This excites me. One of the best novels I've ever read. King, Straub, Barker, Bradbury, and McCarthy, all rolled into one.

Which network or cable streaming service?

Oh it's out already?? :0

Yeah it started today.

It's on Starz which I added to my Amazon prime account

:laughing:

Nye's too soft on them. Throw them in the pit with the anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, creationists, naturalists, and let's throw in all of the religious leaders (priests, imams, etc) with them.

Blatantly dishonest science definitely needs to be reprimanded. The only way you'd be against that is if you got tricked into thinking there's some validity to these bought and sold scientific opinions.

You can argue against a carbon tax (since eric brought up policy) whilst also agreeing with the standard scientific consensus about climate change, so I think it's a little silly to suggest we should jail people who argue for things like cutting the carbon tax whilst also being sceptical of the scientific consensus.

An example of a case against the carbon tax: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.o...g-paper-33.pdf


Downloading American Gods since bob. said such great things about it.

What on earth are you talking about? This field's too small to move the goalposts my man.

"Being skeptical" of the scientific consensus is rarely backed up by anything besides dark money. So I'm open to scientifically valid arguments against the current consensus on climate change, but until I see any of those it only makes sense to treat ****ty science the same way that you would treat any other type of fraud. We obviously take that case-by-case though because simply writing off all negating views is not very scientific. They just have to be substantiated views.

I think that any scientist who uses dishonest methods to support their view should be held accountable as well ftr.

eric mentioned it would be feasible to place criminal charges on those who affect public policy. Carbon tax is one of those. I didn't move any goalposts, rather I zero'd in one the bottom left corner. If you deny climate change and want to make changes to policy based on that, make your case.

Edit: He said "national" not "public" policy.

I'll let eg use his mouth to say his words before I accuse you of strawmanning.

But yes they still need to be imprisoned and possibly even beheaded. This applies to any scientist committing fraud.

I mean the post is here.