Giant Hand Sculptures Rising From A Venice Canal To Bring Awareness To Climate Change

May 15, 2017

climate-change-hands-1.jpg

Climate change: I think I've heard something about it on the news. These are a handful(!) of shots of Support, a sculpture created by Italian artist Lorenzo Quinn and placed in a Venetian canal to highlight climate change. Interesting. When reached for comment about the sculpture, Bill Nye refused to sing the theme song to his science guy show so I pretended I was getting another call and hung up.

Titled Support, it depicts two massive hands, rising from a canal to support the Ca' Sagredo Hotel. It is a visual statement, that people need to repond to global warming appropriately before it's too late. "Venice is a floating art city that has inspired cultures for centuries," Lorenzo Quinn told Halcyon Gallery. "But to continue to do so it needs the support of our generation and future ones, because it is threatened by climate change and time decay."

What a powerful message. And that message is if we don't do something about climate change, the polar ice caps will melt and the giant humanoids who have been frozen in them for thousands of years will rise and start pounding on our buildings. That, um, that was the message, right? "Exactly." I know art.

Keep going for a couple more shots.

climate-change-hands-2.jpg

climate-change-hands-3.jpg

climate-change-hands-4.jpg

climate-change-hands-5.jpg

climate-change-hands-6.jpg

Thanks to Jan, who agrees the best way to bring awareness to anything is with a megaphone and fireworks.

  • Guesticle

    well thats ridiculous(and of course a bit ugly which seems to be a goal of art), how the hell does it 'bring attention to climate change'?

  • Geof Edwards

    Well you're talking about it ...... Job done i'd say

  • Guesticle

    lol no

  • GeneralDisorder

    I'm guessing roughly the same way naked women "bring attention to the cis-white hetero-patriarchy" or some shit.

  • FearlessFarris

    Came to the comments to see the inevitable clash between climate change dogmatists vs. climate change skeptics. Was not disappointed.

  • James Mcelroy

    Cool and all, but this is supposed to make me think of climate change specifically, because why?

  • The_Wretched

    Because the sea is rising up like a local demi-god to claim your house.

  • Bling Nye

    And for all the climate change deniers, http://data.whicdn.com/imag...

  • TheQiwiMan

    I'm glad your belief system makes you feel good, but what about us climate change skeptics? Fuck us too?

    I will always and forever respect science and the scientific method. I will always and forever be skeptical of clear agenda-driven pseudo-science based on nothing but climate models that have shown to be unreliable and laughably inaccurate.

    https://www.youtube.com/wat...

    When the evidence from reality doesn't support a theory, science says to change the theory. You can believe the MMGW alarmists all you like, you just can't also claim you respect science.

    :-)

  • Bling Nye

    Thought you also might find this one interesting. https://www.youtube.com/wat...

    Observations, empirical data, measurements, not just models.

    https://www.youtube.com/wat...

    https://www.youtube.com/wat...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012...

  • TheQiwiMan

    Thanks, I'll check out the links.

  • Bling Nye

    Oh, and regarding that youtube video you linked...

    https://patricktbrown.org/2...

    https://www.skepticalscienc...

  • Bling Nye

    I'm fine with skeptics, being one myself. That said, skepticism should be modulated based on multiple inputs from multiple sources.

    We probably can all agree that climate change is real, it's just the main contention seems to be whether it's the result of human actions or not? I mean, this is happening, right?
    https://www.google.com/sear...

    Remember when I said the climate models are changing as our technology and understanding changes (analogous to video game quality from Pong to VR)? The models are actually decent, even 10+ years ago, and getting more refined every year. https://www.youtube.com/wat...

    Sorry, but I'm going to trust the guy with the PhD in mathematics that's a climatologist actually working with climate models, https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... instead of the blogger/vlogger that went to theater school and has an MA in History. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

  • TheQiwiMan

    What I hear you saying is "I'm not going to Appeal to Authority Fallacy Stefan Molyneux, I'm going to Appeal to Authority Fallacy the people who's entire lives depend on Climate Change not only being real, but that it is both extremely harmful, and we are both the cause as well as the cure for it" - and I'm simply asking to examine the evidence put forth by both communities, and not appeal to Authority at all. And a true skeptic would be aware of the huge red flags surrounding the narrative being so aggressively pushed. (The IPCC leaked emails, the adjusting of recorded temperatures to make it appear the temperature has risen more than it has, all the proposed solutions that give more tyrannical power to the sociopath ruling class, while the Free Market solutions are completely ignored, etc)

    Real skeptics are aware of the list of red flags that have not been adequately explained, so again, you can either whole-heartedly accept the narrative OR you can call yourself an informed skeptic, but not both. (at least if you care about moral and intellectual consistency, post-modernist philosophy doesn't care about those things)

  • Bling Nye

    Ok, first, if you want to start tossing around the word 'fallacy' let's address the balance fallacy inherent in your argument. You're assuming two sides are equal when in fact they are largely skewed (consensus at 97% vs. 3%). Next, just think about what you said for a second... You're basically saying you'd be just as willing to have someone that plays a doctor on television perform open-heart surgery on you, as an actual heart surgeon. Seriously, take Occam's Razor and apply it here... what would be easier to do, buy off 97% of the scientific community in order to push an agenda, or buy off 3% in order to push an agenda? FOLLOW THE MONEY. Who stands to benefit the most from continued fossil fuel exploitation with the status quo? Who has metric fuck-tons of money with which to influence policy makers and the public's perception? Who posts billions of dollars in profits each quarter?

    I'm not discounting 'red flags,' and I do agree that the models are incomplete still, but in most instances, they actually have been explained, or at least addressed and attempting to model the Earth is a Herculean task we still lack the computing power for. What was it, something like computations across 14 orders of magnitude?? (Assuming you watched that video I linked...)

    Don't forget to also look at the big picture, the overall landscape and take everything IN CONTEXT. Realize those issues are ultimately minor and cherry-picked in order to confuse the issue.

    Again, Occam's Razor... by over-emphasizing a minority view (3%) to the detriment of a well-supported view (97%) it gives the impression that somehow they are equally valid, when they are entirely unequal... Person who plays doctor on TV that spent a few weeks/months learning medical jargon vs. person who spent 8 years in school, 3-10 years of residency and fellowship training, plus licensed by a medical board.

  • TheQiwiMan

    Dude you are still missing my point entirely. I don't give a crap where the information originates, only it's validity. Are the critiques valid, do the skeptics provide real evidence? If you think there are no real valid criticisms of "Climate Change", that just shows your own willful ignorance, just because you ignore something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    You are still appealing to authority every time time you argue for ignoring the (legitimate) concerns of anyone who hasn't dedicated their entire life and gotten into six figure debt to pursue a career where if it turns out it's not a big deal, they'd be completely screwed. You are on the right track when you say "FOLLOW THE MONEY", or 'cui bono', you just miss a very important detail: the monolithic entity that exists solely to perpetuate and expand its own power, (government) has invested MAGNITUDES more treasure into these "studies" than any oil company. And hey, look at that, how weird that NASA (government funded) and the UN IPCC (government funded panel of a government funded entity) all agree that not only is it real, it's the most dangerous thing humanity has ever faced and we will all be dead soon unless we give even more tyrannical power to the government! Oh wait, there have actually been at least a half a dozen plans proposed that would solve this "problem" without the need to harm industry or to levy even more taxes onto people? Well, let's all just ignore those and instead talk about carbon taxes!

    You know, since governments already spend our money so efficiently already, let's make sure we give them the power to take even more of our money...

  • Bling Nye

    No, I very much get your point... which is why I'm pointing out the absurdity of attaching validity to a source that's NOT a subject matter expert... Frankly, you SHOULD care, very much about where the information originates...

    And I acknowledged there are criticisms, however, they are minor in the overall context. Your own arguments are working against you, again; you're ignoring things that do in fact exist.

    I'm starting to get exasperated with the 'appeal to authority' because you're still misapplying it; and you're flagrantly applying balance fallacy, giving equal value and weight to an argument from someone that is not a subject matter expert.

    Climatologists aren't screwed one way or the other with climate change being man-made or fucking not. They're climatologists, they're going to be modeling climate and studying it regardless.

    It appears anyway, that the crux of your issue is not climate change, but the government itself. Given that overbearing bias, it makes everything else in its shadow difficult for you to process it seems.

  • TheQiwiMan

    I'm sorry if I'm exasperating you. I know you are an intelligent guy, I'm not trying to claim otherwise. I just fundamentally do not understand how you can be (rightfully) skeptical about the studies being done by oil companies or the Koch brothers, (who also use Climatologists in their studies) and see the inherent conflict of interest that presents, but for some reason completely ignore the exact same conflicts of interests presented by Climatologists who rely on government grants or the 'charitable' funding of people who just so happen to also want government power to increase.

    Who are these mythical celestial scientific Beings of pure light and truth who are above the natural inherent corruptibility of man you seem to believe in? These Climatologists who wholly rely on government grants to continue their studies, they will "be modeling climate and studying it regardless" of being funded? Don't think you've thought that one all the way through, brother.

    I am not giving equal weight of Climatologists to any herp derp with a blog. I am giving equal weight to the *evidence* provided by the Climatologists making the case for MMGW and the *evidence* provided by the Climatologists who are finding glaring holes in the narrative. Please tell me you understand the difference, this might be why you are getting so exasperated.

    I have a high threshold for belief naturally anyway, there needs to be evidence of a claim before I am persuaded, and the more fantastic the claim, the higher the threshold of evidence needed. That threshold increases further when the people making the claims actively try to shut down debate, rely on shaming skeptics by calling them "deniers", (the modern equivalent to calling someone a religious heretic) and who are united in promoting an agenda that gives even more power to the already over-powered ruling class. That threshold has not been met. And the more I try to find the evidence that will persuade me, the more red flags I see that this entire agenda is not at all what it appears.

  • Bling Nye

    Well, believe it or not, some people do actually just enjoy studying things and contributing to the larger body of knowledge... Scientists don't often become scientists for the money (in fact, you can plan on being pretty poor and living grant-to-grant for most of it). If anything, they're often driven by fantasies of having their names immortalized through their discoveries or the significance of their contributions. But I digress.

    Yes there are issues and we don't have perfectly complete knowledge, but even with holes in the tapestry you can still mostly make out what it depicts. I think you're asking some of the right questions, but you're looking in the wrong places for answers.

  • Deksam

    Then study the myth of 97% of scientist... it is a bogus claim, but yet you guys cling to it like it is your climate change saviour.

    97% myth is addressed at 3:00

    https://www.youtube.com/wat...

blog comments powered by Disqus
Previous Post
Next Post