LordoftheMorning
Smash Champion
Sensationalism is subject matter, language, or style producing or designed to produce startling or thrilling impressions or to excite and please vulgar taste. In politics, it creates arguments that use fear to motivate.
Unfinished speech for debate IRL:
It is often said that “ignorance is bliss”, although both logically and morally, this could not be farther from the truth. Being unaware of your circumstances leaves you and others you know open for exploitation at the hands of those who would profit at your expense. There is no reason to be ignorant outside of laziness, and allowing humans to be harmed because of your own laziness can be considered immoral. It is widely believed that moral acts are done in order to satisfy the conscience, and therefore assuage the discomfort of guilt. Or that an immoral person is fated to suffer.
So an immoral person cannot be truly satisfied. And if to be immoral is to be unhappy, then ignorance is one of the things that will ultimately lead you to tragedy, except that the nature of ignorance will cause you not to know what it is that makes you unhappy. So an ignorant person will live their life in dissatisfaction, unaware that it is his own ignorance that is ruining his life. And thus, “ignorance is bliss” should be changed to “ignorance is immoral”, and therefore “ignorance is hell”. And using this syllogism, I declare that we have both the incentive and the moral obligation to seek out knowledge and keep our minds open.
On that note, I would bring to everyone’s attention that ignorance is widely exploited in the modern day. The most common form of exploitation is successful by spreading fear. Fear, which is both a commercial for business and a voting issue for politicians, is a powerful motivator in most respects. Even in the National Forensics League (this is a debate league), fear has become a powerful ally. All too often debaters will tell their judges that the opponent’s position leads to nuclear war, genocide, death of biodiversity, or otherwise complete destruction of the biosphere. More even-headed arguments exist and are viable, but the doomsday arguments always seem to get the job done. Fear is a natural emotion, of course, but the power it has to govern a person’s decisions is all too exploitable. Some will strive to create fear for monetary gain or influence. I’d like to invoke some of the “doomsdays” of the past. Notice how preposterously unfulfilled they all are.
In 1971, Reid Bryson, a respected geologist and meteorologist from the University of Chicago, claimed that “The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.” Later in 1976, a book written by Lowell Ponte called “The Cooling” claimed that “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.” I never observed such a cooling. Apparently this was forgotten when it never came true.
Even before that, in 1968, Paul Erhlich, a German scientist and winner of the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1908, said “The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.” And yet almost forty years later, China is one of the only countries using population control. But we’re still here aren’t we?
In 1999, the Y2K scare, which I’m sure you’re all familiar with, is another great example of this. Simply because the first two digits of the year were not shown on computer calendars, we were told that there is a possibility that computers would malfunction, resulting in irrevocable damage to the economy and administration of computerized nations. This certainly never happened, but Y2K banking consultants made billions off consulting and the panicked frenzy to invest somewhere safe.
You can be sure that each one of these calamities had their own “scientific backing”. This is an obvious demonstration of how easy it is to misquote science, and how inaccurate models can be.
And today? Global Warming, people. In December 1997, a conference was held considering a treaty to reduce the emission of ‘greenhouse gases’, especially carbon dioxide, worldwide. It was feared that these greenhouse gases would unnaturally raise the temperature of the global climate. The temperature would continue to climb at an abnormally high rate, resulting in more arid climate zones, the melting of the polar ice caps, and potential flooding as a result of raised sea levels, among other catastrophes such as hurricanes and causing the extinction of many species that would not be able to withstand the change. The theory of man-made global warming was first hypothesized in the late 1970’s, although it was little more than a theory of little interest or support.
The media is always keen to embrace these doomsday theories. Why? Because it sells papers. And once the people’s attention is acquired, fear is generated. The media becomes a sort of self-licking ice cream cone. It creates fear; the fear creates money, which the media uses to create more fear. This is an oversimplification of course. The real-world thing isn’t so insidious, but it happens nonetheless.
Because the people are scared, they will start demanding government action. Suddenly politicians have new ways to win votes. They can use this new fear of Global Warming to push their agendas. This happened in 1979, when Margaret Thatcher became prime minister of the UK. She was an advocate of nuclear power, and she used the mad-made Global Warming theory in her campaign to promote the use of nuclear energy, which does not produce greenhouse gases.
Then, once those politicians are elected, scientific grants are awarded to scientists that can perform studies to prove the theory correct. This will earn the politician more support. But because more and more grants are going to meteorologists that will prove this theory, scientists working on other projects get less and less attention. Scientists attempting to disprove the theory won’t get any funding either. This is a debasement of the scientific method. When the conclusion is made before the data is gathered, you get biased "political" science. The result? Junk science.
Feel free to take the points a few at a time. I don't want to reply to something as long as this all at once, and I'm sure you don't either.
Here's some extra stuff.
Here's a petition that says this debate isn't over: http://www.oism.org/pproject/
And here's some good info. Read the paper.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Good site in general http://www.junkscience.com/
Very good long documentary, even though it's been mud-slinged in the past.http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/
Unfinished speech for debate IRL:
It is often said that “ignorance is bliss”, although both logically and morally, this could not be farther from the truth. Being unaware of your circumstances leaves you and others you know open for exploitation at the hands of those who would profit at your expense. There is no reason to be ignorant outside of laziness, and allowing humans to be harmed because of your own laziness can be considered immoral. It is widely believed that moral acts are done in order to satisfy the conscience, and therefore assuage the discomfort of guilt. Or that an immoral person is fated to suffer.
So an immoral person cannot be truly satisfied. And if to be immoral is to be unhappy, then ignorance is one of the things that will ultimately lead you to tragedy, except that the nature of ignorance will cause you not to know what it is that makes you unhappy. So an ignorant person will live their life in dissatisfaction, unaware that it is his own ignorance that is ruining his life. And thus, “ignorance is bliss” should be changed to “ignorance is immoral”, and therefore “ignorance is hell”. And using this syllogism, I declare that we have both the incentive and the moral obligation to seek out knowledge and keep our minds open.
On that note, I would bring to everyone’s attention that ignorance is widely exploited in the modern day. The most common form of exploitation is successful by spreading fear. Fear, which is both a commercial for business and a voting issue for politicians, is a powerful motivator in most respects. Even in the National Forensics League (this is a debate league), fear has become a powerful ally. All too often debaters will tell their judges that the opponent’s position leads to nuclear war, genocide, death of biodiversity, or otherwise complete destruction of the biosphere. More even-headed arguments exist and are viable, but the doomsday arguments always seem to get the job done. Fear is a natural emotion, of course, but the power it has to govern a person’s decisions is all too exploitable. Some will strive to create fear for monetary gain or influence. I’d like to invoke some of the “doomsdays” of the past. Notice how preposterously unfulfilled they all are.
In 1971, Reid Bryson, a respected geologist and meteorologist from the University of Chicago, claimed that “The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.” Later in 1976, a book written by Lowell Ponte called “The Cooling” claimed that “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.” I never observed such a cooling. Apparently this was forgotten when it never came true.
Even before that, in 1968, Paul Erhlich, a German scientist and winner of the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1908, said “The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.” And yet almost forty years later, China is one of the only countries using population control. But we’re still here aren’t we?
In 1999, the Y2K scare, which I’m sure you’re all familiar with, is another great example of this. Simply because the first two digits of the year were not shown on computer calendars, we were told that there is a possibility that computers would malfunction, resulting in irrevocable damage to the economy and administration of computerized nations. This certainly never happened, but Y2K banking consultants made billions off consulting and the panicked frenzy to invest somewhere safe.
You can be sure that each one of these calamities had their own “scientific backing”. This is an obvious demonstration of how easy it is to misquote science, and how inaccurate models can be.
And today? Global Warming, people. In December 1997, a conference was held considering a treaty to reduce the emission of ‘greenhouse gases’, especially carbon dioxide, worldwide. It was feared that these greenhouse gases would unnaturally raise the temperature of the global climate. The temperature would continue to climb at an abnormally high rate, resulting in more arid climate zones, the melting of the polar ice caps, and potential flooding as a result of raised sea levels, among other catastrophes such as hurricanes and causing the extinction of many species that would not be able to withstand the change. The theory of man-made global warming was first hypothesized in the late 1970’s, although it was little more than a theory of little interest or support.
The media is always keen to embrace these doomsday theories. Why? Because it sells papers. And once the people’s attention is acquired, fear is generated. The media becomes a sort of self-licking ice cream cone. It creates fear; the fear creates money, which the media uses to create more fear. This is an oversimplification of course. The real-world thing isn’t so insidious, but it happens nonetheless.
Because the people are scared, they will start demanding government action. Suddenly politicians have new ways to win votes. They can use this new fear of Global Warming to push their agendas. This happened in 1979, when Margaret Thatcher became prime minister of the UK. She was an advocate of nuclear power, and she used the mad-made Global Warming theory in her campaign to promote the use of nuclear energy, which does not produce greenhouse gases.
Then, once those politicians are elected, scientific grants are awarded to scientists that can perform studies to prove the theory correct. This will earn the politician more support. But because more and more grants are going to meteorologists that will prove this theory, scientists working on other projects get less and less attention. Scientists attempting to disprove the theory won’t get any funding either. This is a debasement of the scientific method. When the conclusion is made before the data is gathered, you get biased "political" science. The result? Junk science.
Feel free to take the points a few at a time. I don't want to reply to something as long as this all at once, and I'm sure you don't either.
Here's some extra stuff.
Here's a petition that says this debate isn't over: http://www.oism.org/pproject/
And here's some good info. Read the paper.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Good site in general http://www.junkscience.com/
Very good long documentary, even though it's been mud-slinged in the past.http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/
I was under the impression that everyone believed in mad-made global warning and was an activist about it. I thought I'd be made to feel like some sort of psychopath for posting this. This makes my day.
