Don't look up - film on netflix - what do you think?

Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
21,494
Just watched it last night. Seems more like predictive programming about a fu*king rock hurdling towards us than anything to do with covid.

Sure they got there jabs in ( no actual puns intended there) towards "stupid conservatives" but, I mean, there is this thingy heading our way:


I mean they say it's not likely to come close enough that we can see it, but I'd guess they'd not tell us if it was genuinely hurdling towards us on a direct path.

If that's ever the case I'll feel a strange peace about it, I mean there's literally nothing I could do/nothing I have to try & solve. I'd just spend time with my family in the woods until the sweet sweet release of impact ?
Why in the woods?
 

Demyze

Member
Joined
May 21, 2015
Messages
460
Regardless of the history behind the climate change idea, there's no solid evidence against it. Speaking out against the idea will only put you in the camp of anti-scientific conservative conspiracy theorists.
I'll try to make a thread later that presents there is plenty of evidence against it. How ideas come to exist and why they're presented by the corporate media actually does matter, especially given how political it is. I'm not a conservative, and I don't agree or disagree with something just because a conservative or non conservative person or group says something is true or false.
 
K

Kayaker

Guest
I'll try to make a thread later that presents there is plenty of evidence against it. How ideas come to exist and why they're presented by the corporate media actually does matter, especially given how political it is. I'm not a conservative, and I don't agree or disagree with something just because a conservative or non conservative person or group says something is true or false.
I meant that climate change deniers tend to be stereotyped as conservative. This gives people the impression that the denial is political, rather than scientific.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
Climate change deniers not doing so well in providing credible evidence that no greenhouse effect is occurring. You can see this on the talk page.

That's not the way it works. Those who propose a hypothesis must provide compelling evidence that it is true. The greenhouse crowd has not done that in any way, shape or form. No one has to prove an unproven hypothesis is false.
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
That's not the way it works. Those who propose a hypothesis must provide compelling evidence that it is true. The greenhouse crowd has not done that in any way, shape or form. No one has to prove an unproven hypothesis is false.

Unfortunately, that's exactly how it works, and it is by design, and not only in climate science but virtually all other public spheres of life. User @Drareg and I have been following this "technique" used by the elite and it is pretty much the rule in public life. The global community of "experts" that has somehow occupied a social position of prominence (parasitically), and depends on public funds for survival, has normalized the behavior of using "ad-hominem" as a scientific debate technique. Namely, they will loftily announce as "facts" some random claims on mainstream media, be that "climate change" (remember when it was global warming?), "essential" fats, androgens causing prostate cancer, saturated fats causing disease, etc. Then, they will demand that anybody disputing those facts not only presents massive amounts of evidence against their evidence-free claim, but that evidence must be sanctioned by the group, and the presenter must also be sanctioned. In other words, the claim that androgens cause prostate cancer is accepted as true until proven otherwise, and if (haidut the commoner/pleb) want to challenge that I have to present mountains of evidence against it, which will never be accepted because 1) it is not from their favorite journals like Nature, Science, etc (who told me flat out they will NOT publish a study claiming DHT is beneficial in prostate cancer), and 2) it is being submitted by haidut the commoner/pleb. So, in other words, even if the science is there, it still very much matters who is the challenger. Facts stopped mattering in public life very long time ago. And the "best" scientists have found a way to promote as facts/reality actually untestable claims, so their position of deification is unassailable. String theory of physics is one example of such "science", evolutionary psychology is another, and the genetic theory of chronic diseases is probably the biggest one in medicine, but virtually all scientific disciplines have their own examples.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
Unfortunately, that's exactly how it works, and it is by design, and not only in climate science but virtually all other public spheres of life.

Right. That's how science.edu and science.gov work, but not how real science works.
 

Ben.

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
1,722
Location
Austria
Right. That's how science.edu and science.gov work, but not how real science works.

Mhhh not sure if what you two argue is Science vs. Scientism.

Because what haidut detailed there is exactly how our medical establishment and health officials operate. Covid 19 is just one of many prime examples.
Science the way people should see it is what it actually is, observing, testing and figuring out how our world, body and universe works in all its complexity and nuances. In actual "science" academic titles or social status do not matter because every finding and observation is valuable.

From the blog post i linked there i find this quite fitting:

Regardless, what most people mean by science is actually Scientism, a quasi-religious faith practice that takes the process out of the hands of normal, low-status individuals and institutionalizes it in the hands of high priests.

Specialization and instrumentation are at the heart of Scientism. Instead of incredibly capable generalists using their bodies, senses, and simple tools, we have inept, myopic specialists fiddling with machines and instruments that require capital investments that make them totally inaccessible to most people. Instead of evolving our understanding easily with the incorporation of new information, Scientism seeks to reveal an absolutist, formulaic Truth about the universe (with no actual evidence that such a thing exists) and make authoritative claims deriving from this infallible equation or body of code, which is assumed to operate everything.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
21,494
Surprisingly kept watching it after I thought it was gonna be another shitty Netflix movie. I actually enjoyed it even though it’s still just pure propaganda.

This makes me think about the metaverse in a way. When the internet first came about, everything changed and everyone had a computer because well, everyone else has one. Then social media comes about and the same thing happened. We’re becoming more and more isolated and the next step I fear is the final blow. People just want to stay oblivious to what’s going on because that’s what makes them comfortable. Scary thought. Everyone in the west wants to maximize pleasure and access to that pleasure.
Well said.
 
Last edited:
A

Adf

Guest
Regardless of the history behind the climate change idea, there's no solid evidence against it. Speaking out against the idea will only put you in the camp of anti-scientific conservative conspiracy theorists.

Climate change is real because it happens in cycles over and over again. It is affected primarily by events outside of Earth, outside of our control.

IMO, climate change *could* be happening based on humanities effect on Earth's carbon levels. But I don't think it's from us producing more carbon dioxide. CO2 is food for the flora of the Earth. More food for the flora means more ozone.

When I said that humanity could be affecting climate change through Earth's carbon levels, it would most likely be because we are destroying the forests of the world at an alarming speed, and we don't seem to be slowing down. We are destroying Earth's primary method of reducing CO2 and converting it into ozone.

I have no idea, It may be so slow, and might only have an effect of less than 0.1% over a period of years, but nonetheless we ARE affecting it. Do we truly know if even a 0.001% difference could be massive or nil, on the planetary scale. You could question/argue that the CO2/Ozone levels change by that much or more naturally.

In my mind, more carbon emissions could be GOOD for the Earth. Especially since we are culling the forests, more food for the remaining flora is possibly the balance that Earth needs to counter its loss of flora.

These are just theories of course, but if you're a climate change CO2 believer, ask yourself why don't the governments and media mention the raping of forests in every one of their talking points?
If they're legitimately concerned that increased CO2 is causing climate change, why aren't they concerned about the destruction of the CO2 into Ozone converters? Wouldn't destroying Earths forests cause MUCH more damage than us making a little too much CO2? It's a one-two punch not a single jab.

Because money. They want your money by blaming you for making too much CO2 emissions, They don't actually care about the CO2 emissions, because stopping the culling of the forests would cost too much money. Those trees fill their pockets.

Thoughts to ponder my friend.
 
K

Kayaker

Guest
Climate change is real because it happens in cycles over and over again. It is affected primarily by events outside of Earth, outside of our control.

IMO, climate change *could* be happening based on humanities effect on Earth's carbon levels. But I don't think it's from us producing more carbon dioxide. CO2 is food for the flora of the Earth. More food for the flora means more ozone.

When I said that humanity could be affecting climate change through Earth's carbon levels, it would most likely be because we are destroying the forests of the world at an alarming speed, and we don't seem to be slowing down. We are destroying Earth's primary method of reducing CO2 and converting it into ozone.

I have no idea, It may be so slow, and might only have an effect of less than 0.1% over a period of years, but nonetheless we ARE affecting it. Do we truly know if even a 0.001% difference could be massive or nil, on the planetary scale. You could question/argue that the CO2/Ozone levels change by that much or more naturally.

In my mind, more carbon emissions could be GOOD for the Earth. Especially since we are culling the forests, more food for the remaining flora is possibly the balance that Earth needs to counter its loss of flora.

These are just theories of course, but if you're a climate change CO2 believer, ask yourself why don't the governments and media mention the raping of forests in every one of their talking points?
If they're legitimately concerned that increased CO2 is causing climate change, why aren't they concerned about the destruction of the CO2 into Ozone converters? Wouldn't destroying Earths forests cause MUCH more damage than us making a little too much CO2? It's a one-two punch not a single jab.

Because money. They want your money by blaming you for making too much CO2 emissions, They don't actually care about the CO2 emissions, because stopping the culling of the forests would cost too much money. Those trees fill their pockets.

Thoughts to ponder my friend.
I believe that the greenhouse effect is real and that life on this planet would be better off if it was warmer and had higher CO2. The fraud lies not in climate change, but in climate apocalyptism. So I've been saying that instead of arguing against something that, like you say, is definitely present, even a little bit, we should argue against the notion that climate change is a bad thing.
 
A

Adf

Guest
I believe that the greenhouse effect is real and that life on this planet would be better off if it was warmer and had higher CO2. The fraud lies not in climate change, but in climate apocalyptism. So I've been saying that instead of arguing against something that, like you say, is definitely present, even a little bit, we should argue against the notion that climate change is a bad thing.

Ah very well spoken. Sorry that I misunderstood your post, it appears that we see eye to eye on the topic.
 

Demyze

Member
Joined
May 21, 2015
Messages
460
I believe that the greenhouse effect is real and that life on this planet would be better off if it was warmer and had higher CO2. The fraud lies not in climate change, but in climate apocalyptism. So I've been saying that instead of arguing against something that, like you say, is definitely present, even a little bit, we should argue against the notion that climate change is a bad thing.
I was just rereading through my post and I shoukve written " human caused global warming agenda" rather than "climate change" as climate change could mean a lot of different things and I think it should be obvious the climate continuously changes and has changed a lot historically
 
Back
Top Bottom