Behind the Curve: Netflix Flat-Earther Doc

[Tylerthigpen!1!]

Originally Posted by Frazod

If anything, dipshit, it's the exact opposite. The only difference between flat earthers and global warming/climate change/whatever it's being called at the moment lemmings is that there's no worldwide socialist theft scheme behind flat earth. Other than that, you keep believing the same bullshit fed to you by the same people who are proven wrong over and over and over.

And of course the truth is that the climate HAS ALWAYS CHANGED. It changed before man existed. It changed when man was hunting mammoths with spears. The Sahara was once lush and fertile, but it's a desert now. Massive glaciers once carved the Great Lakes. You going to blame all that on Exxon and coal and too many plastic straws? Idiot.

I guess you're more like cultists who know exactly when the world is going to end, and when that date comes and goes, they just pick another date. Sort of like how the people who think for you absolutely knew for certain that the ice caps would be gone, and the ozone layer would be gone, and sea levels would have flooded coastal regions years ago. Oops.

It's nice that Neil deGrasse Tyson knows the earth is round. But it doesn't change the fact that when it comes to man made climate change he's a heavily compensated shill pushing an agenda. Or that you're buying into it hook, line and sinker. With other people's money, of course.

Lol. So what if Neil degrasse Tyson is well funded? What the hell do you think the oil companies are doing with their billions of dollars? Funding unbiased research into climate change?
Did tobacco companies previously deny that tobacco can cause cancer? Hint: the answer is yes. Sounds kind of familiar. Big multi billion dollar industry doesn’t want its piece of the pie shrunk so it denies scientific studies.......

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Tylerthigpen!1!

Lol. So what if Neil degrasse Tyson is well funded? What the hell do you think the oil companies are doing with their billions of dollars? Funding unbiased research into climate change?
Did tobacco companies previously deny that tobacco can cause cancer? Hint: the answer is yes. Sounds kind of familiar. Big multi billion dollar industry doesn’t want its piece of the pie shrunk so it denies scientific studies.......

I think they're mainly passing it along to their shareholders, you stupid ****.

[Tylerthigpen!1!]

Originally Posted by Frazod

I think they're mainly passing it along to their shareholders, you stupid ****.

Man you get razzled easily.

So do oil companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize their profits? Would discrediting scientific studies that support climate change help maximize profits?

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Tylerthigpen!1!

Man you get razzled easily.

So do oil companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize their profits? Would discrediting scientific studies that support climate change help maximize profits?

The oil companies don't need to do a thing to discredit the climate change quacks. All they have to do is sit back and watch as dire prediction upon dire prediction fails to actually happen.

Doesn't appear to work on sheeple, though. They just keep on believing.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Tylerthigpen!1!

Big multi billion dollar industry doesn’t want its piece of the pie

You just perfectly described the climate change scientific community.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

You just perfectly described the climate change scientific community.

The climate change scientific community is a trillion dollar industry rife with billion dollar international mega-corporations?

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The climate change scientific community is a trillion dollar industry rife with billion dollar international mega-corporations?

Ever heard of these one who sucks the peniss?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The climate change scientific community is a trillion dollar industry rife with billion dollar international mega-corporations?

No, the climate change community is a trillion dollar public/private partnership with billion dollar NGO's, comrade.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

No, the climate change community is a trillion dollar public/private partnership with billion dollar NGO's, comrade.

That is literally a conspiracy theory about a global cabal of scientists trying to trick the public so that they can *shuffles papers* make trillions off a hoax they invented.

I wonder if there's a documentary about that line of thinking.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That is literally a conspiracy theory about a global cabal of scientists trying to trick the public so that they can *shuffles papers* make trillions off a hoax they invented.

I wonder if there's a documentary about that line of thinking.

You should come work in the government-funded windmill factory. Maybe the fiberglass flu would burn some sense into you.

[Frazod]

Defleckshun hates me and is too much of a pussy to ever respond to any of my posts, but for the benefit of everybody else who reads his drivel, or any of the other SCIENCE! fanbois, note that none of them responded to this:

Originally Posted by Frazod

If anything, dipshit, it's the exact opposite. The only difference between flat earthers and global warming/climate change/whatever it's being called at the moment lemmings is that there's no worldwide socialist theft scheme behind flat earth. Other than that, you keep believing the same bullshit fed to you by the same people who are proven wrong over and over and over.

And of course the truth is that the climate HAS ALWAYS CHANGED. It changed before man existed. It changed when man was hunting mammoths with spears. The Sahara was once lush and fertile, but it's a desert now. Massive glaciers once carved the Great Lakes. You going to blame all that on Exxon and coal and too many plastic straws? Idiot.

I guess you're more like cultists who know exactly when the world is going to end, and when that date comes and goes, they just pick another date. Sort of like how the people who think for you absolutely knew for certain that the ice caps would be gone, and the ozone layer would be gone, and sea levels would have flooded coastal regions years ago. Oops.

It's nice that Neil deGrasse Tyson knows the earth is round. But it doesn't change the fact that when it comes to man made climate change he's a heavily compensated shill pushing an agenda. Or that you're buying into it hook, line and sinker. With other people's money, of course.

With apologies to Defleckshun and every other brainwashed leftist imbecile out there, I don't believe these people BECAUSE THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN WRONG. First it was a new ice age. Then it was global warming. Now it's climate change, because they keep getting drilled in the ass by trying to pin down extremes. So "climate change," much like Defleckshun on date night, can go either way.

When some quack predicted that the ice cap would melt a decade ago, but it didn't, is that SCIENCE?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Frazod

Defleckshun hates me and is too much of a pussy to ever respond to any of my posts, but for the benefit of everybody else who reads his drivel, or any of the other SCIENCE! fanbois, note that none of them responded to this:



With apologies to Defleckshun and every other brainwashed leftist imbecile out there, I don't believe these people BECAUSE THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN WRONG. First it was a new ice age. Then it was global warming. Now it's climate change, because they keep getting drilled in the ass by trying to pin down extremes. So "climate change," much like Defleckshun on date night, can go either way.

When some quack predicted that the ice cap would melt a decade ago, but it didn't, is that SCIENCE?

Since you're going to double down, I'll respond.

You say the climate has always changed. Well how exactly do you claim to know that? It's because you're using the same science that you claim is bunk, to try and prove this other science in bunk. This happens frequently with climate change denial. Simultaneous claims that we can't know the climate in the distant past, supported by claims that it's proven that climate has changed in the distant past.

The Sahara was once lush and fertile. Yes, that's true. It's an example of how drastically climate can change over time. Deniers will also use lines like this, without understanding that the Sahara is proof that climate can be unstable and completely change from fertile to barren.

Regarding claims that ice caps would melt, and the world would flood. Can you list any of the sources of those quotes? Of course you can't, because that doesn't matter to you. Do you know the number of scientists who predicted the end of the world, compared to the number of scientists who support climate change but refrain from fear mongering sensationalism? No you don't, because you only care about the individual opinion that you agree with and you choose to ignore the overwhelming consensus. If you actually looked into the subject, you'd find that your talking points all came from moron politicians with no understanding of the science. How about that claim that ice caps would melt? Did you know that you've gotten that one wrong in multiple ways? First, it wasn't a scientist who said it. It was Al Gore. Second, he didn't even say they'd melt completely he was only talking about summer melt. I challenge you to find a single actual climate scientist who made such claims.

You claim that scientists are heavily compensated shills. OK, then who's paying them? Have you thought about that at all? Where's that magical money coming from and how are they making their millions? Are they making money by taxing people or businesses with carbon taxes? Nope. Are there huge climate change corporations reporting record profits? Nope. So where's all this slush money coming from? The government? Nope. Funding for climate change study has actually decreased over the last decade. As well as government subsidies for it. As this shows, renewable energy subsidies have been declining for over a decade:



So tell me who's making these magical profits from climate change? Can you name a single climate change scientist who's a millionaire? A single one?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Fish

The Sahara was once lush and fertile. Yes, that's true. It's an example of how drastically climate can change over time. Deniers will also use lines like this, without understanding that the Sahara is proof that climate can be unstable and completely change from fertile to barren.

Without any human cause. The Sahara was the Sahara before the common era, before industrialization and pollution.

Therein lies the problem. We have ample evidence of climate change in the absence of human byproducts.

Why then is it so important to blame humans for causing drastic climate change, even though they didn't cause the Ice Age, the Yucatan extinction, or the Sahara Desert?

Oh that's right, because if man is causing them then man can be regulated and controlled into NOT causing them. That's the ONLY reason and you know it.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Without any human cause. The Sahara was the Sahara before the common era, before industrialization and pollution.

Therein lies the problem. We have ample evidence of climate change in the absence of human byproducts.

Why then is it so important to blame humans for causing drastic climate change, even though they didn't cause the Ice Age, the Yucatan extinction, or the Sahara Desert?

Oh that's right, because if man is causing them then man can be regulated and controlled into NOT causing them. That's the ONLY reason and you know it.

When you get down to it, the human cause is irrelevant. If our climate is going through rapid change, we need to adapt regardless of the cause. Because even though humans didn't cause the Ice Age, or the Yucatan extinction, those events still killed off a huge number of species and completely changed the landscape. That kind of thing would be really bad for us now regardless of cause.

Even if we knew for certain that humans weren't causing any of it, that wouldn't mean we shouldn't do anything. You say the only reason is to make money. Well that's some selfish bullshit. Our climate is very clearly changing. Regardless of cause, we need to adapt. The scientific understanding of it is much greater than you think. And your claims of climate change funding scams are way off. I really recommend looking into the subject further and understanding how scientific funding and grants work. What you're claiming about funding and motivation is stuff straight from denial sites.