AgLaw said:

---

I know I'm late to the game here, but that was a bottom five movie. So much promise; so little delivery. Probably the biggest disappointment for me since Bonfire of the Vanities and the Dennis Franchione era.

---

What was the 77-0 moment of the movie?

AgLaw said:

---

I know I'm late to the game here, but that was a bottom five movie. So much promise; so little delivery. Probably the biggest disappointment for me since Bonfire of the Vanities and the Dennis Franchione era.

---

Need a top/bottom 10 here

Buzzy said:

---

AgLaw said:

---

I know I'm late to the game here, but that was a bottom five movie. So much promise; so little delivery. Probably the biggest disappointment for me since Bonfire of the Vanities and the Dennis Franchione era.

---

What was the 77-0 moment of the movie?

---

Just like 77-0, this was a slow burn.

I'm not big on political browbeating in my entertainment but I had no issues with this movie. I actually liked it but Jonah hill is so gd annoying when he plays that character, which is who he plays most of the time.

TCTTS said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

The term "global warming" needs to be retired. Should instead be referred to as "climate change," and the example you just gave lends to the fact that it is, indeed, changing/happening. We're seeing extreme temperatures, both cold and hot, along with other erratic whether behavior, such as this 80+ degree December. It's all part of the same, increasingly extreme trends.

---

Then the people pushing the terms should have planned better. They went all-in on "global warming" for years. Then there were some extreme winter storms. And snow in places that rarely get snow. Then they had to backtrack and say "climate change"!

Climate changes. This isn't a shock. It's changed on a grand scale multiple times over eons.

The next big term will be "man-made climate change" or "homosapien-influenced climate change".

Lefties on message boards in the US can virtue signal all they want, and the current administration can pay for all of us to walk or bike and completely outlaw private passenger vehicles. It won't matter.

Unless China and India and some other developing countries get on board, it's not going to matter what we do.

And someone tell those damned volcanoes to quit spewing out climate-changing gases already.

---

In 100% agreement that the left is truly terrible at messaging... "global warming," "defund the police," etc, I could go on and on. I also agree that we have no hope in stopping whatever's coming. Instead, we should be putting money and resources toward living with it/preparing for it, in whatever ways we can, as opposed to trying to reverse it by spending/regulating our way out of it.

As to whether it's man-made... I don't know. On one hand, there's absolutely no way the pollution we've been putting into the air isn't affecting the environment in some really bad ways. That said, yes, as noted above, this can also be cyclical/natural as well.

Ultimately, I just wish the left would acknowledge that we can't spend/regulate our way out of it, and I wish the right would quit acting like nothing's happening (man-made or not). Instead, if the two sides could come together and work toward some kind of socioeconomic/infrastructural preparation plan - or, at least, contingency plan - we'd be in much better shape when/if sh*t finally does hit the fan at some point this century.

---

Easiest way to tell if we are having an effect is by measuring the makeup of our atmosphere. If we see rises in CO2 and methane, it's not a great sign. Ideally, we need to plant far more trees or figure out artificial ways to convert CO2 to oxygen on a large scale. The importance is in keeping it balanced and not tipping towards one extreme or the other. Global warming is real as much as we want say it isn't. Venus is an extreme example of what could happen if we don't make the incredibly small efforts to maintain the rare blue rock we live on. I'm very conservative by nature, but when you understand basic chemistry and ecology, it's not hard to see that destroying our primary deterrent to overwhelming levels of CO2 is a bad thing for all of humanity.

If every human plants one tree, we could lower atmospheric CO2 levels by a significant margin. It's really not a lot of ask for. We don't need wind mill farms, solar panel farms, or paper straws. Just plant more trees and keep try to keep our home a little better than when we found it. Ya know… before the sun goes red giant and eats us whole anyway.

By "tree" you mean "pot", right?

Don't you just love the irony of a message board arguing over climate change over computers and iPhones that are 80% plastic (hint: which comes from natural gas).

The greatest thing ever.

La Bamba said:

---

Don't you just love the irony of a message board arguing over climate change over computers and iPhones that are 80% plastic (hint: which comes from natural gas).

The greatest thing ever.

---

Plastic doesn't come from just natural gas.

Champ Bailey said:

---

Back from the grave! I thought the only reason this movie was entertaining was Jonah Hill, Timothee Chalamet, and surprisingly J Law. Without those characters, this movie would have been god awful. Timothee Chalamet continues his streak of just nailing everything he is a part of.

As far as the debate going on here, my opinion is that if you are serious about combatting CO2 emissions to save the world, then the only realistic solution right now is nuclear power. If combatting pollution is what you are concerned about, then the only realistic solutions are nuclear power and natural gas. If you are not actively promoting or fighting for those options, then you are either a useful idiot for the people making money off solar and wind power, or just aren't serious about the issue.

---

This is doesn't have anything to do with this thread, but your comments brought to mind a podcast I just listened to. Jonah Goldberg's podcast, The Remnant, had on this guy named, Michael Shellenberger, who is a liberal environmentalist and wrote a book entitled, "San Fransicko."

He basically says that liberals have been duped on drugs, crime, homelessness, and nuclear power. I thought it was very fascinating. You may find it interesting. The nuclear stuff is probably the last 15-20 minutes of the podcast.

https://remnant.thedispatch.com/p/bright-lights-bad-city

schmendeler said:

---

La Bamba said:

---

Don't you just love the irony of a message board arguing over climate change over computers and iPhones that are 80% plastic (hint: which comes from natural gas).

The greatest thing ever.

---

Plastic doesn't come from just natural gas.

---

Pettoleum products.


Better?

maroon barchetta said:

---

By "tree" you mean "pot", right?

---

Hey man, if it converts CO2 into O2, it works! I think the process is called photosynthesis and I'm pretty sure we all learned about it in the second grade.

#FJB #LGB

Liked the movie. Getting through this thread is a dang chore. Political BS, personal bickering. :-)

Regardless of creator's intent, it seems to be mostly neutral. Having an unqualified son fill a position (Chief of Staff) with complete ineptitude was funny. The apparent alignment of gov and media to follow trending stories of the moment without regard to their importance was entertaining. The fact that the President was 100% only ever concerned with staying in office was apt.

Many of the characters did have their "remember what is really important" moments. The family prayer scene was a surprise.

Really the only tasteless overblown character was the old astronaut guy. He would say all these racist things and people would say it was just his generation. If they were trying to make a point it was ruined by how overboard and ridiculously unrealistic that was.

Overall and good movie imo.