Science meets political spin & popular culture: who has seen "Don't look up!"?

[eclipsenow]

LOL, again, I’m only repeating what the ‘credible experts’ on your side have been telling the public for the past 50 years.

Seriously - when are you going to learn? I didn't read anything beyond this one sentence because I asked you to be more adult in your assertions and back them with links. You haven't substantively addressed anything I've offered you from ACTUAL SCIENCE - and just use each of my posts as an excuse to listen to the sound of your own voice. Just stop.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, again, I’m only repeating what the ‘credible experts’ on your side have been telling the public for the past 50 years. You act like I’m just making these false ecopocalyptic prophecies up. They’re all documented. You act like there isn’t access to the newspaper articles online. They’re there. You’re going to sources you ‘feel‘ (rather than know) are credible like IPCC, and it’s funny how you seem to mention only the founder of CLINTEL, while ignoring the fact that the organization consists of nearly 1,000 experienced climate scientists. But you’d surely claim they aren’t ‘qualified’ and likely because they aren’t being advocated by biased mainstream media and their shills. They’re an independent organization and not Big Bro/Big Media certified. Guess that alone disqualifies them.

But if you’re such a stalwart of credible sources, perhaps you can do better than Wikipedia, and YouTube, which aren’t exactly the most reliable. Anyone can post anything on either one of those sites. You even go so far as to cite fictional Hollywood movies to back your position. So honestly you’re not really in a position to criticize anyone’s sources.

I am not just skeptical, I think it’s all a load of road apples, but maybe you missed the part earlier where I made it clear I don’t follow any of these political ideologies..they are tremendous failures full of liars. Sorry to disappoint you but no I don’t watch FOX, don’t own any MAGA hats or apparel, I’m not even a registered voter. So what were you saying about bias? Pigeonholing? LOL. Left wing, right wing, in the end, all part of the same chicken.

So you’re basically saying I should just not ever think for myself or come to my own conclusions, and blindly follow the majority of ‘experts’ (so-called), and just ignore all the false ecopocalyptic prophecies made by the forefathers of today’s ‘experts’ in the name of the movement. This sort of sentiment is why the Jonestown Massacre was a thing. Just follow the herd, like a good sheep.

I guess you could say though, that there will be a global warming catastrophe some day. I just don’t buy into the world’s version. The real thing though, well the alphabet soups models will not be able to forecast it, no amount of nanny state authoritarianism, financial bilking, and virtue signaling can thwart it, and their cause will ultimately be in vain.

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 2 Peter 3:10-13.

No, you have only been telling us what nonexperts have said. If you want to make the charge that experts made those claims you need to support them. Now there is no doubt that there are people that have misinterpreted the publications of the IPCC.

You are right on one thing. Right now you do not appear to be a skeptic. You appear to be a science denier.

Can you please provide some quotes and links to a reliable source that support your claims?

Actually Wikipedia is far more reliable than you think that it is. The fact that "anyone can edit it" is not exactly true, and that is where it gets its strength. One does have to work a bit to post there. The first few edits that a person makes are vetted first. And if one gets past that point and one makes false posts one can lose the right to post there. I had this argument on another forum with someone that could post there. Oddly enough he claimed that Wikipedia was not all that reliable. So I challenged him to edit an article and he did. And that caused him to lose the argument. He added an accepted fact to an article. But that was not what was implied. He was supposed to prove it unreliable by putting something false in an article. He would not do that. His ability to edit took too much work to risk. Trolls are quickly caught and banned there. Especially since one cannot troll immediately. It takes too much work to be able to post without vetting for trolls. They do not have the patience. By improving rather than trolling an article he showed that Wiki's policies work.

 

[Ophiolite]

Here we go again.

History repeats itself.

History doesn't, but you tend to do it quite often. Brings a whole new meaning to wrong again.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Getting back to the film, a friend of a friend was the science advisor for the film:

 

[Captain Ahab]

Seriously - when are you going to learn? I didn't read anything beyond this one sentence because I asked you to be more adult in your assertions and back them with links. You haven't substantively addressed anything I've offered you from ACTUAL SCIENCE - and just use each of my posts as an excuse to listen to the sound of your own voice. Just stop.

Ok, well if you didn’t read past that sentence, how do you know for sure what I addressed in it? You’re just frustrated because you keep trying to unsuccessfully divert focus away from all the documented false ecopocalyptic prophecies made in the name of global cooling/warming, climate change/crisis, attempt to control the terms of the discussion and limit them to claims (not proven facts) made by ‘actual science’ (so-called) and it is fair to assume ‘actual science’ in your view is confined to what is endorsed by Big Bro/Big Media and shares your same views. Believe me, I know how this is supposed to work. Have seen this debate tactic many times. And every time, it results in emotion-driven berating of the infidel, attacking the person by referring to them as childish or ‘uneducated’, being aligned with the ‘bad/wrong’ political party, claiming they need to learn (agree with me or else mentality).

There are many experienced scientists who disagree with your side, already provided an example of that, the findings of one alphabet soup suggest your alphabet soup of choice presented skewed ‘information’ to policy makers. All you have is basically, ‘no, my experts are more experty’. Then wrongly accuse me of making up all the false claims made in the name of the climate charlatan movement.

Oh, what is ‘actual science’ these days anyways? Seems it has devolved into nothing more than pseudo-intellectualism used in attempt to enforce political narratives and agendas. You cannot prove one of someone else’s claims you’ve regurgitated here as fact, but anyone with a search engine can easily prove that many claims made in the name of global cooling/warming, climate change/crisis are false.

Let’s say you’re married to an adulterous spouse, a serial adulterer who never repents, never admits they were wrong and even tries to excuse their behavior with pseudo-intellectualism and continues on and on and even has the audacity to double down on the excuses each time, perhaps even shame and blame you. ‘It’s the science, I am a sexual being! Muh experts! Muh Alfred Kinsey studies tho!’ How many times is it going to take before you realize they’re just a no good, selfish, irresponsible, entitled, abusive lowlife and move on? For me, it isn’t going to take 5 decades of that garbage before I do.

You are indeed very devout to this movement. You are a Christian, yes? May I ask, have you ever come with such tenacity, devotion, and passion for the Lord? If not, it is clear what your god is. And that false god cannot save you, nor all the ‘poor’ nations you mention. The climate charlatan movement is all about worship the creation and so-called experts on the creation, over the creator. So I cannot get onboard. Really, I’ve not made any assertions here, I’ve only mentioned the fact that many assertions (various false ecopocalyptic scenarios) made on behalf of your movement were wrong. It is reasonable to conclude that the ‘claims’ (not proven facts) made by today’s charlatans, based on the track record of this movement, will prove to be false in the future. So I simply do not care about focusing on the distractions (pseudo-science) used to reinforce the movement and it’s narrative.

In all honesty I support being a good steward. I live a modest life myself. But it seems like that isn’t good enough, and certain narratives and political ideologies must be embraced, empowered, devoutly adhered to, no questioning allowed. Votes in favor of financial bilking, and further restriction placed on the everyday nobody. False prophecies must be disregarded. Goalposts moved. Shame and berate all infidels. All the makings of a proper cult.

 

[eclipsenow]

all the documented false ecopocalyptic prophecies made in the name of global cooling/warming, climate change/crisis, attempt to control the terms of the discussion

If they're so well documented, then why don't you document them?
It's not 'controlling the terms of the discussion' to remind you that this conversation is about climate change. See, I've actually had this conversation before with 'your kind'. You insist you're not politically biased - but this isn't just politics but a kind of reluctance to bother changing your bigger picture - your worldview - to include the fact that climate science is real. So I see the same symptoms in you as in the Tea party science deniers:-

• Vague assertions
• Endless repetition of those vague assertions...
• to the point where it sounds like Dorothy in Oz saying "There's no place like home..." and clicking her heels together 3 times, only she's chanting "There's no climate change."
• Unfairly broadening the terms from climate change to other environmental subjects. This has nothing to do with climate change, and everything to do with the vagueness of the denier. It's just mud slinging.
• Alarmist talk about it being a cult when what the denier actually objects to is the fact that there are knowledge experts in this world. There really are heart specialists and mechanics and the IT guy and brain surgeon you might need to defer to. But when it comes to climate science, the denier objects. Why? Because suddenly they object to their own 'opinion' meaning diddly-squat. In almost every other area of life, from their pastor to their doctor, they'll respect the authority of the expert.

Dr John Cook is a Christian who founded Skeptical Science - for genuine climate sceptics with actual questions they want answered. It's NOT for you - someone who has predetermined bias against the whole thing and just sounds like a tea-party Republican (you say you're not - but you certainly sound like it). He obtained his PhD at the University of Western Australia, studying the cognitive psychology of climate science denial. He has your number.

Anyway, he collects Denial myth and the scientific response. Think of it as a Denier Hymn book.

You've sung 3 of the top 10 denier hymns - 4,5 and 6.

You've also mentioned number 11
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

Seriously? This is cliché. These myths are so old, and so boring, I wince every time you refer to them. (It means - as far as Deniers go - you're really low down in the pecking order and don't really know what you're doing. There are vastly more informed Deniers than you who will quote more challenging sources than the trite website you threw at me. Seriously, you didn't even quote anything from below number 30 in the Hymn book - the top 11 and above? What - you heard these rumours at your church or something and just thought you'd assert them here as 'facts'? )

Most Christian Denominations have theologians that have studied this stuff, got their heads around it, and understood the Christian's obligation to helping society transition to fuels that don't kill (dirty energy kills 7 million people a year worldwide), are not finite (fossil fuels WILL run out, and peak oil will be in our lifetimes), and are more equitable and less polluting.

Again, stop quoting vague rumours you've heard from fellow Deniers in your circles - and start doing your homework and trying to find the facts.

Again, listen to Dr Katharine Hayhoe. She's an Evangelical, bible believing Christian - and married to a pastor. She is also an actual climatologist. Here she is responding to "Climate change can't be happening because God's in control, right?"

Also great is this Undeceptions Apologetics podcast with my friend Dr John Dickson. (We do some work for him now and then.) He's awesome and interviews Katharine and asks some of the hard questions, like how do we REALLY know?
Good Earth - Undeceptions

 

[dgiharris]

I just finished this film, and as someone with a scientific background and who has worked in the government, I have to say, this parody was very well done.

I've been on this forum less of late. I've dramatically reduced my online arguments with people who have no interest in having a sincere debate or logical discussion.

It is just too easy to use generalizations and logical fallacies to obfuscate an argument. I find that when someone is disingenuous it takes way too much energy to de-convolute and untwist their nonsense or force them to take their heads out of the sand and to "Look up" and see the light.

In any event, this movie was funny and sad because it had so much truth in it. You see the same stuff with COVID that happened in this movie.

I got into a heated argument with an acquaintance and because of COVID I am no longer on friendly terms with this person. He is a 20s something man child who lives with his parents (I'm friends with his parents) the mom has bad asthma and the dad is immuno-compromised. I pulled this man-child aside and I begged him to get vaccinated, I tried all manner of persuasion but nothing worked: links, testimonials, etc and nothing worked. I then asked him if he loved his parents because he would be getting vaccinated for them not for himself and that didn't work either. So, fast forward 8 months, he gets COVID, gives it to his parents, puts them both in the hospital (mom one week, dad 1 month) and even with insurance they end up spending north of $30k in hospital bills. Thankfully they survived though the dad has permanent lung damage. And yes, both parents were vaccinated which was the key reason they survived.

And even after all of that, this bleep of a son feels he did nothing wrong and that COVID is still a hoax.

So yeah, this movie is just spot on.

 

[Captain Ahab]

If they're so well documented, then why don't you document them?
It's not 'controlling the terms of the discussion' to remind you that this conversation is about climate change. See, I've actually had this conversation before with 'your kind'. You insist you're not politically biased - but this isn't just politics but a kind of reluctance to bother changing your bigger picture - your worldview - to include the fact that climate science is real. So I see the same symptoms in you as in the Tea party science deniers:-
Vague assertions
Endless repetition of those vague assertions...
to the point where it sounds like Dorothy in Oz saying "There's no place like home..." and clicking her heels together 3 times, only she's chanting "There's no climate change."
Unfairly broadening the terms from climate change to other environmental subjects. This has nothing to do with climate change, and everything to do with the vagueness of the denier. It's just mud slinging.
Alarmist talk about it being a cult when what the denier actually objects to is the fact that there are knowledge experts in this world. There really are heart specialists and mechanics and the IT guy and brain surgeon you might need to defer to. But when it comes to climate science, the denier objects. Why? Because suddenly they object to their own 'opinion' meaning diddly-squat. In almost every other area of life, from their pastor to their doctor, they'll respect the authority of the expert.
Dr John Cook is a Christian who founded Skeptical Science - for genuine climate sceptics with actual questions they want answered. It's NOT for you - someone who has predetermined bias against the whole thing and just sounds like a tea-party Republican (you say you're not - but you certainly sound like it). He obtained his PhD at the University of Western Australia, studying the cognitive psychology of climate science denial. He has your number.

Anyway, he collects Denial myth and the scientific response. Think of it as a Denier Hymn book.

You've sung 3 of the top 10 denier hymns - 4,5 and 6.
View attachment 310752

You've also mentioned number 11
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

Seriously? This is cliché. These myths are so old, and so boring, I wince every time you refer to them.

Most Christian Denominations have theologians that have studied this stuff, got their heads around it, and understood the Christian's obligation to helping society transition to fuels that don't kill (dirty energy kills 7 million people a year worldwide), are not finite (fossil fuels WILL run out, and peak oil will be in our lifetimes), and are more equitable and less polluting.

Again, stop quoting vague rumours you've heard from fellow Deniers in your circles - and start doing your homework and trying to find the facts.

Again, listen to Dr Katharine Hayhoe. She's an Evangelical, bible believing Christian - and married to a pastor. She is also an actual climatologist. Here she is responding to "Climate change can't be happening because God's in control, right?"

Also great is this Undeceptions Apologetics podcast with my friend Dr John Dickson. (We do some work for him now and then.) He's awesome and interviews Katharine and asks some of the hard questions, like how do we REALLY know?
Good Earth - Undeceptions

There you go again. I am referring exactly to ‘climate change’ every time I mention the false ecopocalyptic prophecies..looks like you’re the denier. Granted, the movement has undergone multiple name changes maybe that’s why you are confused. Those moving goalposts LOL. But the false ecopocalypse scenarios I am referring to were all made in the name of global cooling/warming, climate change/crisis. And you’re still demanding to be spoon fed. If you can dig up all this pseudo-intellectualism on behalf of your cause, surely you’ve access to the contrary. Or are the bubbles and echo chambers too thick to escape? It is not my opinion that many false ecopocalyptic prophecies have been made in the name of your movement. It is an undeniable fact, unlike any of the claims you’ve made thus far.

But thank you for admitting it, your objective is complete submission to your worldview. You simply cannot cope with people having their own. Demanding absolute conformity. I’m not interested in joining a cult. It’s very likely I live more green friendly than you do. I can guarantee I live far, far more green friendly than the millionaire mass consuming political puppets championing your movement. But that clearly just isn’t good enough..unquestioning, total conformity to the narrative or else, nothing less will be tolerated. In the narrative we trust! Parroting the word ‘science’ over and over doesn’t impress me either. Quite the opposite. Your kind seems to believe that is all it takes to win any sort of disagreement these days and to put it kindly as possible it is rather lazy, and shows an inability at worst, or lack of desire at best, to think for yourself.

You also keep parroting over and over that I’m a republican and accuse me of having a political bias..and your repeated insisting of that just makes your projection all the more obvious. I don’t even know what a ‘tea party republican’ is LOL. I could be living the lifestyle of a bushman, or even have the carbon footprint of a field mouse, and that still wouldn’t be good enough would it? You folk want nothing less than total submission to your own political narratives and agendas. But the hypocrite TV talkinghead who guzzles up more energy and generates 20x the emissions as a whole family of 6 is applauded, because they virtue signal on behalf of the movement. I also find it ironic and comical that so many champions of this movement live in the large, overcrowded, filthy, polluted cities where the vast majority of emissions are produced. If they’re really about the cause they champion, I am going to need to see some of them start moving out to the countryside and living a more modest lifestyle before I could even begin to consider taking them serious.

I’m not just referring to what your experts said in the 70’s. I’m also referring to what they have said in the 60’s, 80’s, 90’s, and 2000’s LOL. I also do not care about denominations, theologians, pastors, doctors, none of that impresses me in the slightest. Romans 3:4 let God be true, but every man a liar; Sure, there’s ‘specialists’. Labels don’t make people infallible though. All the false ecopocalyptic prophecies made in the name of climate change prove that. When I was a kid our dad used to sarcastically refer to the pediatrician (specialist) as Wonderboy due to his various screwups. I know an elderly man who is currently seeing all kinds of specialists for his various health issues and he is switched off and on all sorts of pharma drugs, having bad sides, new complications induced from the drugs..his wife had to go in recently and get more work done on her knee because they screwed up her surgery she had done a couple weeks before. The specialist aka egomaniac who once said ‘I am science‘ can’t seem to get his story straight. Masks don’t work, oh wait now they do, no they don’t, yes they do, but wear two of them. The masks protect you; cancel that, they protect others around you. The vaccine will give you immunity errrr I mean protection! ‘The science is settled’, as they say, yet changing constantly LOL.

Also, quote me where I said ‘climate change isn’t happening’. You can’t. Because I never said that. Although I do not agree with the charlatans, alarmists, their fearmongering propaganda, and lust for money and control. Could totally be possible there are changes occurring. You’re putting words in my mouth, another tactic common amongst your brethren. And you keep mentioning this YouTube video “Climate change can't be happening because God's in control, right.” Maybe it really is happening. Maybe perhaps it is His will? And if that is the case, your movement is as useful as urinating into a gale force wind. But what sort of ‘climate change’ are we talking about here? Cooling or warming? Or is it the warming causing the cooling, or the cooling causing the warming? Hard to keep up with the goalposts but I’m sure that ‘science’ has a perfectly perfected perfect infallible explanation I should just shut up and mindlessly accept as absolute fact. And of course dutifully get down to the precinct and vote for the ‘correct’ side, and have boo koo bucks to shell out on behalf of the cause.

As for doing my homework, I do it daily, pray, study God’s word and have faith in it. Listen to sermons by the most biblical teachers I can find (getting harder these days because thanks to the internet there’s so many ‘experts’ out there now LOL). I guess what you mean by doing homework though is ingesting and believing the world’s propagandas and strictly, unquestioningly adhering to their narratives. I can’t do that, there’s something that keeps me from doing so and it has nothing to do with any political party. The world had their fair chance with me, the majority of my life.

I couldn’t help but notice you ducked my question, so I will ask again. Doubt you will answer and that’s fine you don’t have to answer to me, but at least consider for a moment to yourself. You are a Christian, have you ever put forth such devotion, zeal, and passion for the Lord as you do this particular topic? If not then there is a problem, and I do not say that to be unkind or ‘holier than thou’ but out of genuine concern. Do consider what I just said. I am guilty of putting other things first as well, and directing a similar level of passion to the less worthy causes of the world. I guess that’s why I respond to you out of all the others quoting me here, I can relate on some level. Believe on Him, rather than on mortal humans, many of which are unfortunately currently on the wide road to perdition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There you go again. I am referring exactly to ‘climate change’ every time I mention the false ecopocalyptic prophecies..looks like you’re the denier. Granted, the movement has undergone multiple name changes maybe that’s why you are confused. Those moving goalposts LOL. But the false ecopocalypse scenarios I am referring to were all made in the name of global cooling/warming, climate change/crisis. And you’re still demanding to be spoon fed. If you can dig up all this pseudo-intellectualism on behalf of your cause, surely you’ve access to the contrary. Or are the bubbles and echo chambers too thick to escape? It is not my opinion that many false ecopocalyptic prophecies have been made in the name of your movement. It is an undeniable fact, unlike any of the claims you’ve made thus far.

But thank you for admitting it, your objective is complete submission to your worldview. You simply cannot cope with people having their own. Demanding absolute conformity. I’m not interested in joining a cult. It’s very likely I live more green friendly than you do. I can guarantee I live far, far more green friendly than the millionaire mass consuming political puppets championing your movement. But that clearly just isn’t good enough..unquestioning, total conformity to the narrative or else, nothing less will be tolerated. In the narrative we trust! Parroting the word ‘science’ over and over doesn’t impress me either. Quite the opposite. Your kind seems to believe that is all it takes to win any sort of disagreement these days and to put it kindly as possible it is rather lazy, and shows an inability at worst, or lack of desire at best, to think for yourself.

You also keep parroting over and over that I’m a republican and accuse me of having a political bias..and your repeated insisting of that just makes your projection all the more obvious. I don’t even know what a ‘tea party republican’ is LOL. I could be living the lifestyle of a bushman, or even have the carbon footprint of a field mouse, and that still wouldn’t be good enough would it? You folk want nothing less than total submission to your own political narratives and agendas. But the hypocrite TV talkinghead who guzzles up more energy and generates 20x the emissions as a whole family of 6 is applauded, because they virtue signal on behalf of the movement. I also find it ironic and comical that so many champions of this movement live in the large, overcrowded, filthy, polluted cities where the vast majority of emissions are produced. If they’re really about the cause they champion, I am going to need to see some of them start moving out to the countryside and living a more modest lifestyle before I could even begin to consider taking them serious.

I’m not just referring to what your experts said in the 70’s. I’m also referring to what they have said in the 60’s, 80’s, 90’s, and 2000’s LOL. I also do not care about denominations, theologians, pastors, doctors, none of that impresses me in the slightest. Romans 3:4 let God be true, but every man a liar; Sure, there’s ‘specialists’. Labels don’t make people infallible though. All the false ecopocalyptic prophecies made in the name of climate change prove that. When I was a kid our dad used to sarcastically refer to the pediatrician (specialist) as Wonderboy due to his various screwups. I know an elderly man who is currently seeing all kinds of specialists for his various health issues and he is switched off and on all sorts of pharma drugs, having bad sides, new complications induced from the drugs..his wife had to go in recently and get more work done on her knee because they screwed up her surgery she had done a couple weeks before. The specialist aka egomaniac who once said ‘I am science‘ can’t seem to get his story straight. Masks don’t work, oh wait now they do, no they don’t, yes they do, but wear two of them. The masks protect you; cancel that, they protect others around you. The vaccine will give you immunity errrr I mean protection! ‘The science is settled’, as they say, yet changing constantly LOL.

Also, quote me where I said ‘climate change isn’t happening’. You can’t. Because I never said that. Although I do not agree with the charlatans, alarmists, their fearmongering propaganda, and lust for money and control. Could totally be possible there are changes occurring. You’re putting words in my mouth, another tactic common amongst your brethren. And you keep mentioning this YouTube video “Climate change can't be happening because God's in control, right.” Maybe it really is happening. Maybe perhaps it is His will? And if that is the case, your movement is as useful as urinating into a gale force wind. But what sort of ‘climate change’ are we talking about here? Cooling or warming? Or is it the warming causing the cooling, or the cooling causing the warming? Hard to keep up with the goalposts but I’m sure that ‘science’ has a perfectly perfected perfect infallible explanation I should just shut up and mindlessly accept as absolute fact. And of course dutifully get down to the precinct and vote for the ‘correct’ side, and have boo koo bucks to shell out on behalf of the cause.

As for doing my homework, I do it daily, pray, study God’s word and have faith in it. Listen to sermons by the most biblical teachers I can find (getting harder these days because thanks to the internet there’s so many ‘experts’ out there now LOL). I guess what you mean by doing homework though is ingesting and believing the world’s propagandas and strictly, unquestioningly adhering to their narratives. I can’t do that, there’s something that keeps me from doing so and it has nothing to do with any political party. The world had their fair chance with me, the majority of my life.

I couldn’t help but notice you ducked my question, so I will ask again. Doubt you will answer and that’s fine you don’t have to answer to me, but at least consider for a moment to yourself. You are a Christian, have you ever put forth such devotion, zeal, and passion for the Lord as you do this particular topic? If not then there is a problem, and I do not say that to be unkind or ‘holier than thou’ but out of genuine concern. Do consider what I just said. I am guilty of putting other things first as well, and directing a similar level of passion to the less worthy causes of the world. I guess that’s why I respond to you out of all the others quoting me here, I can relate on some level. Believe on Him, rather than on mortal humans, many of which are unfortunately currently on the wide road to perdition.

TLDR. To long didn't read.

You keep making the claim of prophecies that were shown to be wrong but you cannot seem to find any. I have to be quite frank, it does look as if you are breaking the Ninth Commandment. If you make false claims about others, even if you believe them to be true, that is breaking the Ninth since it is bearing false witness against your neighbor.

 

[durangodawood]

...But thank you for admitting it, your objective is complete submission to your worldview. You simply cannot cope with people having their own. Demanding absolute conformity. ....

Sounds like an argument for a post-modern "there are no facts just equally valid points of view" outlook.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

listen to Dr Katharine Hayhoe.

Reflreshing. Thanks

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

TLDR. To long didn't read.

I will be using that one a lot. Thanks

 

[J_B_]

It was kinda funny, but nothing great. A way to waste a few hours when you're too tired to do anything else. They did make some odd choices, though.

Was Meryl Streep supposed to be a spoof of Trump? Or was it a statement that they don't think Hillary would have been any better than Trump? Very odd for several reasons: It's obviously going to confuse people into thinking it's a spoof of Hillary - Why, when Hollywood is dying for a female President who will model perfection, would they portray a female President who's so awful? Why not the white, male Protestants they so despise? - Why spoof Trump when he's no longer in office? Are they really that scared that he'll get a 2nd term?

That type of confused narrative ran through the whole thing. They couldn't decide who they wanted to spoof, so they went after everybody: government, business, entertainment, the left, the right, and the middle, the rich, the poor, ... on and on. Characters were smart when it was convenient and stupid when it was convenient.

The one I found the oddest, though, was how the entire movie was science, science, science, science. The scientists are the smartest, the scientists are the only clear-headed ones, the scientists are moral, the scientists could better govern ... and then at the end ... Oh, we're going to die so let's pray. And that was supposed to tie it all up with a profound, uplifting, meaningful bow. It would have been more in character for them to read from the works of Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

 

[RDKirk]

It was kinda funny, but nothing great. A way to waste a few hours when you're too tired to do anything else. They did make some odd choices, though.

Was Meryl Streep supposed to be a spoof of Trump? Or was it a statement that they don't think Hillary would have been any better than Trump? Very odd for several reasons: It's obviously going to confuse people into thinking it's a spoof of Hillary - Why, when Hollywood is dying for a female President who will model perfection, would they portray a female President who's so awful? Why not the white, male Protestants they so despise? - Why spoof Trump when he's no longer in office? Are they really that scared that he'll get a 2nd term?

That type of confused narrative ran through the whole thing. They couldn't decide who they wanted to spoof, so they went after everybody: government, business, entertainment, the left, the right, and the middle, the rich, the poor, ... on and on. Characters were smart when it was convenient and stupid when it was convenient.

The one I found the oddest, though, was how the entire movie was science, science, science, science. The scientists are the smartest, the scientists are the only clear-headed ones, the scientists are moral, the scientists could better govern ... and then at the end ... Oh, we're going to die so let's pray. And that was supposed to tie it all up with a profound, uplifting, meaningful bow. It would have been more in character for them to read from the works of Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

You missed, then, the point.

It was not necessarily a spoof of any particular individuals. It was satire on everyone. The politicians were satirized, industry was satirized, the media was satirized, the people were satirized.

Everyone in the system got satirized.

And you missed the point at the end. Ultimately the scientists gave up on science, and turned to fellowship and faith.

 

[J_B_]

Everyone in the system got satirized.

Yes, I know. IMO that's clumsy, directionless writing. Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

And you missed the point at the end. Ultimately the scientists gave up on science, and turned to fellowship and faith.

If that were true, and if everyone who watched got that point, I'd happily be quiet - though even then I'd bet the "faith" pointed at would be the wishy-washy pantheistic or humanist type. Still, I'll ask, who else thought that was the point?

And I'll listen. What do you know about Adam McKay's views on faith? I don't know much about him.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes, I know. IMO that's clumsy, directionless writing. Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

Satirizing the entire social spectrum is a not uncommon. Orwell did it, Huxley did it. The movie "Idiocracy" did it.

If that were true, and if everyone who watched got that point, I'd happily be quiet - though even then I'd bet the "faith" pointed at would be the wishy-washy pantheistic or humanist type. Still, I'll ask, who else thought that was the point?

And I'll listen. What do you know about Adam McKay's views on faith? I don't know much about him.

Sure, from my point of view, it was a "wishy-washy pantheistic or humanist type" of faith. But that's what's out there as "faith," so that's what they used to mean "faith."

 

[J_B_]

Sure, from my point of view, it was a "wishy-washy pantheistic or humanist type" of faith. But that's what's out there as "faith," so that's what they used to mean "faith."

OK.

Satirizing the entire social spectrum is a not uncommon. Orwell did it, Huxley did it. The movie "Idiocracy" did it.

That people do it doesn't make it a good idea. Citing Idiocracy isn't a good thing. I would disagree Orwell was satirizing the entire social spectrum. I guess we differ in our literary tastes and interpretations.

But, like I said, the movie was an OK way to waste some time.

 

[sjastro]

@Tinker Grey will enjoy this as his favourite astrophysicist comments on Don't Look Up.

 

[Tinker Grey]

@Tinker Grey will enjoy this as his favourite astrophysicist comments on Don't Look Up.

Queued up. (Not sure how I missed it.)

 

[sjastro]

Queued up. (Not sure how I missed it.)

I watched it and her reactions were priceless.
They provided an insight into the frustrations faced by experts when their expertise is attacked by the ill-informed and ignorant.