That fluoride makes people stupid.
That humans only contribute like 0.2% of greenhouse gases and have no impact in climate change.
That petroleum is a natural renewable mode of transportation that doesn’t come from dinasaurs
And that science is not reliable because people just say “trust the science” but get made when you “question the science” and that he doesn’t trust what he can’t replicate
And that NASA just lies and was founded by NAZIs so they just do nothing and collect government money
What is crazy to me is that this guy is great at his job and has got me unstuck from coding related problems several times. Yet, he believes in all these conspiracies 😵
I considered this guy to be smart and yet he gave me this ackward conspiracy info dump session
We he kinda got one thing right, NASA was indeed partly founded by Nazis.
That’s the problem with these conspiracy theories, they use half-truths to fool average people.
Also - petroleum could technically be considered “renewable”, it’s just that the amount of time you need to “renew” even a tiny bit of it (when taken into the context of the amount of petroleum the entire population can CONSOOM in a year) is ridiculous. So, part lying by omission and part “well, technically…”. And it really does not come from dinosaurs - it comes mostly from compressed plant matter (the flesh decomposes too quickly).
These tactics are often used by Ben Shapeabrain and other rightoid talking heads - omitting important details from their “sources” is how they are seen credible in the eyes of their base.
Programmers very often fall into the group of people who are very good at what they do and clueless about everything else, but what they do has a certain level of complexity to make them think they’re super clever and apply this to everything.
The 0.2% of greenhouse gases thing is actually accurate as far as I remember. Various natural systems move a whole lot of carbon around constantly. What isn’t accurate is that humans don’t or even can’t have an effect. The problem arises from the fact that this system is very precariously balanced, indeed perfectly balanced on all but long geologic time scales, so it cannot handle even an additional tiny amount on one side of the scales. Human emissions do pale in comparison to natural emissions, but the natural ones are taken up in some way by other elements of the carbon cycle. Industrial human emissions are not.
Anyway if they’re up to replicating and or peer reviewing climate science all by their uneducated lonesome that’s cool I guess, until then the UN panels on climate change are probably a reasonably trustworthy proxy.
make them think they’re super clever and apply this to everything
Not just programmers that do this; plenty of people with advanced technical knowledge do it too
“question the science” and that he doesn’t trust what he can’t replicate
This isn’t awful either at face value. Science should be about questioning, and it should be reproduced. There are varying degrees of wrong and approximation though. Even if a theory isn’t perfect, it might be better than anything proposed previously.
