Great cover. One of my favourite Tool tracks. I like the mellow take on it that still has some emotion. Could use a bit more "oomph" to some of the vocal parts but otherwise very cool.

Steak is definitely optional. I choose steak.

Killing only stops if there are no cows. If there are living cows they will die one day. In the wild pretty quickly if you apply your morals to wolves also.

A cow has no abstract concept of the fear of being eaten (only a general fear and instincts) so unless you purposefully go out of your way to hurt it there is nothing philosophically wrong with eating one, unless you get all emotional and make a complicated moral choice. Which is your choice to make.

Cavemen is a pretty wide term. I am probably smarter than most cavemen. But from the time they got organized and hunted large animals until now man has not really changed much - a couple of tens of thousands of years. We probably tend to remember less and be more depressed and weaker and use our senses less well. Can type faster though.

it is very affecting emotionally.

Totally lost it at "indigenous communities gave generational expertise to help guide the way". Pretty pictures and words in the intro. A lot of emotional balast all over the place. On purpose apparently.

Made it to 35 minutes in.
Probably should read the books first before coming to conclusions.
Wait, is that how that works?

The whole fire metaphor - pretty much how totalitarian regimes come about. Lets NOT get excited and use our brains instead. The problem of politics seems to be that if you do that no one ever notices you.

The problem of this "emotions first" approach is no actual discussion is possible if everyone is hysterical.

this reminds me a bit of that other film about a solitary, emotionally distant, laconic man who's good at fighting

I agree. His plan was to traumatize the entire class with his in your face suicide....assuming they have the story correct.
Pretending he was only going to harm himself, so deserves compassion, is not being honest or rational, imo.
I'm glad no one was hurt, but he definitely intended to severely hurt everyone in that classroom emotionally. I would hazard a guess that he expected some of them to be traumatized enough to follow his example. In school suicides often lead to more suicides.

You had me at ...
"geometry, music, mathematics, astronomy ...the writing of music is a hybrid activity between something very technical and rule based and computational and also pure chance and randomness and intuition and those things colliding allow us to evoke emotions…"

The Fecal Matter is about to hit the Rotary Impeller.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Climatologist-Emotional-Over-Arctic-Methane-Hydrate-Release

Climatologist Emotional Over Arctic Methane Hydrate Release has been added as a related post - related requested by Mordhaus.

How do you solve something that's going apeshit in another country? For starters, in the case of Ukraine and Crimea, we keep our obligations we agreed to and support them with the U.S. military from day one when Russia invaded Crimea, and again in Ukraine proper. Had we done that as we specifically and unambiguously agreed to do when they gave up their nukes in return, the "civil war" (that's clearly a foreign invasion) wouldn't have occurred. That's an Obama administration failure, one that seriously harmed our international standing and trustworthiness, imo. If we had just put 100 Marines on the borders, Russia wouldn't have risked WW3 to invade either country.
My point is human political or boundary issues are nothing compared to intentionally reengineering the makeup of the atmosphere and getting enough cooperation to implement the desired (required) changes.

If she changes policy in the west, that will impact the East....and South. What America does is more often than not mirrored, especially when we're successful.
Her impact is more for the public than governments. Sway enough of the public, get them to vote on your issue, and politics will evolve at light speed.

Her delivery is exactly what's needed. An angry, educated young woman (they called me young man at 14, so don't balk), being unpleasant about having her future stolen makes exponentially more impact to the audience she targets than a thousand dry, factual, statistic rich talks by scientists. (Those are a dime a dozen today) Kids telling their parents that when the shit hits the fan, the kids are tossing them in the swollen river, not supporting them through their old age, is exactly the kick in the face many need. Kids of today will blame adults of today for the future they live in. Adults of today clearly don't consider that enough.

Something is better than nothing, she's demanding something. She's 16, do you expect her to have all the answers? (Some feasible solutions would be nice) She's well ahead of the curve just understanding the severity of the problem. I'm sure if we listened to all her speeches she gives some suggestions of action we could take to move in the right direction, but I doubt any one person has answers that solve every major effect of climate change, much less all the secondary and tertiary effects. I certainly don't expect her, at that age, to do more than demand those in power take it seriously and find solutions....and act. Chastising a major polluter who walked away from the weak, insufficient Paris agreement is a good start if it works, but I agree it's only barely a start.

You should consider it, she got millions to March for her cause worldwide. Even if she is a willing tool for some adults, it's clear more adults are tools for her. Consider, she isn't talking to kids, she's talking to adults, and some at least are listening to her, not her parents.

Personally it disturbs me that emotional delivery like this is required for many to even consider the issue beyond "what does my political party say on this issue, that's what I say too." I wish scientific issues like climate change were immune to politics, propaganda, and emotion, but they aren't. That's why we're hosed imo, humans are too willing to be deceived if the lie is more pleasant than reality, and denying there's a problem or need for change is quite pleasant to lazy Americans, far easier than facing facts and implementing difficult solutions....until it's not at least, by which time it's far too late.

But you love Trump for exactly that reason, he's an emotional 14 year old who is no professional and who has no place on the world stage spouting fear with out a wisp of knowledge of almost any subject excepting swindle and con.

She, on the contrary, has a decent grasp of this subject....both the science and the politics driving the science. Probably why she won the Alternative Nobel prize....https://videosift.com/video/Greta-Thunberg-Wins-Alternative-Nobel

That's the morality and ethics of the right, if you don't like but can't debunk the message, personally attack the messenger and give no quarter, even if they're young children.

Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out. Those that dumb it down enough to be understood invariably underrepresent or outright misrepresent the problems. With so many unscientific voices out there trying to out shout the real data for their own purposes, real scientists fudging the data is near criminal because it's only more ammunition for deniers.

Yes, if you or I heard them lecture, we would likely hear that and even more, but the average, unscientific American would hear "taking in more energy than is leaving" as a good thing, free energy. If they explained the mechanisms involved, their eyes would glaze over as they just wished someone would tell them it's all lies so they could ignore what they can't understand fully. These people are, imo, the majority in the U.S.. They are why we need emotional delivery of simplified science from a charismatic young woman who knows her stuff.
Edit: For example, I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise, or that we only had 8 years of current emission levels to have a 66% chance, still bad odds. I understood they were also using horrendous models for ice melt and other factors to reach those optimistic numbers, and didn't take feedback loops we already see in action into account, nor did they make allowances for feedbacks we don't know about yet. The average reader only got 12 years to conserve before we are locked into 1.5 degree. They don't even know that's when known feedback loops are expected to outpace human inputs, making it exponentially harder if not impossible to turn around, or that 1.5 degree rise by 2050 likely means closer to 3 degree by 2100, and higher afterwards.

Mating habits for European swallows?! How did we get from the relationship of climatology and sociology to discussing the red light district?

@newtboy,

"Ok, but don't discount the factual arguments because they are presented with passion. Ignore the emotion and focus on verifying or debunking the facts presented. Because someone on Fox presents their denial argument flatly and dispassionately doesn't make it more correct."

Obviously agreed, exactly what I was saying.

"if the facts are presented clearly and in totality, which she does better than most if not all professional scientific lecturers....sadly"

I think here you are selling scientific lecturers short, or at the least including folks I wouldn't consider scientific at all in the group.

When I think scientific lecturer, I think an actual scientific researcher giving a lecture related to their field of expertise. That even excludes scientific researchers giving lectures outside their field of expertise. I've seen how badly interdisciplinary study types can misjudge their own knowledge of a field. In the hard sciences they can get rooted out faster, but in softer sciences and humanities it's easier for them to keep finding a niche that hides their ignorance.

If you get the CERES team to give a talk on the global energy budget, they will give a lecture a thousand times more complete and accurate, than you, I or Greta ever could. They will confirm the planet is taking in more energy than is leaving. They will confirm their data is corroborated between satellite and ocean heat content measurements. They can say with authority how much energy is being gained, and can even confirm it largely corresponds to what we'd expect from the increased CO2 contributions. If you asked, they would even also admit that the uncertainties on the measured imbalance are larger than the imbalance itself.

Ask them about mating habits for European swallows and you, I or Gretta might well know better than them.

Ok, but don't discount the factual arguments because they are presented with passion. Ignore the emotion and focus on verifying or debunking the facts presented. Because someone on Fox presents their denial argument flatly and dispassionately doesn't make it more correct.

Yes, I agree, but the point was getting people to listen, read, and fully examine the facts rather than accept the, also emotional, arguments without fact or with incorrect, cherry picked, or misrepresented facts that dominate the discussion on both sides, but mostly on the denier side since facts and data do not support them.

That line isn't blurred, it's been pressure washed away. The emotional arguments are nearly all that's out there, the facts are so misrepresented by both sides...oddly both sides minimizing the problem, the right to ignore it for profit, the left to not overwhelm those wanting to make progress by admitting it's too late.
Note, she mentions the thoroughly reported study that said we must stop emissions in 12 (now 10?) years to stay below 1.5c rise actually said we must make that sacrifice to have a 50% chance at that (and goes on to explain why even that is outrageously optimistic since it doesn't take feedbacks and other factors into account and relies on future generations to make not only the sacrifices we aren't willing to make, but also to clean up/sequester the emissions we continue to emit at faster rates daily).
I have zero problem with the emotion of the delivery if the facts are presented clearly and in totality, which she does better than most if not all professional scientific lecturers....sadly.

I'm just saying I like being clear/careful to distinguish between emotional, moral and factual argumentation.

If the subject were instead vaccinations, you could as easily have a child pitching an anti-vax message and pleading with the world to listen to the 'facts' that they present. It might make people more willing to listen, but it should NOT change our assessment of the accuracy of the facts.

Supplanting argument from emotion, authority and various other subjective/flawed approaches is THE defining advantage of the scientific method. Blurring that line is damaging, regardless of the intentions or goals.