) He did things one hundred times worse than Bush (granted he also had more reason to) and he's considered a hero, so what are the chances anything will happen to Bush besides him being paid $100,000 an hour on the lecture circuit?

 

[WaderiAAA]

Really good episode. And yes, reality is pretty frightening sometimes, but personally I just find conspiration theoriest to be funny and silly.

I always thought they were more fun back in the 1990s. Then Bush came, and we all found out there REALLY IS an evil conspiracy that runs this country...and they're IDIOTS.

You do realize that this site is not all-American right? I mean, you can at least say "USA" or "America" instead of "this country". I, for one, am Norwegian.

Anyway, I see your point, but I think there is a big difference between a proven conspiracy (as in the Bush administration planted a false letter linking Saddam Hussain to 9/11) and conspiration theories. The first one is based on evidence, and is dead serious, while the second one is based on speculation and mostly prove to be wrong.

 

[Drake_Dercon]

*snip*

I more or less agree. Though I would point out that

1) My main point about theories was that the term 'theory' does not signify uncertainty in scientific academia like it does in general language. I think I came off as more skeptical than I intended, as I certainly acknowledge that the existence of cells etc. has more or less been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, generally speaking that is no longer considered a theory, and is more like a law. Although, even laws can be doubted (not in whether they describe something that does happen, but whether they quite explain what is happening, i.e. Newton's law of gravity). But then again, this doesn't boil down to the theory being 'wrong', but in not quite being nuanced enough.

Ah, arguments over technicalities. I really don't know why I love them so. Though, I think we agree on this point so there's no need to continue it.

2) In terms of the weather: it's emergent complexity. Emergent complexity is always very difficult for us to deal with because it doesn't break down into isolate-able parts that can be studied separately. It also doesn't lend itself to scientific experimentation because the forces at work can't be put into a lab with controls, and indeed the very placement of controls could affect the emergent complexity. This is why we aren't able to understand the brain by simply looking at one neuron, and is why neuroscience in general progresses more slowly than biology does. We understand how certain weather phenomena work (e.g. what causes a hurricane), but I'm not sure if we can say we understand the entire weather system of the planet, which is really the point at issue. There's just too many factors and it's really difficult to test. Though I do agree that it isn't reasonable to ignore our impact and say climate change is probably natural when 1) there is so much at stake, and 2) we know the chemical effects of the stuff we produce, that couldn't possibly be part of the natural cycle.

I really haven't studied meteorology that much, so I can't comment, though with proper study, anything can be predicted to exactly how it will turn out. Give us 200 years and I bet we'll have it. I did say "not as well as everything else", though. The meaning might have been a bit obscure, so I'll try to flesh that out. We can understand the causes and effects of most things (i.e. >50%). How they relate... not so much. But then, I haven't studied meteorology very much.

Environmentalism ftw. I honestly mean that. I get hydro power. And other stuff...

I have to fix myself up a bit.

3) I largely agree with your stance on the ethical argument. It seems to me that it's sheer laziness on our part on not wanting to switch over from fossil fuels. Not only that, but oil has a lot of other important uses (polymers, plastics, etc.). I think it would be a huge boon to American industry if we made the shift. Right now we're moving into becoming a service based economy, which is crap. We were powerful when we made stuff. We still make some computers and what not, but I don't see how we can stay on top economically by just having a service industry. There's really no reason to switch over other than temporary inconvenience, and the people in the oil industry loosing money. Not only that, but we could stop giving a crap about the middle east, and can just let them flounder in their own religious fanaticism. But everyone tends to be shortsighted.

...Canadian. But we're so similar it doesn't matter.

'Bout the middle east, though:
Both our countries are in pretty deep, if we back out now, lives will be in danger (remember, most people over there aren't suicide bomber candidates and a great many want to help the people coming in. What do we do? Blow them off and wait for these organizations to take hold again and kill them for treason?). Plus all the money and people lost from our side would have been completely wasted. You start something, you finish it. I don't see where the opposition comes from on this debate (so, If you could help me on that, it would be much appreciated), but it seems to have taken hold.

4) About Bush: Great president? No friggin' way. War criminal? Maybe a little. But he's nothing compared to Lincoln, who suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, ordered mass executions, ordered a scorched earth policy against civilian targets and even denied the Confederate's request that union doctors come to take care of the union prisoners because he thought it would be better to let union prisoners die of disease if it helped to strain the confederacy's resources. Now he's worshiped as a hero as the freer of the slaves. (Which is even funnier because he offered seceding states slavery in perpetuity if they rejoined the union on multiple occasions.) He did things one hundred times worse than Bush (granted he also had more reason to) and he's considered a hero, so what are the chances anything will happen to Bush besides him being paid $100,000 an hour on the lecture circuit?

Okay... I just want to know where the hell that came from. Is it about something I said? Nice history facts, but I don't see what they have to do with anything I was talking about. If they were about Bob's video, you should point that out, because it doesn't make much sense as part of a response.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

But he's nothing compared to Lincoln, who suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, ordered mass executions, ordered a scorched earth policy against civilian targets and even denied the Confederate's request that union doctors come to take care of the union prisoners because he thought it would be better to let union prisoners die of disease if it helped to strain the confederacy's resources. Now he's worshiped as a hero as the freer of the slaves. (Which is even funnier because he offered seceding states slavery in perpetuity if they rejoined the union on multiple occasions.) He did things one hundred times worse than Bush (granted he also had more reason to) and he's considered a hero, so what are the chances anything will happen to Bush besides him being paid $100,000 an hour on the lecture circuit?

To be excruciatingly fair, "rebellion or invasion" are the only circumstances under which habeas corpus is constitutionally ALLOWED to be suspended.

And Bush doesn't even have preserving the Union or freeing the slaves on his resume.

Ah, true. But a rebellion is when someone tries to overthrow a government. A secession is when some group tries to break away from a government. There is a rather large difference. For example, what if, say, fundamentalist Christians took over America, abolished the first amendment and denied rights to anyone who wasn't a protestant Christian? Say then, that California decided it didn't want to be part of that government and decided to secede. They have no wish to take over the American government, they just want out. Although the ethical situation is reversed, it's the same situation. I'd say that in a democracy any group has a right to break away.

 

[GaudyMarrko]

Is global warming real? According to my earth science prof, modern temperatures today are still lower than they were in the Cambrian,and all we need to do is wait about 15000 years for the continents to shift into a position that will block water circulation at the equator and we'll be in yet another ice age. But screw science, this site is for videogames.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

[
'Bout the middle east, though:
Both our countries are in pretty deep, if we back out now, lives will be in danger (remember, most people over there aren't suicide bomber candidates and a great many want to help the people coming in. What do we do? Blow them off and wait for these organizations to take hold again and kill them for treason?). Plus all the money and people lost from our side would have been completely wasted. You start something, you finish it. I don't see where the opposition comes from on this debate (so, If you could help me on that, it would be much appreciated), but it seems to have taken hold.

...

Okay... I just want to know where the hell that came from. Is it about something I said? Nice history facts, but I don't see what they have to do with anything I was talking about. If they were about Bob's video, you should point that out, because it doesn't make much sense as part of a response.

In quick reply. I agree with you about pulling out, it would be a huge waste. But it would also be nice to be less reliant upon OPEC.

Also, sorry about the Lincoln thing, that wasn't really directed at you per-se, I just find it a little infuriating when people complain about the (relatively) minor stuff Bush has done, when we all hold Lincoln in such high regard. It's either hypocrisy or ignorance. For the majority of people, it's ignorance. Other than that I didn't really have a point...

oh... no... wait... there is a point: keeping all of these facts out of the history books is really kind of an informal conspiracy, don't you think? No one planned to do it, but it's a repression of facts derived from a general consensus (that Lincoln is an American hero and therefore was incapable of doing wrong). Not a conspiracy, per se, but almost as nasty.

 

[Prometheus46715]

Hanlon's Razor. Keep it close at all times.

 

[Drake_Dercon]

In quick reply. I agree with you about pulling out, it would be a huge waste. But it would also be nice to be less reliant upon OPEC.

Also, sorry about the Lincoln thing, that wasn't really directed at you per-se, I just find it a little infuriating when people complain about the (relatively) minor stuff Bush has done, when we all hold Lincoln in such high regard. It's either hypocrisy or ignorance. For the majority of people, it's ignorance. Other than that I didn't really have a point...

oh... no... wait... there is a point: keeping all of these facts out of the history books is really kind of an informal conspiracy, don't you think? No one planned to do it, but it's a repression of facts derived from a general consensus (that Lincoln is an American hero and therefore was incapable of doing wrong). Not a conspiracy, per se, but almost as nasty.

All right, I can respect that. Just one point: conspiracy requires intent, the fact that it's not there is just epic fail. Or perhaps it is conspiracy, Lincoln was a Republican, you know. Could the Conservative side deal with that kind of shame being taught in schools?

Now I'm not quite sure if I was being sarcastic...

 

[Rafe]

That was really insightful and I greatly enjoyed it. Nice work!

Glad to see another episode not about comics. That stuff goes right through me.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

In quick reply. I agree with you about pulling out, it would be a huge waste. But it would also be nice to be less reliant upon OPEC.

Also, sorry about the Lincoln thing, that wasn't really directed at you per-se, I just find it a little infuriating when people complain about the (relatively) minor stuff Bush has done, when we all hold Lincoln in such high regard. It's either hypocrisy or ignorance. For the majority of people, it's ignorance. Other than that I didn't really have a point...

oh... no... wait... there is a point: keeping all of these facts out of the history books is really kind of an informal conspiracy, don't you think? No one planned to do it, but it's a repression of facts derived from a general consensus (that Lincoln is an American hero and therefore was incapable of doing wrong). Not a conspiracy, per se, but almost as nasty.

All right, I can respect that. Just one point: conspiracy requires intent, the fact that it's not there is just epic fail. Or perhaps it is conspiracy, Lincoln was a Republican, you know. Could the Conservative side deal with that kind of shame being taught in schools?

Now I'm not quite sure if I was being sarcastic...

Well, like I said, "Not a conspiracy, per se."^^^ There has to be a bit of intent though, otherwise why would historians leave it out?

 

[kwagamon]

I need to have a friend of mine sit down and watch this video. Said friend legit tried to get me to believe bullcrap that the US government was behind 9/11 and (even funnier) that Tupac was alive on the basis that he has material credited to him a lot. I didn't even waste my time pointing out that Tupac was an immensely popular rapper who probably would've been in the studio working on one or more projects before his death which is where this "new" material comes from.

 

[Clonekiller]

Interesting take Movie Bob. Though I got to wonder, why is it that people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin get the spot light as conspiracy theorists while characters like Keith Olbermen and Chris Mathews get a free pass? Especially considering how Keith and Chris has been conspiracy theorizing for the past several weeks about the Arizona massacre. That seems to be the most recent rash of conspiracy talk on the news.

I guess even Bob is prone to confirmation bias.

 

[Waffle_Man]

A harmless video. Yes?

WRONG!

Take the first letter of every word in the title.

TBPCW

Translate this into numbers with an elementary number cipher.

20 2 16 3 23

Add them together.

20+2+16+3+23=64

Element number 64 is Gadolinium.

The melting point of Gadolinium is 1312 Centigrade.

1312 was whenPope Clement V forcibly disbanded the Knights Templar.

Thus, the only logical conclusion is that Movie Bob is a trying to turn humanity into a giant Popsicle!

AHHH!

 

[De Ronneman]

Conspiracy Weary

This week, Bob uncovers what's really going on, and welcomes our new reptilian overlords.

Watch Video

What's the name of that TV series about dinosaurs with lasers? I remember watching it, but what's it called again?

I remember it being pure awesome, a brachiosaur with a giant laser beam and stuff, but my memory's fuzzy