OK, Question. Mr. Dinger Just Put On Some jesse ventura shit &

[Dinger]

jesse's says global warming is a "conspiracy theory," and there are people making tons of money from it, and they want to rule the world, blah, blah. Mr. Dinger is a Dem like me, but for some reason he's curious about this shit, and i want the shit off the t.v. now. I heard the name Maurice Strong, whoever that is. Anyway, anybody have a quick come back for me?:) Thanks:)

[Schema Thing]

1. "grow a fucking brain, hubby" :D

but seriously, research is research. Listening to Jesse Ventura, or Michael Chrichton, for that matter, is not research.


...and research will show any smart, honest person that the theory was sound when it was developed 100+ years ago, and virtually every discovery in the 100 years since has only strengthened the theory.



IOW, there is no such thing as a global warming "skeptic". Skepticism is always a good thing. These idiots are not skeptics, they are cynics.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. 2 types of deniers.

1) Liars
2) Idiots who believe liars

[elehhhhna]

11. A dead guy and an aging ex-wrestler who's suffered multiple concussions ...

are advised to grown their brains? Not bloody likely.

[veganlush]

2. quick, no

Ventura's shtick is based on the fact that the best lies contain a kernel of truth. He tells half of each story and the rest he fills in with dramatic camera bouncing and angling. Global warming is an extremely complex notion and that is why it's still possible to be a denier. The presence of greenhouse gases is accelerating the warming process and we (people) are the biggest contributors of preventable greenhouse gases. Ventura's show exploits the gray areas by having Jesse meet shadowy people at isolated places so they can make half-baked, vague charges and advance completely unsupported conspiracy theories. It's misleading theater for the gullible.

[arcane1]

3. That Jesse Ventura show is crap

I watched one episode, about the 2012 nonsense. I had assumed he was someone with a decent bullshit detector, but that damned show was an embarrassment. He started out with a presumption, then interviewed this or that person. They would make a claim. He would say "wow, that's some heavy shit" and then move on. The show made no attempt, even a half-assed one, to either support or challenge the claims made. They just accepted what the person said and added it to the narrative.

When you consider that he chooses who to interview, and which small parts of the interview to show on tv, it's obviously biased. The outcome is pre-determined. If that episode had been about something I actually believed, I still would not use it to convince a non-believer, because of the aforementioned flaws in reasoning and lack of support for what were merely claims of individual people who offered no evidence.

To be honest: due to my assumptions about him, I found myself expecting some kind of eventual Colbert-esque sign that it was all parody.

I've not seen the global warming episode, but I have a feeling it's the same way. If you can, watch it again, and take note of the number of times a claim is made and then accepted without verification. Take note of what is not asked, or not said. What is shown and what is not shown.

I hold all documentaries to this standard. If he had an episode that proved the Blair Witch Project was a real movie, I would not be surprised.

(edited for grammar)

[Capn Sunshine]

4. for chrissakes, Israel is ON FIRE

THAT is a fact, Global Warming may be a "hoax", but the predicted effects from this "hoax" come at us stronger every year.

When's the last time the forests of Israel burned? Or hundreds were killed in Australian wildfires?

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. After having seen "Superman"....

... and having come out of the theater astonished at how many lies and half-truths could be packed into a 90 minute documentary, I shall reserve judgement on Mr. Dinger.

And Maurice Strong... whoever he may be.

For now, anyway.

[midnight]

6. I'm not watching the show, but maybe this might help...

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/12/wikileaks-us-manipulated-copenhagen

[Starry Messenger]

8. Can you distract him with something?

Pie or chocolate usually changes the subject around here. ;)

[Dinger]

9. Actually, I Read Him The Replies Here, And It Helped:)

Thanks DU:)

[Little Star]

10. I watched that show last night along with his other one,

that brought to light the Bush family buying up all that land in Paraguay for control of water. With T Boone Pickins doing much the same in Texas plus much, much more.

Yep, I agree Jesse and his corny, drama queen show leave a lot to be desired on presentation.

However, those two episodes did make me question some things I had deemed just conspiracy theory, nutso stuff. My point is that among all that junk, you might just find some grains of actual provable truth.

Those two episodes made me curious enough that I began researching this morning. Here is "one" thing that happened for me.

I could not decide if Wikileaks was a good or a harmful thing. While searching for information about the Global Warming episode I ran across this:

WikiLeaks: US Manipulated Climate Agreement by Damian Carrington
~snip
Hidden behind the save-the-world rhetoric of the global climate change negotiations lies the mucky realpolitik: money and threats buy political support; spying and cyberwarfare are used to seek out leverage.
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/12/wikileaks-us-manipulated-copenhagen
~snip

I am now leaning further toward the opinion that WikiLeaks just might be a good thing.

As for me, I will watch Jesse's show with an open, curious and skeptical mind.