I've been called an oxy-moron
Because I question which drugs our war's on
Why are there more drug stores than liquor stores
You can score on
The healers have become the harmers
They're just pharmaceutical farmers
What we used to call dealers
We now call doctors
I might be a seedy cynic
Cause that crack house is now a clinic
It's time they change the name of the oath to
The hypocritic or the parasitic

It isn't adder-altruistic
By over prescribing
How can we fight them in a [?]
I'll throw a proz-accusation
With a sub-keta-meaning
They'll say my fears are quaa-ludicrous
They should be ati-vanishing
With every demurr-altercation
They'll have a good xan-explanation
You're just cialis-tated
Cause we made your dick deflated

It's oxy-moronic
It's oxy-moronic

It should be doctors getting busted
For their klon-opinions we trusted
We're not the sinners there the ones
That served us the vico-dinners
I don't want to be an alarmist
But in that harmacy there's a harmacist
And those scrips are making us [?] minded pacifists

It's oxy-moronic
It's oxy-moronic
It's oxy-moronic

Don't think that I am being crazy
The medical industrial complex
Keeps us vi-aggravated and hard to come
Because of perco-sex
How can we hydro-condone
Their blatant misconduct
They don't care for patients
They care about pushing product

Are you oxy-moronic
For wanting your daily chronic
And making your mom's house hydroponic
You're oxy-moronic

I've been called an oxy-moron
For getting my metaphor on
Linoleum is the floor on
I'm an oxy-moron

It's time to be alarmed
We're not being healed
We're being harmed
Our country's being factory farmed
It's Oxy-moronic
It's time to sound to alarm-a
We can't put our faith in karma
We got a common enemy
And they're called Big Pharma

And it's oxy-moronic
And it's oxy-moronic
It's all oxy-moronic
It's all oxy-moronic

Daily chronic, now most of your house is, okay
"Most of your house is" what does that even mean?
He's turned most of his house into hydroponic
Why wouldn't he have turned all of it into hydroponic?
Well cause he lives there
"Now all of your house is hydroponic"
Most is sappy
Really? It's like saying maybe
How about "Now your mom's house is hydroponic"
Yeah! That's fucking way better
God you fucking woke up
Come on Mike, where you been
Where you been all month?

*promote

"They" who, specifically? Based on what "evidence," specifically? Seeing as how you have to resort to suggesting that this particular scientist's views on evolution have anything to do with his work as a climate scientist says more about the credibility of your "position" on this issue than it serves as any sort of "argument" on the topic at hand.

I'll take the scientist's take over the alarmist's take, every.single.time.

Thanks for your "very scientific" definition (just like GenjiKilpatrick's "evidence" for global warming, saying "OMG, Global Warming is real because it was 70 degrees in Georgia!")

No, unlike you, I don't confuse partisanship with data... Nor do I look for arbitrary reasons to discount a person's entire argument because the rules of epistemology suddenly no longer apply. On the contrary, I choose to instead examine what the data actually shows before arriving at my own changing thoughts on the matter.

But I guess, for you, the data isn't as important as the source, so long as your pre-cooked distortions of reality aren't disrupted by something as pesky and difficult to conform to one's beliefs as the FACTS... (remember those?)

But, yes, you are absolutely right about fucking yourselves. Perhaps you should spend less time online and save some electricity. (Or maybe it's too much for you to actually Walk The Talk instead of just bloviating online.)

I went to a gas station recently. Lots of people were pumping gas... And none of them seemed to care very much about your ideas of oil company fellatio. They also didn't seem concerned at all about crackpot climate change "theories"... (Go figure.) You should get out there and yell at them for ruining the planet, ChaosEngine. I was also at an airport recently, too. There were lots of planes burning fuel. You're not making a single dent on oil consumption with your tirades... Perhaps you should try another strategy and see if anyone cares.

(Haha.. Of all the fictional "crises" you could choose to be an alarmist about, you've chosen one on which you have zero impact! But, hey, for all I know, you're just addicted to the adrenaline rush of faux outrage. Lucky for you, I'm here to feed it...

If anyone is "desperate," it's clearly the climate change alarmists, because no one's really doing anything that has any real impact on the supposed warming.

So knock yourself out getting all riled up about it. Good luck with that...

(I am, however, rather amused with your cranky tantrums and tirades...Haha, what's a "climate denier" anyway?"There's no climate, ok?" "Yes there is, you denier!")

Bill Nye, the bloviating low-information "climate guy" not taken seriously by any meteorologist.

Bill Nye, the bloviating low-information "climate guy" not taken seriously by any meteorologist.

Bill Nye, the bloviating low-information "climate guy" not taken seriously by any meteorologist.

"UPDATE: As I mentioned in the comments that I initially posted with this video, based on our dog's extensive training, temperament, and exceedingly gentle previous interactions with the baby (which are shown in our other videos), under our close supervision, we did not perceive that there was any realistic risk of harm to the baby by allowing her to try to take a bone from the dog. In contrast, a handful of visitors apparently strongly believed that we were putting the baby in imminent danger in this video.

Although I disagreed with those visitors' comments, based on those comments, I contacted the dog's trainer about the video and about the nature of the interaction shown in the video, as the trainer is specifically familiar with our dog's training and temperament. In short, based on her specific experience with our dog and other dogs, the trainer agreed with me that it's unlikely that the dog would harm the baby -- and in her opinion, the dog was not exhibiting any signs of stress or irritation in the video that would lead her to believe that the baby was at any risk of harm during that interaction. That said, she cautioned that a dog's "resource guarding" instinct cannot be 100% bred or trained away, and that a dog's tolerance for someone taking its resources can change over time as the dog develops and ages. Because of that, she cautioned that just because the dog is tolerant of such behavior now does not mean that he'll be so tolerant of such behavior in the coming months. So, particularly while the baby is so young, the trainer conservatively recommended against allowing the baby to take anything from the dog's mouth. Moreover, we intend to follow that recommendation -- so rest assured, we will not allow the baby to interact with the dog again in the way that's shown in this video.

Although I wish the detractors had been a bit more constructive and less alarmist in their comments, I do ultimately appreciate their concern, and I learned a little something from it. So, thank you." from there.

Expecting perfect prediction from an observational science of a chaotic system is hardly reasonable. Back in the 1890s it was predicted warming would follow the emissions. Limited in the kind of experiments they can do - climate scientists are bound to err.

It's not 'alarmists' saying the heat is being trapped in the deep oceans. At least not exclusively. It is an observed fact that there is more heat energy entering our system than is leaving it. This leaves some possibilities:

1) Our observations of heat flow are incorrect to a significant degree.
2) The laws of thermodynamics are nonsense
3) The heat is trapped somewhere on earth.

Without reason to suppose 1) and being able to reject 2) out of hand, we're left with 3). And from there, where is it? The classic answers would be

a) atmosphere
b) biosphere
c) cryosphere
d) hydrosphere
e) lithosphere

Some scientists proposed d) as an answer. This is at least partially true, the fist km or so of ocean is warming. It was hard to get measurements of the global deep ocean temperatures, it was hypothesized that some heat was down there.

Maybe they're wrong, and maybe the heat is somewhere else. This is the joy of science: the capacity to falsify ideas, even popular ones. But the heat is very likely here, and until we find it, it might be said to be 'hiding'. It may be that there is more heat going somewhere we thought we'd accounted for already such as 'the cryosphere'.

It's not happening at the litho-atmosphere boundary so much right now (the 'hiatus'), but that leaves plenty of stones to explore. It's still happening, and we're breaking post industrial temperature records almost annually (2014 looks like it'll be the new hottest year).

The quote of mine you used was among my recommendations for global warming alarmists to walk their talk. However, I, myself, am not a global warming alarmist (though I somehow manage to maintain a much smaller carbon footprint than most -- possibly ALL --- of those that I know).

And, wouldn't ya know it, that heat that those alarmists claimed to be "hiding" in the oceans were wrong about that, just as they're wrong about most of the claims they base on political convenience, rather than climate science.

Like most of Sorkin's bloviating, this empty rhetoric is undermined by the incongruency of the climate change alarmists' own ballooning carbon footprints while attempting to use the government to impose force upon others' behavior. Until global warming alarmists themselves walk their talk (i.e., drive hybrids -- if they drive at all -- cease flying in airplanes, eat strictly vegetarian diets, have few if any children, and withdraw their consent from the worst polluter on the planet: the state), then no amount of freaking out, ranting, incentives, or attempts at policy will serve to avert the "impending catastrophe."

In China and India (where pollution is no doubt a significant problem), there are hundreds of millions of people who have far bigger concerns and more pressing problems than some remote notion of a "warming planet" or some looming "catastrophic collapse of civilization." (In fact, the same can be said for the majority of the population of the planet.)

And this is to say nothing of how ALL of the models used to support "evidence" for the case of a warming planet have ALL (not some, but ALL) been consistently undermined by serious skeptical science (PDF) while the claims of the political entity of the IPCC remain inconsistent with the data.

Since when do politicians get to decide the veracity of scientific fact?

EDIT: ALL of the climate-change alarmists' predictions, dating back to the 1980s, have all failed to come true. When this trend continues for the next few decades, there will be no shortage of "Told You So" moments that will undoubtedly be explained away by some unknown variable -- like the heat that is "hiding" in the ocean -- that, once "corrected for," will serve to further prop up this political ruse.

It's officially known as a report on the "Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series." In lay-speak, it's a study of just how long the current pause in global warming has lasted. And the results are profound:

According to Canadian Ross McKitrick, a professor of environmental economics who wrote the paper for the Open Journal of Statistics, "I make the duration out to be 19 years at the surface and 16 to 26 years in the lower troposphere depending on the data set used."

In still plainer English, McKitrick has crunched the numbers from all the major weather organizations in the world and has found that there has been no overall warming at the Earth's surface since 1995 - that's 19 years in all.

During the past two decades, there have been hotter years and colder years, but on the whole the world's temperatures have not been rising. Despite a 13 per cent rise in carbon dioxide levels over the period, the average global temperature is the same today as it was almost 20 years ago.

In the lower atmosphere, there has been no warming for somewhere between 16 and 26 years, depending on which weather organization's records are used.

Not a single one of the world's major meteorological organizations - including the ones the United Nations relies on for its hysterical, the-skies-are-on-fire predictions of environmental apocalypse - shows atmospheric warming for at least the last 16 years. And some show no warming for the past quarter century.

This might be less significant if some of the major temperature records showed warming and some did not. But they all show no warming.

Even the records maintained by devoted eco-alarmists, such as the United Kingdom's Hadley Centre, show no appreciable warming since the mid-1990s.

Despite continued cymbal-crashing propaganda from environmentalists and politicians who insist humankind is approaching a critical climate-change tipping point, there is no real evidence this is true.

There are no more hurricanes than usual, no more typhoons or tornadoes, floods or droughts. What there is, is more media coverage more often.

Forty years ago when a tropical storm wiped out villages on a South Pacific Island there might have been pictures in the newspaper days or weeks later, then nothing more. Now there is live television coverage hours after the fact and for weeks afterwards.

That creates the impression storms are worse than they used to be, even though statistically they are not.

While the UN's official climate-scare mouthpiece, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has acknowledged the lack of warming over the past two decades, it has done so very quietly. What's more, it has not permitted the facts to get in the way of its continued insistence that the world is going to hell in a hand basket soon unless modern economies are crippled and more decision-making power is turned over to the UN and to national bureaucrats and environmental activists.

Later this month in New York, the UN will hold a climate summit including many of the world's leaders. So frantic are UN bureaucrats to keep the climate scare alive they have begun a worldwide search for what they themselves call a climate-change "Malala."

That's a reference to Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani schoolgirl who was shot in the head by the Taliban after demanding an education. Her wounding sparked a renewed, worldwide concern for women's rights.

The new climate spokeswoman must be a female under 30, come from a poor country and have been the victim of a natural disaster.

If the facts surrounding climate-disaster predictions weren't falling apart, the UN wouldn't such need a sympathetic new face of fear.

Yawn. This was reported as early as November of 2012. It gets on reddit a week ago and now you care?

Apple has a patent for this. They have LOTS of patents.

When they decide to actually include this in their hardware...you can choose to not buy it or protest it.

I hate TYT and all their ilk. It's alarmist non-substantive reporting. I would love to see real journalism outside of the mainstream garbage take off, but this isn't it.

Okay, I'll upvote despite the fact I think the video is a bit alarmist as I'm sure the debate will be fun to watch.

I much prefer this video (and not *just* because it was my submission):

Dumb alarmist lady is alarmist and dumb.