I don't know if we'll ever get to an "I told you so" on the anthropogenic cause, but within 10 years or so I think even the hardest of hard core Fox News watchers will have to stop denying that climate change is happening. At that point they will still deny that giant multi-billion dollar corporations and massive farming of the rain forests have anything to do with it, they'll stick to their "it is a natural" cycle, feedback loops be damned, and continue saying "follow the money" when they point to who is saying it is man made, while ignoring their own advice and following the money to who is saying it isn't man made. Even if they do believe it man made, they'll say it won't matter as a large number of the deniers are evangelicals who say Jesus is coming again soon and he'll whisk them away before it gets too bad. I know because I've heard them say this very line, they use this line to say it doesn't matter who somebody votes for as well, though they still follow Fox and vote as the Republican right tells them to vote... Anyhow I think part of the problem is a lack of basic understanding of science, not understanding what a theory is and how it comes about, and the fact it got politicized (and unfortunately for those of us who accept the scientific facts, Gore may have done more harm than good by being a bit more alarmist in some areas and mis-representing some facts for the deniers to point to and say see the whole thing is false). I used to be a skeptic, but then I followed the research trail back on both sides, saw who was saying what exactly, and it became clear that we are screwed...

TLDR: They may come to accept climate change is happening, but still won't accept that humans have much if anything to do with it.

>> ^alcom:

Superstorm Sandy is another example of society's march past the greenhouse tipping-point like the lemmings that we are. I laid it our in arguments in this video, where I was vehemently opposed by doubt-fuelled, fear monger, climate change deniers:
http://videosift.com/video/Climate-Change-Latest-science-update
We're so close to that "I told you so" moment. By that time unfortunately, the methane feedback loop will probably be well under way.

>> ^bmacs27:
I think most criticism of gun ownership is alarmist, and heavily influenced by confirmation bias and sensationalist media.

I don't really agree with this. There really is only one major criticism and that's the amount of death and injury caused by firearms, which is backed up by statistical research rather than media hyperbole.

If you're a 25 year old US citizen you're almost as likely to die by gunshot as you are by a vehicular accident.

You may or may not agree with the justification (I, like you, agree - the world is an inherently dangerous place) but vehicles do bring obvious benefits to society in many ways.

I have a hard time saying the same about guns.

I know a few European countries have a relatively high gun ownership rate (about a third of the US) but without the same death and injury rate, so I agree it's not a simple relationship between ownership and injury. Perhaps it'd be fairer to say that the US' high gun ownership, and their high injury/fatality rate has a common root. I see that as the gun regulations.

Taking Switzerland specifically (which, as you said has half the gun ownership of the US) they have compulsory conscription. I had two separate friends who (both reluctantly) had to do it. They learn how to use their weapons and I believe this has a positive impact on reducing death and injury. Their conscription is not about guns though; using a gun is just one part of that experience.

I don't really agree with the whole concept of mandatory conscription though, so don't see that as a solution.

In Switzerland the issued firearms have to be stored separately from the bolt. Carrying is only permitted when you're called for service, unless you have a specific permit, a valid reason and pass an exam once every 5 years.

In Finland you need a specific reason and evidence in order to gain a gun license such as hunting, sport or your job. Self defense is not a valid reason. Only firearms appropriate to your license purpose can be purchased.

In Iceland you have to take compulsory training and exams before you can get a license for a shotgun. Self defense with a firearm is not a valid reason for a license. A year of training is required for a handgun license. Semi automatic and automatic weapons are illegal. You can't buy ammunition for weapons you are not licensed for. Licenses are only granted by your local chief of police. Licenses are only granted for hunting, sport, or collecting.

France, again you need a hunting or sport license, and they limit the amount and type of ammunition you can purchase. You can only purchase firearms appropriate to your license class (hunting rifles for hunters, etc).

In Austria you need to pass a psychological test, and pass a shooting exam every 2 years. Non sport weapons require evidence of requiring them from your employer (such as the police).

They all have laws about storing weapons in lockable closets; and laws against carrying (you can only carry a weapon to the place of purpose, and in a manner that accords to regulations) with the exception of Germany which requires training, tests, an additional license and a provable reason for requirement to carry; such as your job.

If your justification for gun ownership is hunting, sport or collecting then why object to implementing these kind of controls?

>> ^L0cky:

>> ^bmacs27:
Like Switzerland, right?
>> ^L0cky:
That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.


Hence why I said most.


Which is what I figured, however, if you take a look at the noise in the numbers, Switzerland is within noise of Iceland, Germany, Austria, France, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Would you still call it most?

For every enthusiast per capita the US has like this guy, Switzerland has one with half as many guns. Does it really make a difference? Is Europe really that different?

Frankly, I come from the North East. I still feel an attachment to the revolution, and if you think about, it wasn't that long ago. The minutemen weren't paranoid, they were prudent. And they were packing cannon, the nuclear arms of their day. While I think it's worth carefully considering where lines are drawn, e.g. "small" arms, I think most criticism of gun ownership is alarmist, and heavily influenced by confirmation bias and sensationalist media. Sure they're dangerous. But so are lots of things. Accepting a dangerous world is the cost of living in a free society.

I'm sympathetic to the view that "well regulated militias" should probably keep large stores of arms away from their residences, and certainly children. However, we have no strong evidence this guy has kids around. I guess we can quibble about fire, however there is not particularly much in the way of ammunition present. Remember, guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Personally, I suspect this guy is a gun salesman. That would explain the quantity of guns, and the relative lack of ammunition. Further, it would explain the youtube video that appears to be an advertisement for a gun cabinet. I don't begrudge this guy his vocation.

In reply to this comment by aimpoint:
Wow I just read up some of the stuff on Silvio Berlusconi, how is he not in jail already. What about the drowned teenage gypsies though?
In reply to this comment by Yogi:
>> ^aimpoint:

The background on wikipedia about it shows that a younger upcoming technician "predicted" the earthquakes using the less reliable radon measuring methods then went on TV to warn everyone. The old guard of the system called him an alarmist and put a gag order on him. Seems that this might have had an effect on people after the fact. Also seems like a script for a bad sci-fi movie.
Oh and because its Italy, the mafia is somehow involved.


I so rarely get any news about Italy but everything lately has been terrible. Let's take a look.

Amanda Knox trial: Good job idiots, don't need evidence just put everyone in jail.
Silvio Berlusconi: you brought that shit on yourself.
Ignoring the bodies of drowned teenage girls cause they're gypsies: Wow that takes the mother fucking cake, bunch of sad assholes, Italy should be blown the fuck up.

And now this. Everything I hear about Italy is fucking pathetic, and I'm mad about it. I'll protest my country later, we need to stop Italy now!



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038747/The-world-shocked-Italian-sunbathers-ignoring-dead-gipsy-girls--But-Italy-showing-chilling-Roma-childr
en.html

copy and paste the link, it won't work otherwise.

Wow I just read up some of the stuff on Silvio Berlusconi, how is he not in jail already. What about the drowned teenage gypsies though?
In reply to this comment by Yogi:
>> ^aimpoint:

The background on wikipedia about it shows that a younger upcoming technician "predicted" the earthquakes using the less reliable radon measuring methods then went on TV to warn everyone. The old guard of the system called him an alarmist and put a gag order on him. Seems that this might have had an effect on people after the fact. Also seems like a script for a bad sci-fi movie.
Oh and because its Italy, the mafia is somehow involved.


I so rarely get any news about Italy but everything lately has been terrible. Let's take a look.

Amanda Knox trial: Good job idiots, don't need evidence just put everyone in jail.
Silvio Berlusconi: you brought that shit on yourself.
Ignoring the bodies of drowned teenage girls cause they're gypsies: Wow that takes the mother fucking cake, bunch of sad assholes, Italy should be blown the fuck up.

And now this. Everything I hear about Italy is fucking pathetic, and I'm mad about it. I'll protest my country later, we need to stop Italy now!

>> ^aimpoint:

The background on wikipedia about it shows that a younger upcoming technician "predicted" the earthquakes using the less reliable radon measuring methods then went on TV to warn everyone. The old guard of the system called him an alarmist and put a gag order on him. Seems that this might have had an effect on people after the fact. Also seems like a script for a bad sci-fi movie.
Oh and because its Italy, the mafia is somehow involved.


I so rarely get any news about Italy but everything lately has been terrible. Let's take a look.

Amanda Knox trial: Good job idiots, don't need evidence just put everyone in jail.
Silvio Berlusconi: you brought that shit on yourself.
Ignoring the bodies of drowned teenage girls cause they're gypsies: Wow that takes the mother fucking cake, bunch of sad assholes, Italy should be blown the fuck up.

And now this. Everything I hear about Italy is fucking pathetic, and I'm mad about it. I'll protest my country later, we need to stop Italy now!

The background on wikipedia about it shows that a younger upcoming technician "predicted" the earthquakes using the less reliable radon measuring methods then went on TV to warn everyone. The old guard of the system called him an alarmist and put a gag order on him. Seems that this might have had an effect on people after the fact. Also seems like a script for a bad sci-fi movie.

Oh and because its Italy, the mafia is somehow involved.

>> ^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.

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:

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.

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.

Wisdom, logic, and reason are great things. My own personal take on this short clip is that I'd be much more tempted to apply a one-word-label like "alarmist" to it rather than "wise", "logical", or "reasonable".

Every day the nightly news tells me about something that will almost certainly kill me or my loved ones... But I'm still here.

That's the vibe I'm getting from this, so I won't upvote for the time being. Just my take.

@bcglorf I think you're still not responding to the basic point I'm making. It's not really even about science or climate change, but about game theory, and how to make decisions in the absence of certainty.

I've never ingested cyanide, but every scientist, herbalist, toxicologist, and work of fiction has told me it's lethal. For me, that's good enough. I'm not going to eat it, and I'm perfectly comfortable with the government restricting companies from putting it in my food, my water, or the air.

For you, I'm guessing that instead you'd want to dig into the scientific studies on cyanide's toxicity first. Yes, the scientists themselves say the evidence is overwhelming, but you have doubts. You think they're missing something. After all, every time you go looking for problems, you're able to find some detail that sounds fishy to you.

They could just be overlooking some other potential cause of death that just seemed to be cyanide, because obviously cyanide isn't the only thing that can kill people. Maybe the natural mortality rate back then was that high. Who knows? I mean, there's tons of research into that, but you don't accept that work either. So until someone satisfies you that it definitely, beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't just natural causes, you're going with the assumption it was that, every time, because after all we don't fully understand the human body.

In other words, you dismiss the science. You don't think it's necessarily wrong, but don't think people should give it any weight when making decisions about how we live our lives. So, you start calling out authors for talking about cyanide as if it's a poison; they're just perpetuating an unsubstantiated rumor, you say. You do argue that congress should put restrictions on cyanide being put in our food, our water, and our air -- but later. You accept maybe there's enough to the science to think it might be harmful if people ingest it over a long enough span of time, but you do argue against the people who say it's a poison that needs to be dealt with right away, because you don't think anyone has a right to be so alarmist about it. After all, the science doesn't say it's important, just, you know, the scientists.

Then one day you run out of amaretto creamer for your coffee, and figure maybe cyanide will be a good substitute, since it does smell like almonds...

My guess is that you probably don't actually do that. My guess is that you trust the scientists and just consider cyanide a poison. My guess is you'd want overwhelming proof that cyanide is safe before you would swallow a cyanide pill. I don't think raising a few doubts about the studies would be enough to convince you -- you'd rather be safe than sorry.

Why the double standard with climate change? What's special about this topic that makes your default assumptions go the other way? Are you sure it isn't something completely unrelated to the science?

Its true, I hate to sound paranoid or alarmist but I definitely do not think it was coincidental that bill was passed a bit after the immense popularity of Occupy. They plan on fighting dissent and popular protest on our own soil and not in the ways they do it now: all media, police state, illegal arrests etc but with the mofuggin military. Demonic, unpatriotic, robot, bastards.

But, if they do decide to use the military on our own soil... it may end up benefiting the real rulers of the country, the 99%! Heh heh heh.



>> ^csnel3:

I am glad this man is fighting the good fight, as he spoke , I'm think "hell yes, those bastards are overstepping the line" . And then , what he says in the last 15 sec of this video, just floors me. He is talking about the infamous WTSHTF scenario!! He thinks the elite are getting ready!!! Alex Jones was right!!

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Nope, there's no "alarmists". Man made climate change is real. Outside of a bunch of morons (fox, qm and the like) who don't understand the science, there's no debate. The rest of us have accepted the facts of the science and are trying to figure out what to do about it.

>> ^criticalthud:
i think we should no longer suffer fools on this topic

While I agree with you guys, there are still fools on both sides. While the climate deniers scare me, what also scares me are the people who would use the fact of man-made climate change to their own ends. Not to mention the silly fucks who think we need to just rush headlong into a solution. I think the general scientific consensus is also that we need to be very careful about the ways we try to manipulate the environment to fix our problems.


agreed. I referred only to the question of whether it was occurring and the probability of great harm. I think the problem though, is quite obvious. We take far more from the ecosphere than we give back, and we are blasting through millions of years worth of carbon deposits within the span of a hundred years.

and at the root of that problem is the collective "consumer" mindset... a species that thinks it's brilliant, entitled, and special (thank you religion), but on the whole is idiotic, self-centered and destructive.

The technology for change is well within reach, and our non-renewable resource (oil) should be properly seen as a MEANS to a renewable resource, rather than as a competing commodity.

but the biggest hurdle isn't the technology, it's the mindset of the species. and it might take quite a bit of disaster and suffering to really get that to change...Especially here, in dooshville, USA.