@dannym3141, I understand that you are "stepping out of the debate," but, for your edification, I'll respond here... And, for the record, I am not "funded" by Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Solar, or Big Green. Nor am I a professor of climate or environmental science at a State University (and don't have a political agenda around this issue other than to help promote sound reasoning and critical thinking). I do, however, hold a doctorate and can read the scientific literature critically. So, in response to what climate change "believers" say, it's worth noting that no one is actually taking the temperature of the seas. They simply see sea levels rising and say "global warming," but how do they know? It's a model they came up with. But far from certain, just a theory. Like Antarctica melting, but then someone finds out that it's due to volcanic activity underneath, and so on.

And also, why is the heat then staying in the water and not going into the atmosphere? So, they then have to come up with a theory on top of the other theory... So the heat is supposedly being stored deep below where the sensors cannot detect it. Great. And this is happening because...some other theory or another that can't be proven either. And then they have to somehow come up with a theory as to how they know that the deep sea warming is due to human activity and not to other causes. I'm not denying that any of this happens, just expressing skepticism, meaning that no one really knows for sure. That folks would "bet the house on it" does not serve as any proof, at all.

The discussion on the sift pivots from "global warming" to vilifying skeptics, not about the original skepticism discussed, that there is catastrophic man-caused global warming going on. Three issues yet to be proven beyond skepticism: 1) that there is global warming; 2) that it is caused by human activity; 3) that it's a big problem.

When I ask about one, they dance around to another one of these points, rather than responding. And all they have in response to the research is the IPCC "report" on which all their science is based. And most if not all published "believers" say that the heat "may be hiding" in the deep ocean, not that they "certainly know it is" like they seem to claim.

They don't have knowledge that the scientists who are actively working on this do not have, do they? It's like the IRS saying, "My computer crashed." The IPCC says, "The ocean ate my global warming!"

Here are some links worth reading:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274

And, from a different rebuttal: "Referring to the 17 year ‘pause,’ the IPCC allows for two possibilities: that the sensitivity of the climate to increasing greenhouse gases is less than models project and that the heat added by increasing CO2 is ‘hiding’ in the deep ocean. Both possibilities contradict alarming claims."

Here's the entire piece from emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen: http://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-understanding-ipcc-climate-assessment/

And take your pick from all of the short pieces listed here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/08/is-gores-missing-heat-really-hiding-in-the-deep-ocean/

And http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/

"Just where the heat is and how much there is seems to depend on who is doing the modeling. The U.S. National Oceanographic Data Center ARGO data shows a slight rise in global ocean heat content, while the British Met Office, presumably using the same data shows a slight decline in global ocean heat content."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/03/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-2/#sthash.idQttama.dpuf

Dr. Lindzen had this to say about the IPCC report: "I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/01/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-1/#sthash.oMO3oy6X.dpuf

So just as "believers" can ask "Why believe Heartland [financier for much of the NPCC], but not the IPCC," I can just as easily ask "Why should I believe you and not Richard Lindzen?"

"CCR-II cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers to show that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide controls."

And from the same author's series:

"Human carbon dioxide emissions are 3% to 5% of total carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, and about 98% of all carbon dioxide emissions are reabsorbed through the carbon cycle.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf

"Using data from the Department of Energy and the IPCC we can calculate the impact of our carbon dioxide emissions. The results of that calculation shows that if we stopped all U.S. emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.003 C per year. If every country totally stopped human emissions, we might forestall 0.01 C of warming."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/08/01/climate-change-in-perspective/#sthash.Dboz3dC5.dpuf

Again, I have asked, repeatedly, where's the evidence of human impact on global warming? "Consensus" is not evidence. I ask for evidence and instead I get statements about the consensus that global warming happening. These are two different issues.

"Although Earth’s atmosphere does have a “greenhouse effect” and carbon dioxide does have a limited hypothetical capacity to warm the atmosphere, there is no physical evidence showing that human carbon dioxide emissions actually produce any significant warming."

Or Roger Pielke, Sr: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/pielke-sr-on-that-hide-and-seek-ocean-heat/

Or Lennart Bengtsoon (good interview): "Yes, the scientific report does this but, at least in my view, not critically enough. It does not bring up the large difference between observational results and model simulations. I have full respect for the scientific work behind the IPCC reports but I do not appreciate the need for consensus. It is important, and I will say essential, that society and the political community is also made aware of areas where consensus does not exist. To aim for a simplistic course of action in an area that is as complex and as incompletely understood as the climate system does not make sense at all in my opinion."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/meteorologist-lennart-bengtsson-joins-climate-skeptic-think-tank-a-968856.html

Bengtsson: "I have always been a skeptic and I believe this is what most scientists really are."

What Michael Crichton said about "consensus": "Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Will Happer on the irrelevancy of more CO2 now: "The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds."

Ivar Giaever, not a climate scientist per se, but a notable scientist and also a skeptic challenging "consensus": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

Even prominent IPCC scientists are skeptics, even within the IPCC there is not agreement: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/

And for your research, it may be worth checking out: http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/dp/0521010683

Blaming me for the destruction of the planet or whatever else seems... looney, at best.

"I've never met one that wasn't, and I know hundreds of scientists."

Send me (privately) the names and numbers of these hundreds of climate scientists and I'll conduct a survey. Or perhaps you should spend your days debating every single person online... Y'know.. for fun.

The authors of this article (both of them meteorology professors) have better climate science credentials than you do. One even served within the climate group that shared the Nobel prize with Al Gore for climate change advocacy.

(you may have to search for it online if this link does not let you read the full article)


If you really care about climate change, these are the folks you should be debating.. Not me... And not random people on videosift.

Good luck!

"Messrs. McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Al Gore."

Raise up to a higher level

Anyone think Nobel prize is in this guys wheelhouse ...(wonder if im using that in an appropriate way) *shrugs*

Thanks for the promote and i included the link you provided in my description. So thanks for that also .... Nobel prize?

Snowden should be in prison for life, if not shot. Sure, he did a good thing by revealing the spying on American citizens. That is true whistleblowing. Good on him.

But then he dwarfed that good act by giving away our (I am speaking as an American, here, obviously) secrets, in the form of the terabytes of data on those 4 laptops, to our biggest rivals, China and Russia. He has also revealed tons of national secrets and techniques to the whole world that have absolutely nothing to do with Americans' 4th Amendment rights. His acts have put American lives and American industry at risk and has definitely harmed American stature and American industry.

So, yeah, give him the Nobel prize and the Medal of Honor. He can admire them in his Supermax cell.

So are you 'glad' about the current president, whose rap sheet of abject failures trumps more than that of 2 dozen administrations in history? Not saying any other would have done more for the elite who put all presidents in place but seriously....What the FUCK has the not-black president done worth a fiddler's fuck bareboards? Your comment sounds like the same2 rhetoric taught the masses from years of programming and fantastic confabulation.

Gitmo? Name-Calling and cry-racism at any opportunity? Appointing complete cunts to czar posts? Expanding surveillance and promulgating police-state? Debt to $4.939 Trillion since taking office (not that we'd pay back any debt anyhow, another confabulate issue, completely meaningless)?
Nobel peace prize (meaningless)?
Cult of personality antics that would make any dictator green and covetous?
Media-whore first-lady?
Blah, blah, blah green energy after the BP spill?

A real piece of work, but so's frikkin' Mitt Mormonite

Jesus man, get a grip on that shit!?

The narrowness of your definition of intelligence depresses me and is ironically not very intelligent

You talk about improving the gene pool yet you appear to lack a basic understanding of the fundamental importance of genetic diversity.

Even if we accept the premise that risk takers are idiots (which is so demonstrably not true I can barely be bothered to try but feel free to go read up on the Nobel laureates, plenty of "idiots" in there!) they are still essential to a healthy and diverse gene pool.

Mountain climbers, Motor racers, American Football players, Alligator wrestlers etc. etc. This is the same gene pool that brings us Astronauts, Fire-fighters, Soldiers etc.

Some of them may simply be "showing off" but
A. this is what they feel the need to do in order to feel stimulated and alive (they are wired up differently to others, they require higher levels of risk in order to feel the same level of stimulation you you might watching TV)

B. Watching such individuals perform or simply appreciating their existence is a source of untold pleasure for many of the rest of us (you dislike all dangerous sports? They are just as "pointless" by comparison)

But most of all

C. They all die in the end, just like EVERY HUMAN THAT HAS EVER LIVED. Putting all your emphasis in life on just staying alive and un-injured seems a little foolish in the grand scheme of things don't you think? The result is the same whether you spend your life racing powerboats or knitting jumpers in a padded room. You still die thus rendering any choices you made about how to spend your life entirely arbitrary and temporary (unless your religious but even then I'm not aware of anyone believing that risk taking alone sends anyone to hell or otherwise).

"Better to live an hour as a tiger, than a whole lifetime as a worm"
-The cat (red dwarf)


Also do you have a better way of getting an alligator out of a pool for a reasonable cost? The only alternative I can think of would be to tranquillise it but that would A. shift the risk of death and injury to the animal and B. be very hard to administer underwater. Nets and ropes seem like they would be prohibitively expensive and horribly impractical here also.

Hoisting the alligator above his head actually strikes me as potentially one of the safest way to carry the thing away, out of the water with no feet on the ground etc. but then I'm not an expert in dealing with Gators......crucially however neither are you and if i was going to take advice on how to get rid of one I'd be much more inclined to listen to people who have clearly spent their whole lives doing it than some random person who bases advanced genetic theories on a comedy film (for the record a very enjoyable one which was clearly not intended to be realistic).

So glad that War Criminal was murdered. If there was any justice the person/s who killed him would be given Nobel Peace Prizes.

Unfortunately the process of discovery didn't exactly lend itself to a dramatic announcement. One imagines Archimedes lowering himself into the bath over several months waiting for a statistically significant volume of water to be displaced.

I imagine that pretty much everybody knew he was going to be getting a Nobel Prize at this point as well.

What a complete and utter moron. Good detective work is more effective than starting wars and creating more hatred, giving terrorists more support around the world. Ya know how many people in Yemen hated us before we started to Drone the shit out of their tiny villages? Can you guess how easy it was to kill just a few dozen people and turn our allies and in rabid American Hating psychos?

Bush and Obama have hurt us around the world (and Obama got a fucking Nobel Fucking Prize). There's going to be more and more hate, more and more attacks on us and our children because of them. Because we supported them and we didn't wake up.

I don't care what people thought or were told to believe on Sept. 12th. I care what they do, and what we did was barely anything good. We started stupid wars, we threatened we cracked down.

We even commissioned a study on how to prevent future 9/11s and what did we do with the information? FUCK ALL. You can get a nuclear device from an increasingly destabilization Pakistan, which is Obamas fault with him surging the war to shit in Afghanistan. Get your Nuclear device, wrap it in a bale of fucking Marijuana, and put it in a fucking shipping container to the USofA. It'll get here, not be inspected, be taken to a fucking hotel room in lower Manhattan, assembled by a scientist who's fucking child was blown up by a fucking drone, and detonated.

We don't care, we don't THINK, we just keep going. They're not protecting us, they're not even trying. It's up to us to remove THEM so we can get in people who represent US.

I have an issue with the 2nd "Fact" that everyone liked what they had. That's just stupid, nobody likes what they have, up to 85% in polls wanted single payer health care, it's the rich and the drug and insurance companies that didn't want it. So they got Obama elected and he put in a slightly better system that still benefits the wealthy and hurts people, which is why people saw this system and didn't like it, got angry about it.

The Nobel Prize thing is funny to me because it's hardly an award, horrible war criminals have the Nobel Prize to their name, if anything it's an indicator of how fucking awful you are.

He isn't the most Arrogant, that's totally Trump, but it would be hard to find anyone who wasn't the president or didn't want to be the president who isn't arrogant.

Stay thirsty for knowledge my friends.

I still can't believe Obama won a fucking nobel peace prize, the asshole.

Yes, it would be grossly untrue.

Henri Becquerel discovered radiation and it was further researched by himself and his two doctoral students Pierre Curie and Marie Curie, for which all three received a joint Nobel Prize.

I'm happy you don't believe in religion, that means there's hope for you yet. It seems to me, from your posts in this thread, that you sadly have replaced it with the mumbo-jumbo that Graham Hancock and his ilk of snakeoil salesmen (Deepak Chopra comes to mind) preaches.

If there is some sort of altered state; or if consciousness is anything like what these people say, then they should look into them in a proper scientific way instead of going from a personal experience - "I saw it, so it's real!!" That doesn't prove anything.

Get the most skeptical person about this to try it and see if his reaction is actually anything near this.

If Hancock already had some ideas about Mother what's-her-face, then getting positive reinforcement while stoned is easy. Some people don't feel any effects from Hash (or just have really bad types of it), but if your mental state is in the right place, you can even get placebo drunk from water.

I'm not particularly scared of anything DMT has to show, if there's anything there, there are plenty of scientists looking for the next nobel prize in philosophy looking for it.

One thing to consider, why aren't more people looking into this, if it's so important?

Of course, you are right that there are other components to health, however, I think the majority of our health is accomplished by what we do to our insides with a minority of the benefit coming through exercise.

I find it compelling that the heart patients too sick for bypass surgery are sent to Joel Fuhrman for fasting followed by a plant-based diet in order to get them safely back to health. In your own back yard, Joe Cross came out with "Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead." and was healed to health through a plant-based diet. The evidence for health through proper nutrition is now overwhelming. From Dr. John McDougal's, "The McDougal Plan," through Dr. Neil Barnard's, "Reversing Diabetes," we are seeing that the western diet is the main reason for the burden on our healthcare system.

My own story is this: Several years ago my blood pressure was 210/120. I was on 4 medications and had edema in my legs and was, at 54 years old, feeling that I was on my way out. The doctors were so concerned that they continued to recommend additional drugs and tests to see what was going on. At that point I went to an old friend named Richard. He is a nutritionist and he and his 10 children have NEVER been to a doctor. (He claims it is because he didn't poison his family with sugar and white flour among other processed foods). Through natural foods and supplements, he healed me. Last year I completed two rounds of P90X. That was the benefit of the internal healing. I was able to do that.

All that being said, a plant-based diet doesn't necessarily mean no meat. But if people choose to do a no meat diet, I suggest strongly that they plan on figuring out their protein requirements and making sure that they can eat a broad enough range of fruits, vegetables and legumes in order that they don't run a protein deficit. That is different, in my way of thinking, from a protein deficiency. It is possible to get all of some of the amino acids needed and lack some of the others. Trust me, that results in some weird side effects.

I believe the huge problem with discussing this issue with people is that it seems everyone has something to protect. So I normally don't talk about it unless someone comes to me who wants to get well. Even then, I am just a resource and offer no medical advice personally. I do, however, have a story to share with regards to improper nutrition.

I will add this beautiful tidbit : Linus Pauling's protocol for reversing heart disease is, in my mind, a remarkable piece of work. One doctor, when asked what he thought about it, said that he wasn't too sure it would work, but then again he hadn't won two Nobel Prizes either.