pwnage.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, March 5th, 2012 10:48am PST - promote requested by dystopianfuturetoday.

Tyson was on fire that night: http://videosift.com/video/Tyson-Schools-Maher-on-the-Meaning-of-Faith

Holy shit Bill, move out of the way, you're ruining this.

I can't sift through the amount of weather data out there to attack the veracity of either side; but climate is both complex and an essential property of our living stable lives. So I like to think of it like this; like I am a guest in someone else's house, and I want to enjoy their stereo system. I need to be VERY careful to minimize my impact until I fully understand my impact. There is a reasonable position to be an environmentalist in spite of evidence either way. Hell, anyone who has lived in a place with smog should know that humans can have some rather negative localized effects.

Holy shit (no pun) but isnt this Pascal's Wager turned around on the religious?

Game Theory ... the Payoff for believing in (being a disciple of) God if there was no God ? Doesn't matter... no God. Payoff for believing in (being a disciple of) God and there is a god? Infinite.

Therefore, the smart money is to behave as though God exists.

so

Should we behave as good stewards and attempt to minimize our impact, betting on the outcome that it matters?

Or should we bet that it doesn't matter, and have it matter, which is a position that is unwise according to the payout.... given of course we all have the same opinion of the value of the payout which i guess we dont but perhaps could quantify in terms of energy consumption/production..

I would have sex with this man.

Let the scientists talk science. Scientists don't run around predicting automobile company stock prices, because they know they're not qualified to do so. So shut your mouth; you're out of your fucking league.

I was hoping for more pwnage, and less respectful disagreement with the crazy man who owns a car company.

I think he's getting caught up on predictions...he's right though that a lot of predictions haven't panned out. That doesn't disprove global climate change...I mean just take Neils example of the animals changing their migrating patterns and timing of changes. It's pretty easy to see if you study it...not so easy if you only read some reports or even worse read some laymans interpretation of the reports. Of course doubly worse if that layman has an agenda.

He's the colour of a 3 week old used tampon, I can't take it seriously

Show me the science that said ANYTHING was supposed to be under sea water 3 years ago... Lutz is a fucking joke of a human.

This is the case with most of the deniers, they don't seem to understand that things are going to get worse, and worse, very very slowly.

I'm shocked, shocked that the former Vice Chairman at General Motors doesn't believe in global warming.

I officially declare this "Neil deGrasse Tyson pwns fools" day.

I mean, just look at him. How fucking cool do you have to be to rock that moustache and that tie and still be that badass?

Global warming "movement"?

Sea change?>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I can't sift through the amount of weather data out there to attack the veracity of either side; but climate is both complex and an essential property of our living stable lives. So I like to think of it like this; like I am a guest in someone else's house, and I want to enjoy their stereo system. I need to be VERY careful to minimize my impact until I fully understand my impact. There is a reasonable position to be an environmentalist in spite of evidence either way. Hell, anyone who has lived in a place with smog should know that humans can have some rather negative localized effects.

>> ^Fletch:

Global warming "movement"?


This is probably the greatest success of the Republicans and the conservative think tanks funded by oil companies. Turn "Global Warming" into a political issue...make it a movement of crazy hippies and wacked out scientists making stuff up to push a political agenda. If you make it political it becomes Us vs Them and then absolutely NOTHING Gets done.

This is a scientific issue, it should be debated by scientists using evidence not morons using bullshit. This is way too important.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

Looks pretty damn real to me. Plus the predictions are very good for the overall trend.

Of note: Short term (15 years or less) trends in global temperature are not usefully predictable as a function of current forcings. This means you can’t use such short periods to ‘prove’ that global warming has or hasn’t stopped, or that we are really cooling despite this being the warmest decade in centuries.

The Revelations are behind schedule, too.

Señor Lutz doesn't believe in the liberal global warming "religion", which is totally different than "believing" in natural global heating and cooling cycles.


Besides, who's arguing at that table? Lutz is another looter like the rest of 'em, only via Government Motors bailouts and not green-tax socialism.

They ask where Bob is getting his info. I think it's pretty obvious the only thing he's reading on the subject are the religious papers and leaflets that try to debunk climate change by spouting a bunch of lies. Because clearly here he believes that propaganda, as the rest of those on the panel just stare at him dumbfounded.

It's probably the same propaganda and misinformation booklets that QM here reads.

It goes back to consensus versus scientific fact, especially where the consensus is far from unanimous. There is no solid evidence for anthropogenic global warming, to the point data was faked to make it seem more so.

Assuming that everything the alarmists claim is true, and man somehow has the power to noticeably affect global climate with industry, then who shall we leave in charge of determining the "correct" weather, the "correct" temperature?

The root of this global climate "debate" is control. The taxpayer-funded alarmists--even if correct--are the useful idiots of governments that want more control over people's lives. The oil companies want to sell oil. People need oil and more oil, not more and more do-gooder tyranny.


>> ^Xaielao:

They ask where Bob is getting his info. I think it's pretty obvious the only thing he's reading on the subject are the religious papers and leaflets that try to debunk climate change by spouting a bunch of lies. Because clearly here he believes that propaganda, as the rest of those on the panel just stare at him dumbfounded.
It's probably the same propaganda and misinformation booklets that QM here reads.

Without the global warming research there'd be no money for research grants. No grant money means no money for scientists who can't get a real job.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I would have sex with this man.


I'm sure James Carville would be flattered!

>> ^quantumushroom:

It goes back to consensus versus scientific fact, especially where the consensus is far from unanimous. There is no solid evidence for anthropogenic global warming, to the point data was faked to make it seem more so.
Assuming that everything the alarmists claim is true, and man somehow has the power to noticeably affect global climate with industry, then who shall we leave in charge of determining the "correct" weather, the "correct" temperature?
The root of this global climate "debate" is control. The taxpayer-funded alarmists--even if correct--are the useful idiots of governments that want more control over people's lives. The oil companies want to sell oil. People need oil and more oil, not more and more do-gooder tyranny.

>> ^Xaielao:
They ask where Bob is getting his info. I think it's pretty obvious the only thing he's reading on the subject are the religious papers and leaflets that try to debunk climate change by spouting a bunch of lies. Because clearly here he believes that propaganda, as the rest of those on the panel just stare at him dumbfounded.
It's probably the same propaganda and misinformation booklets that QM here reads.



They did a study of the "faked-evidence" turns out there was nothing to it, and it was headed up by a Global warming skeptic. Consensus does not mean unanimous and since when does it take every scientist to agree for something to be right. You think only the people that disagree deserve their degrees or use the scientific method?

People surprisingly don't need the amount of oil that we use...the oil we use is misused and greatly mismanaged.

This is sort of like the idea of believing about God or not to be safe. Suppose you don't believe in Global warming and don't do anything about it...then it turns out that all the evidence and the Vast Majority of scientists are right. Then what? Well we didn't change so now we're fucked...sorry kids.

>> ^TangledThorns:

Without the global warming research there'd be no money for research grants. No grant money means no money for scientists who can't get a real job.


Yes they spent a ridiculous amount of time going to school and performing experiments because they're idiots that can't work. If any of these scientists wanted to I don't know say work where you work they wouldn't be as low down the rung as you because they're not as stupid as you.

>> ^TangledThorns:

Without the global warming research there'd be no money for research grants. No grant money means no money for scientists who can't get a real job.


Global warming aside, this is such an ignorant thing to say that sometimes I am just amazed that the world manages to function at all.

I know you'll never believe it, but everything you use and own and see humans take advantage of every day, besides the rock and the pointed stick, was developed by scientists. Without those "real jobs" we'd all be living with you back in the dark ages. Even those things that you hold dear to your heart like Chevy trucks, guns and crystal methamphetamine were all created through funding of individuals completely unlike you, who manage to move the world forward every day despite your bullying and hypocrisy.

In fact, please don't even write another message on that keyboard you have. Practically every piece of that computer you're using was developed with grant money.

I've linked this before, but this is how they can (sort of) both be right: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

They did a study of the "faked-evidence" turns out there was nothing to it, and it was headed up by a Global warming skeptic.


Every few months the alarmists claim we're at a "crisis point" where it will be "too late to turn back". I'm waiting for the next one since last June.

Consensus does not mean unanimous and since when does it take every scientist to agree for something to be right. You think only the people that disagree deserve their degrees or use the scientific method?

Those that disagree are being suppressed and marginalized. Shouldn't that alone illustrate that people declaring "The debate is over" before there is any real debate have something to hide or gain?

People surprisingly don't need the amount of oil that we use...the oil we use is misused and greatly mismanaged.

Which goes back to my point: who shall we leave in charge of determining the "correct" weather, the "correct" temperature....and the "correct" dispersion, uses and price of oil? The free market does a better job of regulating waste and correcting mismanagement than any government.

This is sort of like the idea of believing about God or not to be safe. Suppose you don't believe in Global warming and don't do anything about it...then it turns out that all the evidence and the Vast Majority of scientists are right. Then what? Well we didn't change so now we're fucked...sorry kids.

What are the worst cases the alarmists bring up? More storms? We can't do anything to stop or change the natural disasters we have now. What's that you say? A rise of one degree in the global temperature in the next 100 years? In 100 years people will be sprinkling Kool-Aid-sized packets of nanobots in the ocean and creating their own temporary islands.

Conversely, in 100 years, if there's no global warming and the threat was empty, we'll still be stuck with hundreds of thousands of environmental laws and regulations as insane as the U.S. Tax Code.

It may be paranoid to mistrust government power, but it is seldom a mistake.












>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
It goes back to consensus versus scientific fact, especially where the consensus is far from unanimous. There is no solid evidence for anthropogenic global warming, to the point data was faked to make it seem more so.
Assuming that everything the alarmists claim is true, and man somehow has the power to noticeably affect global climate with industry, then who shall we leave in charge of determining the "correct" weather, the "correct" temperature?
The root of this global climate "debate" is control. The taxpayer-funded alarmists--even if correct--are the useful idiots of governments that want more control over people's lives. The oil companies want to sell oil. People need oil and more oil, not more and more do-gooder tyranny.

>> ^Xaielao:
They ask where Bob is getting his info. I think it's pretty obvious the only thing he's reading on the subject are the religious papers and leaflets that try to debunk climate change by spouting a bunch of lies. Because clearly here he believes that propaganda, as the rest of those on the panel just stare at him dumbfounded.
It's probably the same propaganda and misinformation booklets that QM here reads.


They did a study of the "faked-evidence" turns out there was nothing to it, and it was headed up by a Global warming skeptic. Consensus does not mean unanimous and since when does it take every scientist to agree for something to be right. You think only the people that disagree deserve their degrees or use the scientific method?
People surprisingly don't need the amount of oil that we use...the oil we use is misused and greatly mismanaged.
This is sort of like the idea of believing about God or not to be safe. Suppose you don't believe in Global warming and don't do anything about it...then it turns out that all the evidence and the Vast Majority of scientists are right. Then what? Well we didn't change so now we're fucked...sorry kids.

>> ^quantumushroom:

What are the worst cases the alarmists bring up? More storms? We can't do anything to stop or change the natural disasters we have now. What's that you say? A rise of one degree in the global temperature in the next 100 years? In 100 years people will be sprinkling Kool-Aid-sized packets of nanobots in the ocean and creating their own temporary islands.
Conversely, in 100 years, if there's no global warming and the threat was empty, we'll still be stuck with hundreds of thousands of environmental laws and regulations as insane as the U.S. Tax Code.
It may be paranoid to mistrust government power, but it is seldom a mistake.



Now I don't want you trusting the government that's true. However in 100 years time it's more than likely we won't be here...that's more because of nuclear war but also to climate change. Not our problem I guess.

Pascal's wager assumes there is (or is not) only a single god. It doesn't factor in that if you happen to believe in the wrong god, then you are damned for eternity. So it's not just a yes /no question.

Global warming isn't so straight forward either. One thing is to figure out whether or not it is happening and what causes it, another is what to do in response. It seems the scientific community has all but reach a consensus about it, but what we do in response is really the important thing. Again, the response is not "nothing or everything", it's "how much do we need to do".
>> ^vaire2ube:

Holy shit (no pun) but isnt this Pascal's Wager turned around on the religious?
Game Theory ... the Payoff for believing in (being a disciple of) God if there was no God ? Doesn't matter... no God. Payoff for believing in (being a disciple of) God and there is a god? Infinite.
Therefore, the smart money is to behave as though God exists.
so
Should we behave as good stewards and attempt to minimize our impact, betting on the outcome that it matters?
Or should we bet that it doesn't matter, and have it matter, which is a position that is unwise according to the payout.... given of course we all have the same opinion of the value of the payout which i guess we dont but perhaps could quantify in terms of energy consumption/production..

RETARD ALERT, RETARD ALERT! Everyone into the bunker!
>> ^TangledThorns:

Without the global warming research there'd be no money for research grants. No grant money means no money for scientists who can't get a real job.