No , I ' m pretty sure he did it for the reaction . <| sep |> It ' s because you can literally only see a small percentage of what ' s happening , you can capture more craziness on the sides of the image that are left off . <| sep |> I mean , a lot of people like Heath Ledger , but I really prefer the humour that Mark Hamill brings to the role . <| sep |> I thought it was during the gravity field stun ' pull ' animation that hitboxes got fucked . Same thing happened to me on Lee . And if you saw it several times as Viktor , maybe it ' s not just a hunch . <| sep |> Oof , so there are a few misconceptions here worth tackling . His point though is that even if everything around global warming were true , the attitudes that you can ' t criticize it is in violation of the scientific method . Global warming represents everything science shouldn ' t be . The scientific method is based on trying to prove things false , the second you stop doing that you stop doing science . The attitude around global warming is nonscientific in that there is a taboo around criticizing it . To start , one problematic part of your conception of science can be seen in your use of the scientific method . A universal , Baconian method is highly suspect , and you can read more about that method # DisSciMet . Next , there is your point about science being based only on falsification , this demarcation being so strong that the moment you do without it , you are not doing science . Popper himself distanced himself from naive falsification , a particularly lethal blow coming from the QuineDuhem thesis . When you try to prove things false , what are you really disproving ? Some particular hypothesis or the effectiveness of the instruments used to disprove that hypothesis or what ? There are always auxiliary hypotheses when you try to disprove things . This is not simply theoretical . The branch of science I study is physics and we ' ve certainly had difficulty with the flaws of falsification in the past , from using the eclipse to disprove relativity to finding superluminal particles . String theory is an example of something scientific being studied that doesn ' t have anything substantial that can be falsified as of yet . Finally , no , global warming does not represent everything science shouldn ' t be . The idea that AGW is suppressed is actually quite plausibly the complete opposite of what is happening . A lot of money goes against AGW and , as a consequence , a lot of political maneuvers do the same . That money definitely goes into the research as well . It ' s largely been a failure , but that isn ' t as a result of failing to attempt to criticize AGW , just a failure in the attempt .