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 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

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.

	▲	3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	npoc 3 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	cindyllm 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

n4r9 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

npoc 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I disagree completely. Videos allow you to time-stamp exact moments for reference and provide animated evidence, rather than just stills. Some videos are meant for entertainment, others are not. Same goes for books and other text-based media. Life itself is presented to our brains in a dynamic audio-visual format - does that encourage the suspension of critical thinking, or does it provide more nuance not available in just words and static pictures?

	▲	n4r9 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Videos allow you to ... provide animated evidence. If you want to do that, far better to embed animations in a mostly-textual doc. > Life itself is presented to our brains in a dynamic audio-visual format ... does that encourage the suspension of critical thinking? Yes, to an extent. Or at least text allows critical thinking more easily than the average conversation does. Text makes it really easy to pause and think for a moment before reading on. Or to check back on something you vaguely remember reading beforehand. It's a more active form of ingest than watching a video. Video-makers have many more techniques at their disposal to slip their narrative past critical filters, such as varying the speed of delivery, or using music to invoke emotional reactions.

▲

n4r9 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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 2 days ago | parent [-]

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 2 days ago | parent [-]

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...

▲

npoc 2 days ago | parent [-]

> 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 (only a two minute video this time)

Read "The Creature from Jekyll Island" or "Broken Money" by Alden for the full story.

▲

n4r9 a day ago | parent [-]

This might be a compelling take except that many climate deniers/skeptics - including several featuring in that movie - are funded by fossil fuel companies and right-wing think tanks.

▲

npoc an hour ago | parent [-]

Define "right-wing".

Ultimately either the evidence is correct or it's not, no matter how it's funded. This documentary demonstrates how much of the current mainstream evidence is in fact incorrect, explains why it's incorrect (both the errors and the incentives involved) and then provides evidence for why the small degree of measured warming over the last decades is both happening perfectly naturally and is not very significant compared to periods in the history of mankind.

You must at least admit that much of the evidence backing the climate "crisis" we have been fed over the last decades was actually just projections from models. Models that have generally been proven to be completely wrong. If you take a look for real evidence of detrimental effects from any change in the climate, it's simply not there.

	▲	n4r9 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		In which case I'd appreciate seeing something in text form, since the first ten minutes is uncompelling and does not demonstrate what you say it does, and I'm not inclined to waste my time simply verifying my own suspicion. Another commenter has linked to a review (here [0]) which demonstrates that graphs have been used in a totally misleading way in the film. Indeed this is exactly the sort of thing that makes 1hr+ films a big red flag for me. [0] https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/fake-graphs-and...