Behind the Curve: Netflix Flat-Earther Doc

[Pitt Gorilla]

It digs into the flat-earth community and gives the viewer a taste of conspiracy theory nutjobs.

I thought it was really interesting, if for no other reason than the inside look at conspiracy theorists. Anyone else watch it?

[Rivaldo]

a Man Band for Frazloid

love to see you feign comfortability with Molly Hatchet

poor guy came in here to dunk on conspireeruns, forgetting he is one

now that is self awareness

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Rivaldo

a Man Band for Frazloid

love to see you feign comfortability with Molly Hatchet

poor guy came in here to dunk on conspireeruns, forgetting he is one

now that is self awareness

I fear all that estrogen you're gushing may damage the environment. Stuff a Prius up your box before it's too late!

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Rivaldo

Princess Frazod is such an insufferable POS

We are on opposite sides of most political issues. But Frazod is a good guy, he just doesn't tolerate fools well.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by notorious

I have a tendency to neither agree nor disagree with a model based on actual data collected over .00000000000000000001% of the Earth’s history.

That’s not being a conspiracy theorist or a blind believer. That’s thinking like a normal human being.

Exactly.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

But it ain't science.

Neither is climate change, really. It's statistical modeling based on data gathered from a tiny fraction of the earth's actual lifespan. Mathematicians call that insufficient evidence.

I outlined in my previous post EXACTLY what's wrong with the science and all you could say is "that's not science". You want people to dispute the science (which can be done, by the way) but you in no way ever address the real problem - that the science is being done by people that are fully funded by interests the PROFIT GENEROUSLY from said "science", often by exploiting people not part of the ruling class.

I'm not anti-climate change. I'm not an anti-vaxxer either but there are certain vaccines my kids haven't had. Take HPV for instance, that is pushed on kids as young as 9 EVERY FREAKING TIME they go to the doctor. You know how many cancer deaths are related to cervical cancer in the US? Less than 1% of all cancer patients - about 4000 people. In the meantime, there's been over 20,000 reports of severe adverse reactions, including seizures and epilepsy and even like 50 deaths.

Why is this vaccine so important? Because Merck successfully lobbied the government to get it on the market early and across a broad spectrum of kids. Their vaccine division has grown 150% since the introduction of Gardasil despite any evidence that it's actually making a difference (cervical cancer deaths are largely flat since it's introduction and have actually ticked up slightly in some years). How can you even begin to dispute the science when it's so clear the motives need to be questioned?

Now, does that mean climate change is completely false? No. Does it require urgent action on the part of world governments? No. It requires MORE SCIENCE. And science done by people that don't have a vested interest in furthering the work of world governments. Climate change is a THEORY after all, not a fact.

Motives matter. Morality matters. If they don't, then what Mengele did to the Jews was "just science" and we should dispute that science, despite the horrific things he did to actual human beings.

[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.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Fish

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.

I never said we shouldn’t do ANYTHING. Funny how you immediately jump to that conclusion. No discussion allowed. Automatically labeled a “denier”. That sounds familiar.

Originally Posted by Fish

You say the only reason is to make money. Well that's some selfish bullshit.

No, us telling impoverished developing countries that they can’t share in the wealth of industrialization- THAT is some selfish bullshit.

Originally Posted by Fish

Our climate is very clearly changing. Regardless of cause, we need to adapt.

And why is it the the suggested “adaptation” is always the same? More taxes, more regulations, more burden on the poor and middle class.

Originally Posted by Fish

What you're claiming about funding and motivation is stuff straight from denial sites.

What I’m claiming comes from FIRST-HAND knowledge. I’m the bad person for denying scientific research but you’re just fine denying multiple peoples’ pain and suffering. That says a lot.

[BWillie]

I ****ing love climate change. Huge fan.

[Rivaldo]

Originally Posted by notorious

I have a tendency to neither agree nor disagree with a model based on actual data collected over .00000000000000000001% of the Earth’s history.

That’s not being a conspiracy theorist or a blind believer. That’s thinking like a normal human being.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Exactly.

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gla...e-core-basics/

Ice sheets have one particularly special property. They allow us to go back in time and to sample accumulation, air temperature and air chemistry from another time[1]. Ice core records allow us to generate continuous reconstructions of past climate, going back at least 800,000 years[2]. By looking at past concentrations of greenhouse gasses in layers in ice cores, scientists can calculate how modern amounts of carbon dioxide and methane compare to those of the past, and, essentially, compare past concentrations of greenhouse gasses to temperature.

Guess if you two mongoloids weren't present to personally take samples of the atmospheric constituents, the findings are suspect.

Your redefinition of 800,000 years to .00000000000000000001% of the Earth’s history is as fragile a notion as any, and in any case a reframing of the language to attempt to make the question appear unanswerable. Not to mention, any cited data on the age of the planet is a scientific finding you're curiously suddenly accepting of.

You're both denialist idiots.

[notorious]

Somebody put their lil’ trolling booties on. Have fun!

[Rivaldo]

Imagine presuming you're an authority on the topic and pronouncing that 800,000 years of data just ain't enough.

Kill yourselves please

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Rivaldo

Imagine presuming you're an authority on the topic and pronouncing that 800,000 years of data just ain't enough.

Kill yourselves please

There's that famous liberal tolerance and compassion. So Hitler-esque.

[Imon Yourside]

I see the Sky has officially fallen! Please take it easy on us Prius owners, not all of us are loons.

[morphius]

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.

My favorite thing was this week some EU countries wanted to make sure that scrubbing CO2 out of the air could cause catastrophic issues and they wanted to regulate it. Their only option is changing the way that man kind does things. Even though that we have been told that it is almost all man made CO2 causing the issues that are going to create the catastrophe.