search results matching tag: Mitchell

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (540)     Sift Talk (5)     Blogs (93)     Comments (854)   

Sen. Whitehouse debunks climate change myths

ChaosEngine says...

This is what I don't get. The climate deniers constantly claim that climate change is "ideologically driven" without ever specifying what the gain is.

Let's assume that we do actually live in bizzaro world and that the whole AGW thing is a complete hoax. Somehow 97% of all climate scientists have secreted colluded and messed with the data to create a public alarm over this.

To what end? Have you met any climate scientists? Hint: they're not the ones flying around in private jets. Honestly, if I was a climate scientist and I was going to perpetrate some kind of global fraud, I'd at least want some profit out of it.

Climate change sucks. It is a massive pain in the arse, and no one wants to deal with it. But it's real, it's a thing and we just have to suck it up and deal with it. David Mitchell sums it up nicely. How we deal with it I have no idea.

dannym3141 said:

The scientific community *knows* that climate change is real. The scientific community is made up of individual researchers at universities all over the world, anyone who practices good science and adheres to the scientific method is in no doubt about what the research points to. You can't buy the global scientific community, there are too many of "us" (i guess) that are all absolutely anal about good scientific practice. You could buy one or two, you could buy a small group, but the only thing that changes the opinion of the global scientific community is hard scientific reasoning.

I can't speak for where you live, but if you were to walk into my university's physics department tomorrow and ask any lecturer or professor about climate change, they'd tell you that, and the same goes for just about any university in the UK, holland and france i imagine, if not more like germany and so on. Anyone who has spent any amount of time comparing graphs and looking for statistical anomalies will tell you that there is a god damn big and unwieldy peak sticking up on the temperature/time graph right about where we started mass producing greenhouse gases, and the only new influence into the equation was us, because the old peaks are flat compared to this one. This is happening on a HUMAN timescale, not on a geological one.

We're seeing ocean floor methane bubbling up to the surface that we haven't seen before due to the heating of the ocean, and only this week the scientist who studied it tweeted flat out that if even a fraction of that methane is released into the atmosphere... "we're fucked."

It's pretty damn serious, but i'm not telling you that you need to pay huge taxes or fees to green companies or anything, and no scientist ever will. The agendas that politicians take up in the name of science should not stop you from accepting the science, and there are simple, good common sense things you can do to make a small difference that would cumulate to something big if we all did them. The only reason governments haven't been investing more into green energy is because they are relentlessly lobbied by the hugely wealthy and powerful and corrupt energy firms.

What is more likely?

(WISIS) All I Need To Make A comedy

siftbot says...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Was It Something I Said, David Mitchell, Charlie Higson, Timing, Repetion' to 'Was It Something I Said, David Mitchell, Charlie Higson, Timing, Repetition' - edited by brycewi19

(WISIS) All I Need To Make A comedy

Zawash (Member Profile)

Where are my keys? (Sift Talk Post)

Zawash (Member Profile)

Community - Dean Pelton's Rap (Episode Highlight)

Yogi says...

And that guy who played Kugler last episode was the creator of Arrested Development Mitchell Hurwitz. I'm starting to think Dan Harman is getting all the other smart creators into acting so he has no competition.

EMPIRE said:

I too love Community.

And having Vince Gilligan in an episode where books were at the center of a drug-like deal, was great.

David Mitchell on Atheism

JustSaying says...

Thank you @shinyblurry for the contribution. Even if I disagree on the basic message, it was interesting input that this discussion was IMO lacking so far. Now somebody's might post something dismissive now (I have to admit, asshole that I am, my fingers are actually itching in way trolls know too well) but I found that worth reading. Which brings me back to the point Mitchell made.
The issue is dialogue and how disruptive the selfrighteousness of those who found their definitive answer can be. We can argue semantics even further than already done here but it doesn't matter how gnostic or theistic one is. There is a silent majority consisting of various levels of belief and disbelief and at the fringes of both sides people tend to get loud, sometimes unbearably so.
What the screaming people at the edge like to do is to get bogged down into dogmas and discussions of detail but in the end both kind of extremists would like to force their worldviews on everyone else. I think it is certainly not acceptable to insist that people seeking solace in religion must be idiots who don't know how the world works. If a woman who just lost her child wants to tell herself that this is part of gods plan then I have no right to walk up to her and tell her she's full of shit. Even though I know this to be true. We all live in a world we're poorly equipped to understand and have to make sense of it somehow.
The problem starts once you force yourself onto somebody. The point I made before is that one side's extremists is assholes who walk up to grieving women and tell them their full of shit, the other side is people executing that woman for praying to the wrong god. It's easy for me to pick a side here.
However, most people aren't that extreme. Most people are more civil than that and I believe/know that a more civil and understanding approach is better. It necessary to push back against those who are harmful in executing their beliefs, be it Osama Bin Laden or Rick Santorum (Santorum he he) but everyone else is better dealt with in a respectful manner. Antagonism doesn't feed dialogue well.
That is why I resisted my urge to make fun of the deeply religious guy posting here. I really wanted to because I disagree with his worldview so strongly but all he did was stating his journey to where he now in his life and on top of that, he did it without telling anybody else here off. I would be the asshole if I would react like a Hitchens. I'd rather behave like a Tyson (not the rapey one). LIke most humans, I want to be one of the good guys. It's just not that easy to figure out how to be one.
In the end it all boils down to this (and several posts in this thread truly showed it): Why can't we be friends? Why can't we get along?
Because we're humans. That's how we roll.

alien_concept (Member Profile)

David Mitchell on Atheism

JustSaying says...

While I agree with what NDT said in the linked video and the points made here (by Mitchell especially), I must also point out that it's quite understandable that some atheists turn out to be obnoxious douchebags. While people like Hitchens might be prime examples of that we shouldn't forget how the other end of the religious spectrum looks like when it comes to extremety and obnoxiousness. Let's not forget, nobody straps on an explosive vest to prove there is no god.
I take douchebags over murderers any time.

newtboy said:

I agree, that's a much better road to take. You get much farther with mutual understanding if you don't go off on a tangent of insulting and name calling, that tends to close ears and minds.

Community Between the Takes: Hot Lava

Picking up a Hammer on the Moon

Chairman_woo says...

That's almost exactly what I just said 17-18kg in earth terms. Do you think laid on your back you could easily throw a 17kg object 1.5-2m upwards?

He's not doing a push up he's trying to jump upright. Launching nearly 20kg of weight far enough to get to your feet would take some doing that way I'd say. Just lifting 20kg with the arms alone is an effort never mind throwing it which is effectively what's happening here.

This is part of the reason I defaulted to thinking in terms of rocketry as it's not as simple as just someone trying to lift something, they are trying to propel themselves 1-2m upwards with only a thrust from the arms. Much better to wiggle around/push up to get to your knees so one could bring one's legs muscles to bear (made very difficult by hard to bend suit).

Frankly I think it would be a total pain in the arse getting back upright. If it weren't for the suit you could easily push up to your knees and then straighten your legs but the inflation is going to make that very hard work (but doable after a struggle to one knee as other video footage proves).

The alternative however which sparked this whole argument i.e. lay on your front and push off with your arms. That I think would be considerably harder than you are making out. Throwing a 17kg weight with only your arms over 1m in height is not what I'd call effortless.

My old CRT monitor probably weighs about 20kg, it'd take everything I had to throw that over 1m up into the air. Without the power of your thigh muscles and the rigidity of your spine 20kg is quite a lot really.

How high can you "jump" with only your arms? (like those super push-ups where you clap your hands in between to show off) maybe a foot or two if your really really strong? So with the extra weight of a suit and reduced gravity multiplying the result by 6 under lunar gravity, 6feet is probably just about attainable for someone in peak physical shape. But it's defiantly not what I'd call easy!


Re: conspiracies The only one I really take at all seriously any more is the idea that 2001 (esp the book) was perhaps (very) loosely based on actual events. I have time for it simply because of Arthur C. Clarke himself who was going to give an interview (which he rarely does) on Project Camelot of all things but died about 2 weeks before it happened. If you know anything about project camelot you'll know whatever he had to say was going to be mental but then again he was very old and eccentric and plenty other people involved in the space program have "jumped the shark" so to speak. (Edgar Mitchell talks about aliens on a regualr basis, Buzz Aldrin has spoken about monoliths on Phobos, pilots being followed by "Foofighters" in WW2 etc. etc.)

But it's basically wishful thinking on my part, the story and implications are remarkably plausible for what they are but that is all they are. Combined with the whole Jack Parsons/Alastair Crowley connection to the JPL my creative juices start flowing. However the obvious counter argument i.e. that the world is largely run by genuine lunatics is never far from my mind either (look at the whole "men who stare at goats" thing).

I'll listen to anyone and some I'm even prepared to believe on their own terms but I have to defer to actual evidence where it exists (or does not exist). Consequently while I'll listen to someone like John Leer talking about stuff that would seem outlandish even in a science fiction story, people why claim the moon landing was a hoax tend to get the cold shoulder as it's pretty demonstrably not true/hard to believe.

I realise that's kind of backwards but willing suspension of disbelief is a lot easier when there's really no tangible evidence either way. (why I suspect huge incomprehensible delusions like those espoused by many religions get so much traction. It's easier to believe the big lie than the small one)

Jolly entertaining though regardless

MichaelL said:

No need to go through the whole Newtons things... easier to keep it all in kg since that's how we think anyway. So on the moon, astronaut + suit = 100/6 = 17 kg. Only about 40 lbs... So an astronaut should have no problem doing a pushup there.

As I said, probably more to due with the awkward, pressurized suits.

However, the jumping part... well, that's a puzzle to me why they aren't able to jump higher since I don't see any mechanical disadvantage. It's one of the arguments for the 'fake moon landing' thing.

However, if the moon surface were 'spongy' then it would be like trying to jump out of a barrel of mud.

Re: conspiracy thing... Alternative 3 claims that Apollo astronauts went to the moon, but discovered the bases that had already been there and were threatened/sworn to silence. Curiously, Neil Armstrong became a public recluse after his career as an astronaut, rarely giving interviews or talking about his experience.

However, if you believe the 'we never went to the moon at all' version, the claim is that NASA hired Stanley Kubrick to film the fake moon landing thing based on his realistic looking 2001.

brycewi19 (Member Profile)

brycewi19 (Member Profile)

David Mitchell Argues about Stationary Escalators

Quboid says...

I don't often agree with Rhod Gilbert and I don't often disagree with David Mitchell, but it's not the same. The physics is the same but my mental expectation and muscle memory is different.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon