I was just watching an episode of "Law and Order, Special Victims Unit" about a far left lawyer defending a child killer that was supposedly "brain washed by a nut case talk show host.
The show was really about propaganda and the way it effects people. The reality is that the show itself was a huge propaganda mess, in fact shows like this are far more dangerous propaganda than talk show hosts.
Fictional shows deliberately use emotional situations to propagate their ideology.
In this show a racist killed a bunch of children because their parents were immigrants. The racist claimed he was brainwashed by a talk show host and a nut case lawyer agreed with and defended him.
The problem is most people are not intelligent enough to separate facts from theory. When I mean most people, I mean 99.9% of people.
Global Warming? Climate Change? These are theories developed to scare people and they are based on the law of entropy. Essentially any time energy changes form, for example sun light moves through an atmosphere, some of that energy is lost in heat.
Eventually everything "burns out", in the big picture this is related to the Big Bang theory.
Do most people realize this? No, they just get frightened by the idea of climate change which will occur. Period. Sooner or later the climate will change.
What scares me about crap like global warming is that when it turns out that the world does not end in 2012 or 2020 or whenever the morons claim it will end people will get disgusted with conservation and ecology. People will put less time into these things and we will eventually bury ourselves in pollution.
Popular television shows, games, novels, popular entertainment, these are the most dangerous tools of propaganda.
The problem is that people react emotionally and not intellectually and even those who react intellectually do not have the capacity to see the larger picture.
Global Warming is a safe bet. The "Law", it is really a theory with so much experimental evidence that the probability of accuracy is so high there is almost no doubt, of Entropy demands it.
When will global warming happen?
No one knows, we only know that eventually the world, all worlds, will burn out. The only unknown is the exact time line and we don't know that because we have not been able to either accurately model or observe that.
How do I know we can't accurately model global warming and climate change? Because we can't predict weather yet.
Essentially the math becomes very involved at this point and it deals with cycles and statistics.
Math models used for predictions require a significant amount of data to be accurate.
In the end we just do not have enough data to make the kind of accurate prediction that global warming fanatics claim they have.
The science behind global warming claims the world is billions of years old and we have about 30 years of well documented, accurate global climate data. We have less well documented, less accurate data for maybe a hundred more years.
To get one tenth of a percent of the available data we would need tens of millions of years of data.
Truthfully, the predictions made by global warming nuts are less accurate than if you filled a mason jar with marbles, then guesstimated the volume of the moon and decided the moon would hold exactly this many marbles.
Not enough data.
Global warming will happen. Climate change will happen. Entropy demands it, but, claiming we can stop entropy, or even speed up or slow down entropy is ridiculous, until we have the data.
Global warming is based on the idea that humans are increasing energy. Nuts guesstimate entropy, factor in guesstimates of human energy and make guesses about how much that will increase entropy and how much that entropy will effect climate change.
Then they propagandize their results and the next thing you know we have crap science and popular entertainment mis-educating people about issues.
Global Warming is such crap science it is easy to discredit.
Racism and politics are not so easily discredited because they are less scientific and propaganda is a much more effective tool in spreading emotional ideologies.
If global warming nuts explained that climate change is inevitable and that data suggests people might be encouraging it the world might be different.
Instead emotional arguments for science are used. People are frightened and emotional arguments are used. It is ridiculous and it is even more difficult when we deal with less scientific issues.
In the end propaganda spreaders are the problem, not the solution and they will continue to make the world a worse place until people become more educated but that can't happen until propagandists stop wanting to mis-educate people.
How likely is that?