If I were a bird I would just have a pot of boiling water next to me and drop those nasty-ass crabs right into it.

@bcglorf, I've skimmed through this conversation, and I think that this is the most succinct expression of your position on global warming:
>> ^bcglorf:

Rapidly cutting CO2 emissions before we have the replacement technology in place would be costly, not just financially but world history shows big financial impacts generally spill over into violent impacts. Battery technology is getting very close to making electric cars that are superior in every way to their gas guzzling brethren. I truly do believe that the enormous CO2 contribution made by burning gasoline is rapidly on it's way out for purely economic rather than environmental reasons. Another reason I don't feel the need for panic.
As I stated above, I am NOT being a skeptic in declaring that H2O dominates the greenhouse effect. It is the uncontested scientific fact.
I am NOT being a skeptic in declaring that H2O's role in climate models and forcing/feedbacks is very poorly understood. It is an uncontested scientific fact, some models even disagree on whether to assign it as a positive or negative feedback.
Think about those two for a good long while before thinking everything Al Gore said should trump peer reviewed science.


I think John Cole still has the perfect description of the conservative/denier shtick on global warming:

You know the drill: global warming isn’t happening, if it is happening then it’s not caused by human behavior, if it is caused by human behavior then we can’t do anything about it, if it is caused by human behavior and we can do something about it, then that something is too expensive, if it is caused by human behavior and we can do something about it that is not too expensive, then that something is not what Democrats are proposing. And Al Gore is fat, he flies too much, look at his electricity bill, and sometimes when he goes somewhere it snows there, which is very ironic.

Now, to your credit, you have executed this script in a more thoughtful, reasoned, honestly skeptical way than most do, but ultimately you're following it to a tee. Hell, you even made a swipe at Al Gore along the way.

I think this comment of criticalthud's is pretty much speaking to why I posted the video in the first place:
>> ^criticalthud:

and I would add:
we have a psychological issue at hand.
the human species thinks it's entitled, and it's OUR planet. We think we're special.
This kind of psychological issue hides reality from us.
We have shown ourselves to be very poor stewards of the planet. How many species have we wiped out? How else have we affected our environment? What sort of poisons have we created, what scale of trash heap? Mindlessly fattening ourselves.
This makes me think it is quite likely that we are the frogs in the slowly boiling water.
So, we can argue about this and that, and whether our governments should act. But in actuality, it is up to each and every one of us to stop being energy and consumer gluttons, feasting during the oil orgy.


Human psychology isn't wired properly for dealing with things like climate change. We have trouble with making connections between our actions in the here and now, and consequences to people elsewhere in space, and in time. We're also weird about our assessment of risk. Some people are deathly afraid of flying, but have no problem driving around in a car, even though driving a car is vastly more likely to result in your death than flying on a plane.

The science isn't certain on exactly what's happening, but then science isn't certain about anything. Everything has a fucking error bar on it. We won't be certain it's gonna kill the human race until the human race dies. We won't know it's not going to be a big problem until it's already stopped...and it's showing no signs of stopping on its own.

Environmentalism at its most basic level is about trying to lessen the impact humanity is having on the natural systems we rely on for the basic necessities of life. It's about not felling forests, not poisoning our water, not blighting our soil, and in this case, it's about trying to get people to stop giving a big fucking shove to the equilibrium of our atmosphere when we don't know exactly how it works (and what we do know suggests doing that could possibly be very bad for us).

The basic disagreement here is about what our default position should be in the absence of certainty. Mine is that we should be humble, and curtail our CO2 emissions rather severely. Yours seems to be that as long as the science isn't yet 100% definite, we should just ignore the problem and just wait until scarcity of coal and oil pushes us off them.

and I would add:
we have a psychological issue at hand.
the human species thinks it's entitled, and it's OUR planet. We think we're special.

This kind of psychological issue hides reality from us.

We have shown ourselves to be very poor stewards of the planet. How many species have we wiped out? How else have we affected our environment? What sort of poisons have we created, what scale of trash heap? Mindlessly fattening ourselves.

This makes me think it is quite likely that we are the frogs in the slowly boiling water.

So, we can argue about this and that, and whether our governments should act. But in actuality, it is up to each and every one of us to stop being energy and consumer gluttons, feasting during the oil orgy.

He was doing it all wrong...

he should be using boiling water.

Searching religion and cats got me this sad piece of knowledge:

Beginning in the 11th century, tolerance for cats began to decrease in Europe for religious reasons, and “by the 13th century the church viewed witches as real and cats as instruments of the devil” (Lynnlee, p. 20). Dante (1265–1321), for example, mentioned cats only once in his work and compared them to demons. From the 14th century well into the 18th century, cats were regularly killed on specific religious holidays. “By the late 15th century the persecution of cats and witches was a mainstay of European society. . . . The 15th and 16th centuries are almost devoid of any cat literature and art. . . . During this period the cat still was used to control rodents, but it was rarely seen as a pet, for if so its existence and that of its owner were in jeopardy” (Lynnlee, p. 21). Cats became especially associated with heretical religious sects, such as the Waldensians and Manichaeans, and members of these sects were accused of worshiping the Devil in the form of a black cat.

On feast days all over Europe, as a symbolic means of driving out the Devil, they were captured and tortured, tossed onto bonfires, set alight and chased through the streets, impaled on spits and roasted alive, burned at the stake, plunged into boiling water, whipped to death, and hurled from the tops of tall buildings, all in an atmosphere of extreme festive merriment. (Serpell JA, The domestication and history of the cat, in Turner DC and Bateson P, eds, The Domestic Cat, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 156).

"At Metz, for example, on “cat Wednesday” during Lent, 13 cats were placed in an iron cage and publicly burned; this ritual took place each year from 1344 to 1777" (Kete K, The Beast in the Boudoir, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994, p. 119).

(http://www.stanleyresearch.org/dnn/LaboratoryofDevelopmentalNeurovirology/ToxoplasmosisSchizophreniaResearch/IAllaboutCats/tabid/173/Default.aspx)


Great, as if we needed more reasons to hate religion...

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^rottenseed:
Well this is what you wanted you litigious cunts. Did you know that if a certified nurse is involved with or witnesses a car accident she WILL NOT help in any medical fashion. If she does and something goes wrong, she is liable. Everything is about liability these days. And what do you want this police officer to do? He's following protocol. Oh yea, so many of you fucking heroes would have saved that (SUICIDAL) guy, but why didn't you? Huh? Why didn't you dickheads go save him? Because you're not qualified to swim out there and do it? Well guess what...NEITHER ARE COPS! You're a moron on this one, Cenk.

Dear boiling water,
Please won't you simmer down?
Yours,
blankfist


I'm at high altitude so it's easier to make me boil


...you statist scum

>> ^rottenseed:

Well this is what you wanted you litigious cunts. Did you know that if a certified nurse is involved with or witnesses a car accident she WILL NOT help in any medical fashion. If she does and something goes wrong, she is liable. Everything is about liability these days. And what do you want this police officer to do? He's following protocol. Oh yea, so many of you fucking heroes would have saved that (SUICIDAL) guy, but why didn't you? Huh? Why didn't you dickheads go save him? Because you're not qualified to swim out there and do it? Well guess what...NEITHER ARE COPS! You're a moron on this one, Cenk.


Dear boiling water,

Please won't you simmer down?

Yours,
blankfist

*ban

Didn't I already *ban you...

http://videosift.com/video/Crazy-Bowling-Shot-n-Boiling-Water-makes-Snow-2-vids-1-link

http://www.youtube.com/user/favlatube#p/u

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^pho3n1x:
>> ^bcglorf:
How about this approach for the truther crowd. Anyone convinced that jet fuel can't melt steel needs to go and tell that to these guys. They base their entire business on selling oil fueled furnaces for melting steel. If jet fuel can't burn hot enough all they're devices they've sold will be duds. Actually, it looks like that's the bigger conspiracy. Hundreds of different companies are selling all manner of steel melting furnaces that run on oil. If the truth gets out that their furnaces are impossible to operate, they'll go broke.

Yeah.

so... you're saying that the WTC towers were furnaces in disguise? I didn't realize they built those towers packed with alumina bricks and backing insulation with which to direct potential fuel into radiant energy.
I can make a device to boil water at room temperature or below, but that doesn't mean that I've debunked modern science's assertion that water boils at ~100C.
--
I haven't made a concrete decision one way or another, but IMO the 'official' story is not the truth. The 'proposed truth' is made even more suspect due to the immediate and secretive clean-up efforts, and the only scientific presentation being made by a government entity.

Yes, they were good enough to be furnaces. Even a standard home is good enough to count as a furnace and can readily exceed temperatures of 1000C when set on fire, without benefit of jet fuel. Here's an article describing testing a fire simulation. They simulate burning a wooden crib inside a room. They run a parallel actual experimental burn of a real crib and measure peak temperatures of 1134 C. It is noteworthy the experimenters don't even bat an eye at that as being unusually high, because they know that it isn't.


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there"

Oh, and FYI, I'm still not taking a stance.

>> ^pho3n1x:

>> ^bcglorf:
How about this approach for the truther crowd. Anyone convinced that jet fuel can't melt steel needs to go and tell that to these guys. They base their entire business on selling oil fueled furnaces for melting steel. If jet fuel can't burn hot enough all they're devices they've sold will be duds. Actually, it looks like that's the bigger conspiracy. Hundreds of different companies are selling all manner of steel melting furnaces that run on oil. If the truth gets out that their furnaces are impossible to operate, they'll go broke.

Yeah.

so... you're saying that the WTC towers were furnaces in disguise? I didn't realize they built those towers packed with alumina bricks and backing insulation with which to direct potential fuel into radiant energy.
I can make a device to boil water at room temperature or below, but that doesn't mean that I've debunked modern science's assertion that water boils at ~100C.
--
I haven't made a concrete decision one way or another, but IMO the 'official' story is not the truth. The 'proposed truth' is made even more suspect due to the immediate and secretive clean-up efforts, and the only scientific presentation being made by a government entity.


Yes, they were good enough to be furnaces. Even a standard home is good enough to count as a furnace and can readily exceed temperatures of 1000C when set on fire, without benefit of jet fuel. Here's an article describing testing a fire simulation. They simulate burning a wooden crib inside a room. They run a parallel actual experimental burn of a real crib and measure peak temperatures of 1134 C. It is noteworthy the experimenters don't even bat an eye at that as being unusually high, because they know that it isn't.

>> ^bcglorf:

How about this approach for the truther crowd. Anyone convinced that jet fuel can't melt steel needs to go and tell that to these guys. They base their entire business on selling oil fueled furnaces for melting steel. If jet fuel can't burn hot enough all they're devices they've sold will be duds. Actually, it looks like that's the bigger conspiracy. Hundreds of different companies are selling all manner of steel melting furnaces that run on oil. If the truth gets out that their furnaces are impossible to operate, they'll go broke.

Yeah.


so... you're saying that the WTC towers were furnaces in disguise? I didn't realize they built those towers packed with alumina bricks and backing insulation with which to direct potential fuel into radiant energy.

I can make a device to boil water at room temperature or below, but that doesn't mean that I've debunked modern science's assertion that water boils at ~100C.

--

I haven't made a concrete decision one way or another, but IMO the 'official' story is not the truth. The 'proposed truth' is made even more suspect due to the immediate and secretive clean-up efforts, and the only scientific presentation being made by a government entity.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'crazy bowling shot boiling water makes snow freeze cold' to 'banned, redacted' - edited by Issykitty

Is that boiling water he's reaching into to retrieve the cups?

Yowza.

>> ^marinara:

buy a rice cooker. cook yer rice and it shuts off into "warm mode"


Or use a pot you already own, use your brain which you supposedly have operating.. and use each in a sort of symbiotic relationship, to.. measure out water, boil water, add rice,cover rice,reduce heat,time 20 (or so minutes) and save yourself 60 dollars, all the while feeling neat-o for not needing a machine to cook rice.. what next, a pasta boiler ?

So air hotter than boiling water can kill people?

Oh well, live and learn (where applicable).