I don't know how to get around the paywall ... But even so, fair enough I assume that the first paragraph is accurate. Does that say that global warming is no longer a threat?

The editorialising of the WSJ in the second paragraph certainly does, but given they haven't quoted the UN in their assertion that "global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began", I assume it is just that, unsubstantiated opinion from pundits who are not experts on the subject (and by stopped it's clear what they're implying is 'no longer a threat' not, a temporary pause).

Has the UN come out and said that they believe action against climate change is a waste of money? Have the many scientific organisations studying this, and surely aware of the latest developments changed their position? If not, then it's likely because in the long term, the prognosis hasn't changed.

@newtboy @ChaosEngine

From the WSJ:

"The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3).

"Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began."

The usual to get around paywall.

From the WSJ:

"The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3).

"Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began."

The usual to get around paywall.

@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

Just for the record, I did not intentionally post a dead or unpublished video.

@Sagemind @newtboy @lucky760
As you can see, it has already been published and there is an option to get the embed code of the video. There is no way of knowing that the embedded video will turn out like this before you embed it somewhere. This has also been the case with the "First World Problems" video, for which I was able to find a viable embed code several hours after I first posted it here and although people tried to watch it before that, nobody complained about it, so I thought it was okay and I decided not to kill it.

I did not post an unpublished video to beat anyone to it. I hoped to be able to find a better way to embed this video, as I managed to do with the other one.
If I really cared that much about beating people to posting a video, I'd be very disappointed all the time, because in 9 out of 10 cases I try to post a video, it has already been sifted.

*music

Watch it on http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/07/21/weird-al-yankovic-wraps-8-days-of-videos-with-mission-statement-exclusive/ ... first. It's exclusive on there, but not other web sites.

Posted this over on the main vid, but applies here: Looks like they saved most of the idea for the campaign, despite Germany winning http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2014/07/14/singapore-rejigs-anti-gambling-ad-after-germanys-world-cup-win/

And in for the goal save: http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2014/07/14/singapore-rejigs-anti-gambling-ad-after-germanys-world-cup-win/

Jim's advice to "follow your passion" is, IMHO, a terrible idea and is, perhaps dangerous and destructive career advice. But who could expect Jim to suggest anything else, seeing as how he became highly successful doing what he loves?

How many people do what they love, but never achieve success? Probably far more than those that do, except we never hear from them, because they're never selected to give commencement speeches at universities...

This is particularly pernicious in tournament-style fields where there are only a few big winners in comparison to the many many losers (e.g., media, athletics, startups, etc.).

These students would be better advised to "Do what contributes" (i.e., focus on the beneficial value created for other people and not just to satisfy one's own ego). People who contribute the most are often ultimately the most satisfied with what they do — and eventually find their way into fields with high remuneration (i.e., tend to make the most $).

Sadly, advising people to focus on others rather than oneself is not all that popular, especially given the endemic narcissism that characterizes modern culture (and, to be sure, much of what's behind Jim's own 'performances'). Focusing on what is best for others, rather than oneself, requires us to delay gratification (and short-term happiness) and perhaps even toil for many years to get the payoff of contributing value to the world.

Too often, people follow their passions into fields that are simply too competitive for where their skills are in those things. Instead, one should "do what contributes" — follow the thing that provides the most value to others.

In other words, "Follow your effort," "Don't do what you love, love what you do," and other suggestions to adopt a more complicated if more realistic calculus of doing what you're good at so long as it gives you some amount of satisfaction.

IMO, the best commencement speech of the season is the one delivered by Adm. William McRaven, the head of U.S. special operations, at the University of Texas, who said, "You can't follow anything until you've made your bed."

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

And you're an ignorant little conservative.

@9547bis wasn't suggesting that Nugent should be in jail, that was Nugent himself when he claimed he would be "dead or in jail if Obama is re-elected"

16 months later, he's yet to fulfill his bullshit promise.

It wasn't me who first pointed out Simon as a hypocritical "liberal bully."

"Here’s why I assert Simon is a bully. His own words reveal him to be a petty, nasty, mean-spirited guy. “…anything I've ever accomplished as a writer, as somebody doing TV, anything I've ever done in life, down to, like, cleaning up my room, has been accomplished because I was going to show people that they were [bleeped] up, wrong, and that I was the [bleeping] center of the universe and the sooner they got hip to that, the happier they would all be.""

Statist narcissism.

There's as much as you'd like on this. How about...?

"David Simon, a multi-millionaire writer for Time-Warner, one of the largest corporations in the world and a cultural leader, jetted across the globe to speak in front an audience of people with both the financial means and free time about the horrors of “unchecked” capitalism and the tragic loss of the social compact."

"It is rich that a leading light of Hollywood, that of unpaid interns, unmatched inequality of pay, tax-avoidance schemes, exploitation of public subsidies, industry scheming, etc., would criticize a “broken social compact.”"

"Meanwhile, in the real world of unchecked, no-social-compact capitalism, the WSJ is reporting that the “Burger Wars” are expanding to Africa. The heartless capitalist system is stepping in where communism, socialism and other authoritarian systems have failed, bringing with it the digging of new wells, food production systems, jobs, etc. All that awful stuff that comfortable capitalists take for granted."

EDIT: To be clear, I have no specific interest in advocating for Koch, or Simon, or whomever, or in prosecuting them or @radx or anyone else. But I do think this kind of pernicious thinking/bullying can and does spread and causes much harm, even to those engaging in the thinking/bullying, it distorts them in an undesirable way, so I point it out.

Just FYI:

A) McDonald's long ago modified their menu to remove trans-fats.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB121151133018416567

B) The notion that McDonald's hamburgers don't get moldy because of the excessive use of preservatives has been debunked.

http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/11/the-burger-lab-revisiting-the-myth-of-the-12-year-old-burger-testing-results.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2013/11/15/how-volvo-created-the-jean-claude-van-damme-video/

Actually, you presented one (as I said, the WSJ one is only available to subscribers) that NEVER said it was on the rise.
That it is still a problem is a fallacious argument, just like saying illegal liquor is still (no pun intended) a problem. It still exists, but is far from a 'problem', and certainly far less of a problem than it was before legalization. Your position makes me feel like you might see an episode of moonshiners and believe it's a major issue in America that needs serious legal intervention, and you might suggest something like the return of prohibition as a solution. You would be wrong.
I felt I presented an opinion based on logic.