Just finished it. Its funny that the only two scientific experiments the flat earthers did in the documentary both proved the earth is round. They know deep down they're wrong, but they're all outcasts at this point and need each other just to have some form of human companionship so they will forever go on and keep pretending. [Reply]
My take after watching this:These are a mix of fringe of society people looking for companionship and people who enjoy watching a good train wreck or looking for alternative entertainment.I always thought 'Flat Earth Society' was a metaphor for cynics, conspiracy theorists, and contrarians but some of the people in that video actually seemed determined the earth is flat but for the most part these are furries and juggalos with a higher standard of living. [Reply]
I like how the documentary confirms all suspicions, without coming right out and saying it, that the main guy definitely lives at home in his basement with his mom. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dayze:
I like how the documentary confirms all suspicions, without coming right out and saying it, that the main guy definitely lives at home in his basement with his mom.
Yeah, there were a bunch of good subtle jabs like that.
I want to see a full documentary about the weirdo that was bouncing the golf ball with the sledgehammers. That guy was one interesting nut. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fish:
Yeah, there were a bunch of good subtle jabs like that.
I want to see a full documentary about the weirdo that was bouncing the golf ball with the sledgehammers. That guy was one interesting nut.
The "Start" button at the Houston Space Center had soda shooting out of my nose.
Also, Newchief... I cant let you get away with calling the older redhead the "hot" one and not argue that girl girl from Caltech (Hannalore Gerling Dunsmore) was the true hot girl in the movie.
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.
If the fuckers came out and said "sea levels will rise by X feet by Y year," and it actually happened, I'd believe them.
But no, they're like the whore who swears she'll never cheat on you again, and then next week you catch her fucking the mailman. And of course, after that, she'll never cheat on you again. [Reply]
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 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 :
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.
Direck pretending that discussion of the corruption occasioned by climate science alarmism is conspiracy not science, and therefore derogated rhetoric.
Pretending that the argument is purely about existence or nonexistence of human impacy.
The issues are gravity, immediacy, and the form of solutions.
The arguments use the ambiguity of the concept of 'consensus of human impact' to Trojan Horse the vast slate of authoritarian solutions. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Direck pretending that discussion of the corruption occasioned by climate science alarmism is conspiracy not science, and therefore derogated rhetoric.
Pretending that the argument is purely about existence or nonexistence of human impacy.
The issues are gravity, immediacy, and the form of solutions.
The arguments use the ambiguity of the concept of 'consensus of human impact' to Trojan Horse the vast slate of authoritarian solutions.
Pointing out corruption is fine, and supported. I alluded to that in my recent post to htismaqe that these are legitimate and oftentimes important things to bring up.
