• long running

Free: Fahrenheit 9/11 Documentary + Q&A Session @ Michael Moore's Substack & Youtube


One of the best 9/11 documentaries IMHO (also rated 7.5 on IMDb). I watched it live earlier this morning via his youtube channel and the link will apparently be available for now…This is also the link for his Twitter announcement:

Also available via YouTube:

Update from MM (13/09)
'The response to our free screening of Fahrenheit 9/11 was so overwhelming, we’re keeping it up for free on my YouTube channel. So if you missed the screening, now you can watch it this week when u want! https://youtube.com/watch?v=cebnlqi9RGQ… (includes Q&A and extras. The movie starts at 38:00)'

Related Stores

Michael Moore
Michael Moore


  • +39

    South Park did it better

      • +201

        After he said 'sow what you reap' (instead of 'reap what you sow') I knew it wasn't worth reading

        • lol

        • +6

          I kept reading for the fun factor lol

        • +13

          BargainHunter..88, username checks out.

          • +4

            @nub: Oh right, eighth letter. It could also be interpreted as 'infinity' which is good luck in Chinese

        • +5

          BargainHunter got ratio’d to kingdom come

        • +12

          BargainHunter8888 you've received much social status points today, well done Comrade. The Supreme Leader is pleased. Submit your report immediately.

        • +4

          Gotta keep sowing after that epic reap through

  • +29

    Don't know if the misinformation which led to war on iraq and lesser extent Afghanistan or our current "fake news" is worse.

    • +21

      worse now, clearly.

      • +40

        Much worse. Right wing propoganda media is out of control in Australia.

        Many people regurgitate trash from Sky and the Herald Sun/Daily Telegraph and vote for the Liberals while life gets harder for them.

        • -18

          It's not that bad honestly. When I look at vaccination rates in Australia, we are on track to be way ahead of other countries. That would indicate to me that critical thinking is at pretty good level in Australia and it's only small minority suspectible to misinformation (or infodemic).

          • +8

            @lubos: It's bad. There's a huge QAnon base in Vic and they do anti-vaxx and anti-lockdown stuff in other states.

          • +1

            @lubos: That was by force though

        • -41

          Hahaha. Are you for real? Right wing media is out of control?

          99% of the mainstream media is far left, including the tax payer funded ABC who are supposed to be impartial.

          I'll give you Sky News, but the fact that you think the Herald Sun and the Liberal party are right wing is a perfect example of just how misinformed Australian are when it comes to politics.

          • +40

            @seanneko: Recited straight out of the Murdoch playbook…

          • +2


            99% of the mainstream media is far left

            99% is a bit of a stretch. The vast majority would be a more accurate statement.

            A lot of people on this forum would not be happy unless 100% of the media is left wing. They hate the idea of getting different opinions on a topic, as you would see on Sky. They much prefer ABC groupthink.

            • +12

              @heal: A 'different' opinion is very different from misinformation and outright lies. The shit coming out of the right nowadays is not about opinion but about manipulation.

              • +7

                @blergmonkeys: And you think that the left or any other viewpoint are any better?
                The media now are an absolute joke and no one knows who or what to believe.
                When you have twitterati and tiktokers or "a bloke who knew a guy who worked with someone who heard" as a source, you know its all become a joke.
                This is where the flood of BS information/tech has made modern life a pain in the arse.

                • +8

                  @Maz78: The left lives on the side of reason and science. There is truth in that, science is an objective measure of reality and, although it can be wrong, it has the benefit of admitting so and altering a hypothesis to match current data. This is the problem with the right — they're a bunch of toddler babies throwing tantrums that they aren't getting their way because the data doesn't match their predetermined viewpoints on the world. They fight against reality and make the world a worse place for all of us.

                  So yes, the left is better and the news from the left (whilst often biased) at least acknowledges objective reality.

                  • +4


                    The left lives on the side of reason and science.

                    Like how men can be women. All science right there lol…

                    • +8

                      @1st-Amendment: Gender and sex are not the same.

                      Also, yikes. Talk about typical and stupid single issue talking points. Absolutely bonkers how you people use the most inane arguments against science. The whole point, as I said, is that science is a fluid understanding of reality based on objective measurements. You’re confusing societal constructs (gender) with genetics (sex).

                      • -4


                        You’re confusing societal constructs (gender) with genetics (sex).

                        Lol, so much for science eh… That didn't last long.
                        Feel free to demonstrate scientifically how a man can be a women. I'll wait. Actually I won't because we know how this plays out. Standby for more excuses…

                        • +1

                          @1st-Amendment: oh dear….

                          This deserves no response. It's simply the ramblings of an angry man who can't accept the differences in gender types as a societal construct.

                          How dare people have varying opinions on gender. They must fit into a bucket that you deem worthy!

                          As for the science: sex is determined by genetics. I already said that.

                          lol what are you on about?

                          • @blergmonkeys:

                            This deserves no response

                            Yet you here you are lol…

                            How dare people have varying opinions on gender.

                            You can have you opinion, but that is not how science works. It's becoming obvious that you really have no idea about this now.

                            • +1

                              @1st-Amendment: gender is a societal construct.

                              it's not science.

                              how many times does this need to be said?

                              "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between femininity and masculinity. Depending on the context, this may include sex-based social structures (i.e. gender roles) and gender identity.[1][2][3] Most cultures use a gender binary, having two genders (boys/men and girls/women);[4][5][6] those who exist outside these groups may fall under the umbrella term non-binary. Some societies have specific genders besides "man" and "woman", such as the hijras of South Asia; these are often referred to as third genders (and fourth genders, etc.). Most scholars agree that gender is a central characteristic for social organization.[7]"


                              Leave it to a typical conservative to argue about a topic they have no knowledge about because the news told them to be angry about it. Now they're gatekeeping gender. Yikes.

                  • +1


                    The left lives on the side of reason and science

                    Is this the 99% of scientist argument? Or are you talking about specific scientists, because there are scientists who have specific expertise on both sides of the argument. Aren't we allowed to question the claims and predictions, most of which in the past haven't come true? Are we allowed to question why certain scientists ignore some data, and who funds them? Do they have a vested interest in making certain findings? How will turning off our coal fired power plants, shutting down our coal industry including exports affect the global temperature?

                    The problem is that those of us who are genuinely interested in debate and getting answers to questions get shouted down, getting called toddler babies throwing tantrums, not having objective reality. Talk about predetermined viewpoints.

                    • +6

                      @heal: Look at it this way. Let's say we conducted an experiment to test the acceleration of gravity. We drop a ball off a 10m height, measure the time it falls and then repeat this 100x to get an average acceleration. We land on 9.8m/s^2. Now, another scientist postulates that perhaps this is due to your altitude so the experiment is repeated, but this time at the top of mount everest and also at the dead sea depression. We note that the acceleration is largely equal to 9.8m/s^2 but note very small deviations. We do not suddenly conclude that the first experiment was necessarily wrong but delve into why it was different. We study the topic and come to the conclusion that gravitational acceleration certainly largely is 9.8m/s^2 but that this depends on the distance from the centre of the earth. As such, we alter our hypothesis from the first experiement and continue to test is against further rigorous methodology.

                      Do you see what happened? There was a consensus built over time based on new data that altered the original understanding. This is how science works. If you are talking about global warming, our understanding continues to evolve and change in terms of specifics, but the consensus remains that the earth is warming and this is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases. The economic impact of changing our behaviour to counteract global warming is not a scientific question, it is a political and social one. It may be right or wrong in this regard, but the merits of climate change as a science are not suddenly debunked because you don't like the conclusion/plan to fix it.

                      Can science be corrupted by human interest? Of course. Just like any human endeavour. Should we throw it out the window because of this? No. This is why we have peer review and rigorous testing methodology that tests conclusions. It is why, in science, nothing is ever set in stone. If, in our first example, we note that objects start falling at 11m/s^2 towards the centre of the earth, we will then need to change our understanding of how and why gravity works or find alternative explanations for the discrepancy - individual corruption or otherwise. With respect to climate change, despite the right's best efforts to continue to corrupt the message, the data continues to point to the same conclusion over and over - that human-driven greenhouse gases are warming the planet.

                      You are welcome to question scientific methodology and conclusions, but do not think that your conclusions are valid simply because you have an opinion. You need data to back it up. Pointing out flaws in human nature do not counteract objective findings either. So, if you are doubting scientific claims, bring the data or shut up.

                      • -2


                        So, if you are doubting scientific claims, bring the data or shut up.

                        And that's the attitude I'm talking about. There is evidence both ways and simply ignoring or dismissing scientists that provide contrary evidence just because you are sold on global warming is pretty poor imo. Telling someone who has serious doubts and questions to shut up is a common theme amonst the believers.

                        I do know there is data on the contribution to co2 levels by India and China, and that destroying our coal industry will have next to no influence on global climate. Any savings we make will be eaten up by China's massive increase in co2. Have you heard about how many coal fired power plants China is building?

                        • +5

                          @heal: Where’s your data mate. This all come down to objectivity. If you have claims that refute scientific consensus, you need very strong evidence. And don’t give me crap about conspiracies and the like. They have no place in rigorous peer review. The reason you can’t argue on the merits and continue to gas light the issue is because you likely don’t have it. It’s the same old crap.

                          Read my reply again. The issue of solving climate change is separate from the conclusion of climate change being real. Again, science is an objective measure of reality and doesn’t care about your feelings.

                          • -4


                            Where’s your data mate

                            I have questions. I have doubts. I have concerns that wrecking our economy won't change a thing.

                            This all come down to objectivity

                            100% agree. I can only hope.

                            science is an objective measure of reality and doesn’t care about your feelings

                            Nor does it yours, so settle down. You seem a bit triggered that someone dares to have questions and doubts. You want me to show proof when I'm not claiming to have any, yet fail to address the points I have made. You can have the last reply. I'm not here for an argument that will not benefit you, me or anyone else here.

                            • +9

                              @heal: You ask no questions though (other than overtly rhetorical/loaded ones). And where am I triggered? I have been more than patient in explaining how the scientific process works. Here we go with more right wing buzz words.

                              You simply make statements with no evidence. Therein lays the problem. Here’s some advice: if you are faced with a scientific conclusion you do not like, start by asking questions rather than immediately doubting. It’s ok to ask questions and defer to experts who have spent much more time studying the topic. Read around the topic and delve into the literature (Google scholar is a fantastic resource). Make an objective conclusion based on facts rather than feelings.

                              And again. Climate change being real is wholly different topic from the solutions to it. Political and social vs scientific reality. You can admit climate change is real but disagree with policies to address it. But the right just denies the truth in the first place because the conclusion and inevitable solution hurts their feelings (wallets, specifically oil/coal/gas, who happen to be best buds with Murdoch and the liberals). That’s the problem.

                              You are being manipulated to enrich billionaires at the cost of the rest of us.

                              • +1

                                @blergmonkeys: "You are being manipulated to enrich billionaires at the cost of the rest of us."

                                Which is nothing new. That's an old and proven recipe and they know it works each and every time. Because, they too are human and have the same human nature. Romans coined it some 2000 years ago. Give people bread and circuses, so they won't make trouble. They just swapped that with beer and footy. It is not then hard to understand why in third world countries people don't do anything. Just rinse and repeat.

                                You don't have to be scientist or very intelligent. Common sense should tell you how easy it is to manipulate YOU.

                                It's like people saying, I don't care about politics. I don't care either. In fact, the world doesn't need politicians, but they chose to have them.

                                Now, while saying I don't care about politics, at the same time I do. Because they are the ones making decisions which will impact not someone else's life, but mine too. So even if you are as selfish as a fox, you should still care. Because it doesn't affect someone on Mars. It affects you, personally. So, even if you don't care about others, you should still care, especially because not many can say, I'm rich, it doesn't affect me.

                                What's even more ironic, is that politicians making laws today, those laws are to stay which will also affect their family and friends and their descendants. While they may be well off now, this changes. There were so many rulers and rich people before, yet, neither them, or their descendants are anywhere to be seen. So, even though they get rewarded for making life harder for all, but themselves, in their ignorance, they should see, their families won't perpetually be rich and untouchable.

                                But, just like a kid in the room was offered a whole box of sweets if they don't eat that one on the table for 5 minutes, and ate it, regardless that they could get the whole box, so, too, politicians can't see, that even though they themselves might not be affected today, there is always tomorrow, with some other politicians and rich people. It won't be their family sitting there on the throne.
                                They take peanuts and in that process even shoot themselves in the foot.

                                This is why nothing will change. Science doesn't matter, because ignorance and selfishness overrides it. People are saying, the bible is just a legend. Well, you might heed that legend where it talks about the flood. When Noah said, there's going to be flood, people were just. Ah, who cares, let's have fun. And it is the same now. That is why I know, the inevitable will come.
                                Whether you are rich or poor, it won't matter. Whether you believe science or think it is just mambo jumbo, won't matter.

                                It is so easy to build a better world, but it is never going to happen. You would need to change human nature for that to happen.

                                Met someone who said, don't get vaccinated, it will change your genes. Maybe they were onto something 😅
                                Don't know, didn't even get that 5G as they said. Must have been given a wrong vaccine.

                                • @bargainparker: I agree. I just wish it weren't this way.

                                  I just find it so ingratiating when you have people like above that have wholly eaten the narrative, acting like they're part of the elite that so easily manipulate them. They literally vote against their own interests thinking they too will one day be part of the 0.1%. All the while, denying what experts tell us about the future of the world or the current state of it. It's so frustrating.

                                  • @blergmonkeys: "I agree. I just wish it weren't this way."

                                    I'll tell you one thing. Just turn the other way. I know, many would say and I was asked why don't you stand up and fight. My answer is simple. Fools die for ideas. So many times you end up being the first and the last, and nobody in between. Because people have life to live and they are busy with their own lives, not seeing that by doing so, they are actually not even caring about their own life, let alone that of their children. And step by step, it is becoming worse.

                                    You can't help the world that doesn't want to be helped. It is just how human nature works. They were never made to work together. You would think that in this age of knowledge and technology, humans would start to understand, but, seeing how many survivor shows, tik tokers, instagram, facebook, etc. stuff is still thriving, tells me, you'll just wear yourself down.

                                    Let's take an example like Greta Thunberg. She thinks, she is a warrior. Yet, while she may win some battles, she is not going to win the war. She is in fact just a puppet, to look like something is being done. For something to be done, you need the world to come together and I don't see it happening. When, people in well off countries can't do that, how can you expect those that just think of how to put bread on table today, will do something.

                                    This ship is sinking. They keep patching small holes, while that huge gaping hole is taking all the water and patching those small holes will only slow the sinking by a fraction, inevitably, it will sink and pull down everyone, even the rich.

                                    • +1

                                      @bargainparker: I understand the cynicism. I just can't conform to it.

                                      I will continue to fight back against the misinformation, propaganda and outright lies of the conservative parties around the world. It will likely amount to very little, but at least I can say I tried when my son is old enough to ask me what was done to combat the downward spiral of the world. I try to live sustainably and will pass this onto my child. It's my little part, but I do recognize the likely futility in it all.

                                      As for Greta; I feel for her. It's just amazing to see grown adults attacking a child and an entire populace of people cheering on their bullying ways. Humanity is so sad sometimes.

                                      • +1

                                        @blergmonkeys: Remember, never argue with stupid people. They will bring you down to their level then best you with experience.

                        • +4

                          @heal: Sorry, but this entire argument is a non sequitur and appeal to emotion. You aren't arguing against the science of climate change.
                          The physics of our earth systems don't care about whether people believe in them or not, just like gravity won't stop pulling on you if you jump off a building just by hoping hard enough.
                          You are arguing against the economic, social, moral and ideological aspects, albeit a pretty thin argument.

                          • @twjr: I don’t think this person is even arguing that. It’s all fairly nonsensical. They just seem upset that I called right wing media and it’s worshippers fanatical toddler babies that are endangering us all. Note how this person can’t argue on the merits so resorts to gaslighting. It’s a typical strategy with right wingers. And honestly, I’m sick of it. We have evidence and reason on our side. They have butt hurt fee fees on theirs. This sort of attitude is why the vaccine strategy is going to fail and we are going to end up with a variant of covid that dodges the immunization. Then we are truly screwed. Oh but you got to protect your liberties and avoid getting a tiny needle in your arm that would have protected you, your family and your community; but no, it’s all about me me me. Conservatives…. sigh

                      • -3


                        Do you see what happened? There was a consensus

                        It's not a consensus, it's a demonstration that can be independently verified and/or falsified.

                        This is how science works.

                        No it isn't, the fact that you think this demonstrates perfectly the flawed logic

                        You are welcome to question scientific methodology and conclusions,

                        Just like this: https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attribution-met...

                        point to the same conclusion over and over - that human-driven greenhouse gases are warming the planet.

                        Lol statement wouldn't even pass a year 8 science report. By how much exactly because this is kind of important don't you think? Show me the formula that describes with error bars how much human CO2 contributes to the rate of change, I'll wait.

                        • +1

                          @1st-Amendment: You really understand nothing.

                          Consensus is the demonstration of repeatable results based on a hypothesis. It is testing a hypothesis via different methodology to end at the same result. This is how consensus is built and how scientific conclusions are made amongst a community of resesarchers.

                          As for the article you posted, I will admit I do not have the requisite statistics knowledge to understand what they are talking about. Please explain it to me rather than just linking to it. Explain to me why that article you linked undermines, specifically, scientific consensus on global climate change as a widely accepted theoretical framework for global climate models.

                          And your last point — I will simple link you to this: https://d3laewezlz9ul2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/202...

                          You think explaining climate models is as simple as showing a graph with error bars - it doesn't work like this. Science is orders of magnitudes more complex and consensus comes about from iterative hypothesis-testing-conclusion studies. If you think it is that simple, then you have likely an extremely rudimentary understanding of the science and maybe you should consider taking a slice of humble pie and just step back from the argument. Entitled ignorance is a cancer in society nowadays. Every joe blow thinks their opinion is valid because they googled exactly what they want to believe.

                          Perhaps, if you do not have an appropriate understanding of a matter, it is better to just defer to experts rather than listening to only the side you want to be right (specifically, Murdoch and it's ilk). And yes, you will come back saying that I am doing the same - but here's the difference, I stand with scientific consensus behind me. You can deny consensus all you want, but you just keep showing how ignorant you are on the subject.

                        • +2

                          @1st-Amendment: "Lol statement wouldn't even pass a year 8 science report. By how much exactly because this is kind of important don't you think? Show me the formula that describes with error bars how much human CO2 contributes to the rate of change, I'll wait."

                          Oh well, how interesting. Let me ask you a question. Why do you care about that? Actually I'll reformulate that. Whether it is human caused or it is just earth cycle, or perhaps both… it doesn't matter. What matters and what you should be more concerned about is, that most people are living in cities. Probably you too. Maybe, you are lucky and live somewhere in the country, breathing fresh air?

                          If you understood that majority live in cities and also breathe all those gases from vehicles, factories etc., polluting air, water and earth, then you wouldn't care about that graph of yours.

                          You see, you are more concerned about some graphs, than even about your own health and your family. You might not get cancer, but your quality of life is lower. Imagine all those billions of vehicles not emitting one particle of pollution. Electric vehicles are not the answer either. While they might be better, nevertheless they are just a lesser evil.

                          So, you see, even if you think all this climate change is just a hoax, you should still care about your own health as it affects you too. You might not live in the city, but you are paying for it, because more people get sick and need medical attention, which costs. It affects animals and plants and that all adds up.

                          I bet your car is mostly occupied by one person. Imagine how much pollution that creates and at what cost, to just drive one person, and you can see that all the time on our roads. Most cars have just one person in there. One person.

                          So, you see, you should do something about that even if you think climate change is caused by earth cycle.
                          But, no, let's just debate whether climate change is real and what some graph shows.

                          Now you see, how easy people can be manipulated. And this world is only heading deeper and deeper into rabbit hole without an exit.

                          If only in your ignorance and selfishness, you could see, but… You would rather just sit there arguing while still falling into the abyss, blind as a bat and deaf as a doornail.
                          Have fun while you can, because when the shit hits the fan,(the fun has just started), fun will be gone and your opinion won't matter. Not that you will have more understanding then, because those who are convinced against their own will, are still of the same opinion.

            • +5

              @heal: Serious question. So the vast majority argues for for the far left, i.e. communism?

              In my experience no-one is arguing for communism in this, or any Western, country. It is no coincidence that so many billionaires own media corporations. Once the wealthy oligarchs realised they could control the narrative by controlling the media, capitalism became the message du jour. Media owned by the moneyed will promote their message whether they are "left" or "right"; they just have different benefactors.

              • +2


                So the vast majority argues for for the far left, i.e. communism?


          • +5

            @seanneko: If you are often against the majority opinion of analysts, experts and science; perhaps it is YOU who is wrong.

            Reality does not care about your feelings.

            This is what every right wing conservative/conspiracy theorist nutjob needs to internalize.

          • +3

            @seanneko: I hope you have multiple properties and a big salary. Otherwise, you have been brainwashed and are voting for the Liberals and making life harder for yourself.

            You would know this is true if you read their policies as opposed to billion dollar media companies who want you to vote a particular way (Liberal).

        • +3

          *Propaganda. Oh, and you and your conspiracy theory buddies are right about everything. Us conservatives have regular secret meetings to figure out how to get people killed and stuff up the world. It's what we do.

          • +1

            @Wardaddy: Considering the right denies scientific consensus on just about every objectively measured datapoint, you're about right.

            • +4


              Considering the right denies scientific consensus

              Science doesn't work by consensus it works by demonstration and observation…

              • @1st-Amendment: What are you talking about?

                Science definitively relies on consensus. The whole point is that data demonstrates a conclusion but that conclusion can change depending on ongoing rigorous testing. Consensus comes about naturally via repeated demonstration of the same outcome from said testing.

                You really seem very confused mate. You’re exactly the type of person I’m talking about. You start from a predetermined point of view and use twisted logic to make reality bend to your wants.

                • @blergmonkeys:

                  Science definitively relies on consensus

                  No it doesn't, and repeating it doesn't make it so.

                  But would this guy know: https://www.azquotes.com/quote/824260?ref=consensus

                  • @1st-Amendment: Yeah dude, let's take a quote completely out of context and pretend that debunks 300 years of scientific progress.

                    You know what else Albert Einstein did? Discover the theory of relativity. Do you know how it became a largely accepted theory? Through repeated testing, through which the theory held under rigorous scrutinization. Do you know what it's called when a bunch of people agree on a conclusion based on rigorous testing? drum roll….. consensus.

                    Ugh. I'm amazed you keep going on and on about this.

                    Let's see what your google-fi will come up with next.

                    • -1


                      Yeah dude, let's take a quote completely out of context and pretend that debunks 300 years of scientific progress.

                      Science works because it can be demonstrated, this is the part you seem to be missing. Despite numerous comments you are yet to post a single citation that demonstrates any of your claims. But sure, you just know are right, you ask you!

                      Ugh. I'm amazed you keep going on and on about this.

                      Well you have offered nothing but flawed logic and zero data to support you claims. Imagine claiming to be pro-science yet not know the fundamental of the scientific method.

                      Let's see what your google-fi will come up with next.

                      You mean citations of actual data? You know how actual science works?
                      Here's one that will keep you awake at night: https://www.eurasiareview.com/31082021-democrats-more-likely...

                      But I'm sure the cognitive dissonance will kick in yet again…

                      • +1

                        @1st-Amendment: Yeah, same old crap.

                        You address nothing but keep spewing bullshit.

                        It's obvious this is going nowhwere so I'll just step back and let you have the last word.

                        Hopefully those that have read this thread can see just how flawed your logic is.

                        • @blergmonkeys:

                          You address nothing but keep spewing bullshit.

                          I addressed your unsubstantiated claims with cited data, yet you refuse to offer any actual data to support your view while at the same time claim to be the science guy.

                          Your opinion mirrors that of many uninformed Leftists who often claim to be the anointed arbiters of 'science' while at the same time know the least about the subject. When tested they always fail to demonstrate any logic or reason and fall back to petty insults as you have done here.

                          Hopefully those that have read this thread can see just how flawed your logic is.

                          Well they will make up there own minds, something Leftists also hate. Don't think for yourself, simply listen to what the 'experts' tell you to think.

                          Let's leave this little bit of actual cited research here for the audience to review:

                          • +1

                            @1st-Amendment: Ok, one more point because I can't let this stand.

                            That article you posted. It's done by a guy that has no science background, he is NOT an MD. He is a charlaton using the MD moniker, running around in scrubs pretending to have scientific knowledge.

                            The article has multiple issues. It is not a study but cherry picked data from select surveys.

                            How did they find their respondents? How did they confirm their voting preferences? What were the specific questions asked and what wording was used?

                            This is the problem — you use cherry picked articles to support your conclusions whilst ignoring the overall science.

                            Irrespective, this clarification was needed because you again show very little knowledge on the subject.

                            You have not proven anything, you have not backed up any claims, you just reside on the left the dunning-kruger, yelling into the ether your ignorance because you can't accept that scientific consensus is just that.

                            You know what comes off as more genuine? Admitting a lack of knowledge in a subject and defering to experts. But no, your google-fi trounces that. I suppose if you were sick, you would treat yourself rather than going to the hospital because google told you so.

                            • @blergmonkeys:

                              so I'll just step back and let you have the last word

                              Ok, one more point because I can't let this stand.

                              Lol, you are the gift that keeps on giving…

                              It's done by a guy that has no science background

                              Argument from authority, ad hominem and Strawman all in one post!
                              So much for logic and reason lol… Instead of claiming to be right in every post, maybe use some logic and demonstrate it. You know, how actual science works…

                              • -1

                                @1st-Amendment: lol

                                looking at your post history, maybe a bit of introspection would help you, but let's be honest, you are a typical agnorant (arrogantly ignorant) conservative.

                                so you be you and keep posting garbage uninformed posts.

                                • +1


                                  so I'll just step back and let you have the last word

                                  How's that working out for you?

        • +3

          there's trash on both sides… but I'm sick of leftys complaining when they live in one of the most egalitarian countries in the world..

          • +3

            @cobrakai: Australia is no longer egalitarian in many ways including housing.

            People are struggling to get their first house while government policy makes housing a plaything for the rich.

        • +1

          Many people regurgitate trash from Sky and the Herald Sun/Daily Telegraph the busted Nine/Fairfax machine and vote for the Liberals Greens/Labor while life gets harder for them.

          Determine whether either of those statements is more or less correct than the other.

          • +1

            @Seraphin7: One side supports science.

            The other is a bunch of toddlers throwing tantrums because objective reality doesn't meet their predetermined views on the world.

            So no, they are not equivalent.

          • +6

            @Seraphin7: You are showing your bias by associating the Greens/Labor with Nine given Costello is the Nine chairman. You can't seriously suggest that one of the chief architects of Howard era policy promotes a Green/Labor bias?

          • +1

            @Seraphin7: Nine/Fairfax has former Liberal Treasurer, Peter Costello as Chairman.

            Just another conservative media outlet.

            Edit: I see someone else has posted the above. They clearly have more critical thinking skills than the person that brought this up.