Although the duelling banjos style soundtrack coupled with the video's title gave me chills of homophobia, I found this video to be surprising awesome.

Links? Evidence?

Sure - but I'm not interested in playing duelling banjos. I'm listing a few of many. I could go on, but doing so ultimately becomes pointless. Science is science, and the current science is not decided. However, if you have made up your mind POLITICALLY where you stand then no amount of fact or evidence will be useful. But here we go. Here is the IPCC working group 1 report itself.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

Here is the section detailing the models they selected to write their conclusions.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-2.html

Here are some links detailing just some the problems with their models.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm
http://www.applet-magic.com/IPCCmistakes.htm
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/environment-energy/59296-ipcc-climate-models-8-fatal-errors.html
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039642-pip.pdf
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?page_id=11
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

Being a statistician myself, I am fascinated by the process by which other analysts arrive at a methodology. The IPCC report is sloppy at best, and it doesn’t take any advanced statistical analysis to dismiss the conclusions prima facie. The IPCC freely admits that it ignored critical variables, and arrived at specious conclusions.

Keep in mind the “two divisions” I talked about. On the one hand we have “science of climate” and on the other hand we have “politics of man-made C02”. Warmers like to refer to science as justification for politics. This allows them to have their rhetorical cake and eat it too.

No one disagrees with the posit that the climate is “changing”. Duh! The climate always changes. We figure that out a few millennium ago. But that isn’t what the Warmer movement is trying to say. The Warmers say, “Science has PROVEN that human behavior is the cause of climate change – and human behavior can stop it.”

Horse hockey. In the first place, science has NOT proven human behavior as causal or even related to climate cycles. In the second place, there is no evidence of any kind that the cessation of human C02 emissions would supply a correction. The Warmer approach is therefore not scientific.

‘destroy the world paranoia’

Odd, since I didn’t say that. I said there are groups that desire to reduce human activity. I keep a folder full of links specifically about discussions related to the reduction of human activity in order to ‘save the planet’. Some of them are amusing. Some of them are creepy when you strip away the veneer of good intentions.

Explain NASA hottest decade?

Sure.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3494

Sadly, NASA is an organization corrupted by politics. Obama specifically has pushed to have NASA be less about 'space' and more about 'political justification of my cap & tax plan'. There are good people there, but they are operating in a nasty political environment. Their use of substation data for their temperature projections invalidates their data entirely.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'banjo, guitar, appalachia, bubba, culture, folk, dance, duel, duelling banjos' to 'banjo, guitar, appalachia, bubba, culture, folk, duel, duelling banjos, deliverance' - edited by rasch187

To be honest, you seem a bit too smart to be a Republican, pennypacker

Where on earth did you arrive at the conclusion that I'm a Republican? The Republican party abandoned the concept of small government and strict constitutionalism a long time ago. That's why they haven't been winning elections. They pay lip service to fiscal conservatives, when the reality is that Republicans are just big government liberals who occasionally pander to certain conservative voting blocs at election time. I've got no love for the GOP. If they got a principled fiscal conservative on thier ticket then I'd vote for them.

Only 70,000

That is a number that is being reported by blogs which was based on an ABC report that CLAIMS to have been an estimate from DC firefighters. However, the DCFD has not made any official estimate. There's no official statement from anyone at this point. All we've got are duelling banjos from left wing groups (who want to make us believe it was only a few thousand lunatics) and right wing groups (who go as high as 2 million). I prefer to think that reality is somewhere in-between. It was a big crowd, and 70K seems pretty light. I saw the crowds in DC during the 2003 protests and they didn't seem any bigger - and that protest had well over 200,000. I tend to think that this rally had somewhere between 150,000 and 300,000. That's just a feeling though.

If you look at the crowd here, you'll see something that you don't see at any other capitol event, ground space

You think MadCow or other left leaning folks are going to show anything but what they want you to see? I saw the overhead shots on the news, and they were dense crowds covering a huge area. The dispirate vids of a few of the kook fringe protesters does not convince me that it was a tiny group.

So you suggest that my GF and I each increase our monthly income/expenses by 30% to purchase a policy which, due to not being able to pay the deductible, we will never be able to collect on in the case of emergency? Do I need to reexplain why this would be stupid?

For major medical costs, what would you prefer? To owe $6,000 or so in deductibles or $200,000 for the fully monty? Do I need to reexplain why you'd have to be totally stupid to willfully choose to not have catastrophic medical insurance?

Lucky you. I have at least three friends who have had to spend days arguing to get polices to pay for their parents, who, due to their conditions, where not able to do it for themselves.

And I personally know literally hundreds of co-workers, friends, family members, and associates who have never had a single trouble in getting medical coverage. EVER. Playing duelling banjos over anecdotes is pointless. I rest my case on the statistics. Over 86% of this country is perfectly satisfied with their medical coverage. You CANNOT get those kinds of numbers if the problems you have imagined in your head are as rampant and wide-spread as you are claiming.

The last two criteria have not been met.

Yes they have for over 86% of the country. You - for some reason - are stubbornly refusing to accept the factual demonstration of that reality. That's your choice. It is unfortunate that your inaction that results from your delusion is burdening the rest of society though.

You also need to deal with the fact that buying insurance has opportunity costs. Making enough money to pay for meaningful coverage would probably require me working somewhere other than my house. Add a daily commute to my schedule and the probability of me becoming an outlier jumps considerably. Creating the conditions whereby I join the insurance pool constitutes a significant risk to my wellbeing.

Well - not to put to fine a point on it - but what is working in your house doing for you? Not much, by your own admission because you claim that you are too poor to even pay $60 a month for major medical. Getting a job with a commute might increase your travel expenses... But - you know - it just MIGHT increase your monthly income to the point where you don't have to worry about it. You're right. Everything has an opportunity cost. What is the opportunity cost of your working at home at a low-paying job? How much earning income have you 'given up' to be that poor?

God i love duelling banjos, and there's something really beautiful about the diverse cultures involved in the music they do afterwards. To me at least!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'banjo, guitar, appalachia' to 'banjo, guitar, appalachia, bubba, culture, folk, dance, duel, duelling banjos' - edited by Krupo

http://www.google.ca/search?q=duelling+banjos&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

In reply to this comment by randomize:
I don't get it.


Also see -> http://www.videosift.com/video/Deliverance-Dueling-banjos-scene

>> ^randomize:
I don't get it.


Flamenco musician does duelling banjos.

published by jwray 3 days 9 hours 28 minutes ago • 1337 views

nerdgasm

UPVOTE FOR DUELLING BANJOS!!!!