you all need to stop condescending to shinyblurry,
and please stop with all that "attitude" with the snide comments.
it just comes across as arrogant.
ya'all are being self serving AND self righteous in your "questions" and 'theories" pertaining to the bible.
you have no understanding..have you guys ever even READ the bible?
come on..give shinyblurry a chance to speak.

go on shinyblurry.
you were speaking of "original sin" and how everybody else seems to have gotten that particular question wrong.
heathens...yeesh.pay no attention to them.
your humility concerning your faith shines like a beacon on an antarctic winter day.
/listens closely

made by the same filmmaker: http://videosift.com/video/Bach-Discovered-Antarctic

Why isn't possible this is cloud formation from a low pressure region along the wings as they pass through different temp/moisture/pressure layers?

I couldn't find any exactly matching photos, but let's assume this is a KC-10.
http://clemsonpilot.com/pacaf/KC10.jpg
http://www.wagnersonline.com/photogallery/airforce/KC-10a.jpg
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/transport-m/kc10/kc10_07.jpg


Those are not nozzles. Those are control surfaces and part of the flaps. Is it possible they are dumping fuel? I think the more obvious explanation is to think pressure changes. But I do wonder why there are not normal contrails as seen in this picture (but the plane might have been descending):
http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-200702-71-UnitedStates-DefenseVisualCenter-DFST9904792-Antarctic-sun-USAF-KC-10-Extender-refueling-aircraft
-large.jpg

@GeeSussFreeK

Yes, I understand it's a difficult subject for the layman...hell, I'M a layman when it comes to climate science, but I know how to learn and sift through information to determine what's bullshit. I do my own learning and I don't rely on hearsay. A subject being difficult doesn't excuse terrible logic and belief in misinformation.

How can you remain "cautiously agnostic" after statements like the following? Massive conspiracy of scientists?

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."


Even the petroleum geologists finally acknowledged it...y'know, the guys who work for the oil industry...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Petroleum_Geologists#Global_warming_controversy

Just because some ozone depleting chemicals have a greenhouse effect doesn't mean that the ozone hole getting better means there can't be global warming. It's that whole if A implies B then B implies A logic people incorrectly use all the time. Also, the ozone hole over the Antarctic is expected to continue for decades, even if it is "getting better". AND, there is an expectation that as the ozone hole in the Antarctic gets better, it will actually increase the speed of warming in that area:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/earth/26ozone.html

The point is, "it's complicated" should lead one to "man, I'd better find out what the deal is" not, "man, I'll never understand that so I'm gonna wait for someone else to tell me what the deal is." Nor should it lead people to take small bits of evidence that logically connect to a positive outcome and then assume the outcome for the entire situation will be positive. That's exactly what the problem is with "ozone repair => no global warming" logic.

Ozone-depleting chemicals are constantly being phased out of use where possible (some are used as fire suppressants and are therefore bottled up most of the time, etc). The general public recognizes ozone-depleting chemicals as bad, and there's no political problem with discontinuing them.

On the other hand, there's a political problem with discontinuing the use of oil, so we see lots of misinformation related to climate change. Millions if not billions of people have a direct stake in oil production, refining, distribution, and consumption. That should probably lead you to believe all the controversy is generated as opposed to existing on its own as a result of collected empirical data.

"From giant blue marlin to mighty bluefin tuna, and from tropical groupers to Antarctic cod, industrial fishing has scoured the global ocean. There is no blue frontier left," said lead author Ransom Myers, a fisheries biologist based at Dalhousie University in Canada. "Since 1950, with the onset of industrialized fisheries, we have rapidly reduced the resource base to less than 10 percent—not just in some areas, not just for some stocks, but for entire communities of these large fish species from the tropics to the poles."

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Farhad2000:
Naa the fishing community has fucked itself long before there was an oil leak with its overly aggressive fishing practices.
You ever a seen a trawler? They basically scrap the entire bottom of the surface, only a small percentage of what they haul out is actually what they want/need.
>> ^Yogi:
Wow...BP is totally fucked now...this is actually being reported on CNN and really aggressively. As well they're totally fucking over the fishing community.


I've spent my life being a fisher-guy...and I say you're a Liar!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

http://videosift.com/video/Skunk-Anansie-09-Brazen-Weep-Live-Cologne-09

Thanks
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Just for that selfless act, you get a quality of your choice. Point and I'll shoot.

In reply to this comment by harry:
I've killed my earlier post (let's call it a retro-active dupe), because the comments here are more informative. Especially the debunking above.

>> ^grinter:
It would also be good to note that these aren't shrimp. They're amphipods; a very diverse group in their own right. Crustaceans, but more closely related to krill.


So lets pull another krill on the barbe!

Just for that selfless act, you get a quality of your choice. Point and I'll shoot.

In reply to this comment by harry:
I've killed my earlier post (let's call it a retro-active dupe), because the comments here are more informative. Especially the debunking above.

Your video, NASA finds shrimp below Antarctic ice sheet, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Four more and you got a cocktail!

>> ^deathcow:
what an ice hole!


Bastage!

Full writeup by NASA here: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarctic-shrimp.html

Also I'd love some HD borehole footage. (Get your minds out of the gutter!) The wall texture looks gorgeous, especially when you can see the shrimp reflecting off of it.

If I had to make a guess into the same antarctic wind here, I'd say that the "Hotness" of a video must lie in the time in which it was published relative to how many views/votes it has.

I just looked over the "Hotness" videos on the front page, and that's what I got from it.

I also wholly agree with Mr. Burdturgler on his assertion with my addition in parentheses:
"Only unique (first time) views from logged in members (should) count toward the votes/views ratio."

Ya, No doubt. I'm sure they wanted the hit and they wanted it to be the whalers fault. I'm not sure if they put themselves in front or if they were slightly to the side and the whaler veered to to make the hit. I'm just telling you what "Captain Watson" said...

>> ^MilkmanDan:
If that video depicted the Ady Gil being "suddenly rammed", I'll have to reevaluate my definitions of both of those words. Sort of like when people stop a car on a highway just after a high-speed semi-blind turn and wait to get hit so they can sue the driver, because rear-ending another car is almost always automatically determined to be the fault of the rear-ender.>> ^Sagemind:
...
Captain Watson said the Ady Gil was idling in Antarctic waters when it was suddenly rammed by the Japanese ship Shonan Maru, which was providing security to Japan's whaling fleet.
...

If that video depicted the Ady Gil being "suddenly rammed", I'll have to reevaluate my definitions of both of those words. Sort of like when people stop a car on a highway just after a high-speed semi-blind turn and wait to get hit so they can sue the driver, because rear-ending another car is almost always automatically determined to be the fault of the rear-ender.>> ^Sagemind:
...
Captain Watson said the Ady Gil was idling in Antarctic waters when it was suddenly rammed by the Japanese ship Shonan Maru, which was providing security to Japan's whaling fleet.
...