3 ms·

Why's that? A topic as big as this takes quite a lot of refuting. If you're interested in finding the truth, then you'll at least begin watching it to see if i

by npoc 1y ago

Why's that? A topic as big as this takes quite a lot of refuting. If you're interested in finding the truth, then you'll at least begin watching it to see if it offers any promise.

const_cast 1y ago
The trouble with videos is you can just... choose not to include stuff that obviously refutes your argument. The reality is that global warming is definitely happening, and also the Earth is definitely not flat. But it's pretty easy to make a super convincing argument that the Earth is flat - you just don't mention any of the math behind why the Earth is round and then you can have a 5 hour long video filled to the brim with evidence the Earth is flat. And it's not even lying. We're not saying anything that's not true. We're just choosing to omit data and evidence that proves us wrong. We can even include fake data and evidence, if we want, and refute that - ie build a strawman.
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- npoc 1y ago
  But surely that holds true for any evidence? Much of the video is showing how (and why) the government-funded evidence for global warming is wrong.
n4r9 1y ago
Videos are a terrible way to convey logical arguments. It's much harder to skip back and forth, search for specific bits, etc ... . They're for entertainment, which encourages a suspension of critical thinking. If you're confident there's a solid argument to be made, make it in text so it can easily be analysed and challenged.
- n4r9 1y ago
  I watched the first ten minutes. It's the standard boring exercise of cherry picking a few theoretical physicists who weigh in on climate science despite having little to no experience in it.
  - npoc 1y ago
    Well, I'm afraid that that only goes to prove errors in your intuition and critical thinking skills. Your facts are incorrect and your logic uses an appeal to (lack of) authority fallacy.
    - n4r9 1y ago
      The ten minutes I watched was one big appeal to authority. "Here's Doctor X, a highly respected scientist. Look at all the big name universities he's linked to. Listen to him waffle on about how he thinks climate science is corrupt." Appeal to authority is a dubious fallacy to invoke in the first place. If I need to assume something about (let's say) geology - which I know little about and haven't the time to research myself - I'm going to trust the general consensus of professional geologists. I'm not going to waste my time listening to a marine biologist who sounds like a crank and claims they've discovered that the whole field is bogus. "If you're interested in finding the truth, you'll at least" check out this (surprise surprise, textual) take-down of the movie, with a comprehensive set of links debunking (in, surprise surprise, text form) the hackneyed climate myths that it brings up: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-the-movie-a-hot-mess-of-cold-myths.html https://skepticalscience.com/climate-the-movie-a-hot-mess-of...
      - npoc 1y ago
        > The ten minutes I watched was one big appeal to authority. "Here's Doctor X, a highly respected scientist. Look at all the big name universities he's linked to. Fair point. Although two wrongs don't make a right. > If I need to assume something about (let's say) geology - which I know little about and haven't the time to research myself - I'm going to trust the general consensus of professional geologists. This is the intelligent, inituitive approach - I agree. However one of the main points that the documentary makes is that there's a hidden corruption involved which means that in the case of climate this is actually the wrong approach to take. The combined state and money printer-backed financial system has an enormous incentive to encourage scientists to find a global climate crisis, and because most scientists rely on government funding, they in turn have enormous incentives to produce statistics that align with this, or else lose their funding. The so-called climate experts that are presented to you are in fact selected by this system because they produce work that aligns with the system's incentive to make people believe there is a climate crisis. This corruption all stems from the fact that we gave a few questionable people a money printer, and decades later they're getting closer and closer in their ultimate goal of enslaving the world. https://x.com/OppCostApp/status/1952831340597948565 https://x.com/OppCostApp/status/1952831340597948565 (only a two minute video this time) Read "The Creature from Jekyll Island" or "Broken Money" by Alden for the full story.

by npoc 1y ago

Why's that? A topic as big as this takes quite a lot of refuting. If you're interested in finding the truth, then you'll at least begin watching it to see if it offers any promise.

const_cast 1y ago

The trouble with videos is you can just... choose not to include stuff that obviously refutes your argument. The reality is that global warming is definitely happening, and also the Earth is definitely not flat. But it's pretty easy to make a super convincing argument that the Earth is flat - you just don't mention any of the math behind why the Earth is round and then you can have a 5 hour long video filled to the brim with evidence the Earth is flat. And it's not even lying. We're not saying anything that's not true. We're just choosing to omit data and evidence that proves us wrong. We can even include fake data and evidence, if we want, and refute that - ie build a strawman.

cindyllm 1y ago
[dead]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
npoc 1y ago
But surely that holds true for any evidence? Much of the video is showing how (and why) the government-funded evidence for global warming is wrong.

n4r9 1y ago

Videos are a terrible way to convey logical arguments. It's much harder to skip back and forth, search for specific bits, etc ... . They're for entertainment, which encourages a suspension of critical thinking. If you're confident there's a solid argument to be made, make it in text so it can easily be analysed and challenged.

n4r9 1y ago
I watched the first ten minutes. It's the standard boring exercise of cherry picking a few theoretical physicists who weigh in on climate science despite having little to no experience in it.
- npoc 1y ago
  Well, I'm afraid that that only goes to prove errors in your intuition and critical thinking skills. Your facts are incorrect and your logic uses an appeal to (lack of) authority fallacy.
  - n4r9 1y ago
    The ten minutes I watched was one big appeal to authority. "Here's Doctor X, a highly respected scientist. Look at all the big name universities he's linked to. Listen to him waffle on about how he thinks climate science is corrupt." Appeal to authority is a dubious fallacy to invoke in the first place. If I need to assume something about (let's say) geology - which I know little about and haven't the time to research myself - I'm going to trust the general consensus of professional geologists. I'm not going to waste my time listening to a marine biologist who sounds like a crank and claims they've discovered that the whole field is bogus. "If you're interested in finding the truth, you'll at least" check out this (surprise surprise, textual) take-down of the movie, with a comprehensive set of links debunking (in, surprise surprise, text form) the hackneyed climate myths that it brings up: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-the-movie-a-hot-mess-of-cold-myths.html https://skepticalscience.com/climate-the-movie-a-hot-mess-of...
    - npoc 1y ago
      > The ten minutes I watched was one big appeal to authority. "Here's Doctor X, a highly respected scientist. Look at all the big name universities he's linked to. Fair point. Although two wrongs don't make a right. > If I need to assume something about (let's say) geology - which I know little about and haven't the time to research myself - I'm going to trust the general consensus of professional geologists. This is the intelligent, inituitive approach - I agree. However one of the main points that the documentary makes is that there's a hidden corruption involved which means that in the case of climate this is actually the wrong approach to take. The combined state and money printer-backed financial system has an enormous incentive to encourage scientists to find a global climate crisis, and because most scientists rely on government funding, they in turn have enormous incentives to produce statistics that align with this, or else lose their funding. The so-called climate experts that are presented to you are in fact selected by this system because they produce work that aligns with the system's incentive to make people believe there is a climate crisis. This corruption all stems from the fact that we gave a few questionable people a money printer, and decades later they're getting closer and closer in their ultimate goal of enslaving the world. https://x.com/OppCostApp/status/1952831340597948565 https://x.com/OppCostApp/status/1952831340597948565 (only a two minute video this time) Read "The Creature from Jekyll Island" or "Broken Money" by Alden for the full story.