I try really hard to not hold movies to a very high standard for science- they’re primary role is entertaining, after all.
That said.
Armegeddon.
The Day After Tomorrow.
3 Likes
Ukip too.
3 Likes
As for the original topic:
Star Trek movies make the physics teacher part of my brain cry. (2D black holes…)
Dittoing Armageddon, for the sheer levels of science FAIL.
Haven’t seen Core, don’t want to…
5 Likes
It’s the right-wingnut version of the ‘how do you tell if someone’s a vegan?’ joke, isn’t it?
5 Likes
Indeed. My nephew beat his dad at chess the other day. He’s five. He’d make for a great chess hustle 
2 Likes
Huh, I thought the official libertarian position was “you can believe in the devastating effects of climate change as long as you don’t support any government plan to actually do something about it.”
3 Likes
I’ve yet to meet any committed libertarian-capitalist that hasn’t been a hardcore denialist regarding just about any kind of pollution, as pollution is an externality that, when actually examined to its actual repercussions, basically shows libertarian-capitalism to be the philosophical dressing up of sociopathic self-regard and greed that it actually is.
Or, to posit it as a vastly simplified metaphor for illustrative purposes, libertarians believe that they can buy the spot of the lifeboat hull under their bench and do whatever they want to it, and, when everyone else in the boat starts shouting at them to stop drilling a hole in the hull, they just look at the other passengers with a quizzical look and go “But I’m drilling under my part of the boat! What’s the issue?” The consequences of the ocean around (and soon to be in) the boat must be denied with all force in order for their position to at all be seen as reasonable.
(and should this be split off to another thread?)
10 Likes
If you peruse the libertarian-leaning Reason.com for the topic “climate change” you’ll find many an article acknowledging the reality of the problem (and several that don’t). The vast majority tend to agree it’s something “the market” should sort out though, thus ignoring the problem of externalities you mention.
3 Likes
Fair enough. There’s definitely a selection bias in the libertarians I’ve encountered online and in person, based on the communities that I am part of, and, again, noticing the strident ones that evangelize their One True (Economic) Doctrine over the ones that aren’t utter wingnuts.
And libertarians have to, as part of their philosophy’s focus on property and ownership, ignore or at least handwave away as “the market will solve it!” pretty much all externalities, be it vaccines, secondhand smoke, pollution, global warming, and so forth.
1 Like
Recently? Probably would have to be Ridley Scott’s Prometheus (2012). Normally I just avoid dumb movies altogether as too painful to endure, but sometimes hope exposes you to the risk of disappointment…
1 Like
It’s real estate developers who led the (successful!) battle for North Carolina to ban scientific predictions of sea level rise. And then…
A projection map showing land along the coast underwater would place the permits of many planned development projects in jeopardy. Numerous new flood zone areas would have to be drawn, new waste treatment plants would have to be built, and roads would have to be elevated. The endeavor would cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars
…both political parties, seeing the costs of dealing with the problem combined with the drop in tax revenue, simply choose not to recognize the problem. Kick the can down the road, so that it’s someone else’s problem.
But yes, Republicans have a far, far greater tendency to ban inconvenient truths. Like federal House Republicans passing a bill forbidding scientists from advising the EPA on their own research. A true libertarian wouldn’t pass a new law. They’d get rid of existing environmental laws.
In Florida predictions of sea level rise also threaten property values NOW, so the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has been ordered not to use the term “climate change” or “global warming” in any official communications, emails, or reports. In that the policy is tied to Republican governor Rick Scott.
Naturally, Texas has a similar rule.
5 Likes
How does declining fish population and shrinking habitat cover all the bases with regard to climate change?
(edited typo)
4 Likes
By Grabthar’s hammer, that movie is genius.
11 Likes
Oh, I miss him.
12 Likes
In addition to that. And shrinking fish populations are not the basis of the global warming argument.
You didn’t answer my question, nor make sense with what you did say.
What does it mean to cover all the bases with regard to climate change?
3 Likes
Not when phrased like that. But larger and more frequent anoxic zones are scientifically linked with increased ocean warming and they’re directly linked to declining biomass (which includes the chain from food producer to fish food to fish and beyond)
10 Likes
Denialism is not science based. If you can’t stick to the one rule of this thread, I will feel free to flag your butt out of it.
14 Likes
While it is super fun to discuss/debate/whatever-is-happening-here global warming denialism, would it be okay to spin that to a separate thread? The discussion of bad science in movies is a central issue for our time that’s being lost.
13 Likes
Fork away, at your peril. 
5 Likes
