Your video, El Niño Erosion Leaves Pacifica Apartments On The Brink, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

for that matter, are a lot of Iranian scientists even muslim? After WW2, we scooped up as many German scientists that we could fine. They were simply better than our scientists at the time.

Would not Iran do the same thing? maybe not as successfully though since they don't have a bomb that we know of.

Sadly though, this is a dupe of one of my earlier sifts:

http://videosift.com/video/The-erosion-of-progress-by-religion

but don't feel bad, if you look at the comments, my sift was also contained in a larger sift and there are apparently many other clips of the same speech.

I cannot invoke dupe so I will leave it to others to decide what to do since my sift is also technically a dupe, and so on, and so on.

Welcome to the great chain!

Again, I can't seem to pull up the full text of your article through google scholar. Even your summary though states an additional warming contribution of 0.3C by 2100. Sorry, but I don't class that as catastrophic. What's more, simply doing a google scholar search for articles on "permafrost methane climate" and taking the first four full articles give the following, with absolutely zero effort taken to pluck out ones that support my particular claim:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045016/fulltext/
According to our results, by mid-21st century the annual net flux of methane from Russian permafrost regions may increase by 6–8 Mt, depending on climatic scenario. If other sinks and sources of methane remain unchanged, this may increase the overall content of methane in the atmosphere by approximately 100 Mt, or 0.04 ppm, and lead to 0.012 °C global temperature rise.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010RG000326/full
It's a more sweeping assessment so it doesn't have a nice short quotable for our particular point. It's most concise point is in Figure 7 which I'm not sure how to link into here as an image. You can check for yourself though that even the highest error margins on methane releases touch natural emissions till long, long after 2100, matching the IPCC millenial timescale statement I cited earlier.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018680/full
A detailed study of one mire show that the permafrost and vegetation changes have been associated with increases in landscape scale CH4 emissions in the range of 22–66% over the period 1970 to 2000.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/36/14769.full
We attempted to incorporate in this study some of the latest mechanistic understanding about the mechanisms controlling soil CO2 respiration and wetland CH4 emissions, but uncertainties remain large, due to incomplete understanding of biogeochemical and physical processes and our ability to encapsulate them in large-scale models. In particular, small-scale hydrological effects (36) and interactions between warming and hydrological processes are only crudely represented in the current generation of terrestrial biosphere models. Fundamental processes such as thermokarst erosion (37) or the effects of drying on peatland CO2 emissions (e.g., ref. 38) are lacking here, causing uncertainty on future high-latitude carbon-climate feedbacks. In addition, large uncertainty arises from our ability to model wetland dynamics or the microbial processes that govern CH4 emissions, and in particular how the complicated dynamics of permafrost thaw would affect these processes.

The control of changes in the carbon balance of terrestrial regions by production vs. decomposition has been explored by a number of authors, with differing estimates of whether vegetation or soil changes have the largest overall effect on carbon storage changes (39–41). These results demonstrate that with the inclusion of two well-observed mechanisms: the relative inhibition of respiration by soil freezing (42) and the vertical motion in Arctic soils that buries old but labile carbon in deeper permafrost horizons, which can be remobilized by warming (3), the high-latitude terrestrial carbon response to warming can tip from near equilibrium to a sustained source of CO2 by the mid-21st century. We repeat that uncertainties on these estimates of CO2 and CH4 balance are large, due to the complexity of high-latitude ecosystems vs. the simplified process treatment used here.

And I was able to find the full PDF for your own original sink on the subject:
here
We conclude that the ice-free area of
northeastGreenland acts as a net sink of atmosphericmethane,
and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under
future warmer climatic conditions.

All of the above seem to fairly well corroborate my earlier citation to the IPCC's own summary of the current knowledge on permafrost and northern methane impact on future warming:
However modelling studies and expert judgment indicate that CH4 and CO2 emissions will increase under Arctic warming, and that they will provide a positive climate feedback. Over centuries, this feedback will be moderate: of a magnitude similar to other climate–terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
From FAQ 6.1

If you want to more simply claim that there exist studies, with noted high uncertainties, that under the worst case emission scenarios that show a possible significant release of methan prior to 2100 and possible catatrophic releases after, then I agree. If you want to claim that the consensus is we are facing catastrophe in our lifetime, as your first post claimed, then I most point to the overwhelming scientific evidence linked above that simply does not agree, once again chosen at random and with no effort to cherry pick only results that match what I want. I must note I lack surprise though as the IPCC had already been claiming the same of the literature and existing evidence.

And both cause tooth erosion! Yay!

Idk, I think it starts off life as an ironic exclamation and sort of slips into your vocab. Personally I prefer to spell it out - "el oh el". As lol is an acronym I believe this is probably a more proper pronunciation, but it also sounds more deliberate, and therefore ironic.

But yes. It is exactly replacing that faked laugh that we produce both as a sort of social courtesy to others who made an effort to make us smile, or to communicate that we recognise a humourous situation. Why use it? Well, why use any colloquialism/slang?

Frankly I'd rather be the dickhead that uses it than the dickhead that thinks adding "Selfie" to the dictionary represents an erosion of the language. I really have no patience for those that seem to think we should enclose our language in a glass case and play with it delicately lest we damage the exhibit.

Erosion at it's finest!

You've just countered your own point. The "majority" of Americans (and indeed humans in general) are and have frequently wrong on just about every issue in history.

• A few hundred years ago, the majority were for slavery.


• 120 years ago, the majority believed that only white men should be able to vote.


• It's only in the last 5-10 years that the majority decided that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals (and it's only barely a majority now).

Meanwhile, as you said, the majority seem to be fine with the slow erosion of every other freedom enshrined in your constitution.

Frankly, the majority are idiots.

Each of the issues outlined above were opposed by the majority, but a few progressive intellectuals slowly changed things.

The same will happen for guns.

If it doesn't, it will be due to the triumph of lobbyists over citizenry.

Why would the acknowledgement of a designer be a depressing dismissal of the human spirit? Some of the greatest scientists who ever lived, like Johannes Kepler and Issac Newton, said their search for truth through the scientific method was enhanced by their faith in a Creator. Check out some of these quotes:

http://www.newlife.org/node/362

If you came to a beach and you found the message "Drink Coke" drawn out in the sand, would you assume that this was the product of wind, waves, and erosion? It would be obvious to you that it was the product not of natural processes, but a mind. The message in the sand doesn't contain information, it is information. It has a semiotic meaning, and the information in DNA is no different than that. You can derive information from natural processes but the information in DNA is organized for a purpose. It is a genetic language with features that far outstrip anything even our finest minds have developed.

I would also add that the truth does not care for our personal preference. We need to follow the evidence where ever it leads, and if it leads somewhere we don't like, we need to adjust our way of thinking. To do otherwise would only be to deceive yourself.

The issue is a concern for the southern part of Louisiana. It is said we lose one football field of protection (from hurricanes) each year - to erosion.

New Orleans does have a levy system along, Lake Pontchartrain, the Mississippi River and various canals. There has been maintenance on them since Katrina.

Marching in lock-step to your demise, child. Your comments on this matter read like a dutiful slave to your own oblivion.

One of the things no one has even cared to mention about this event is that the federal government, enforcing a civil affair (non-payment of grazing fees) sent armed swat teams to enforce the matter. The citizens of the United States who chose to show up in support of Bundy (a dumb-ass for the shit he's said of late, that the media has completely used to distract the putties with racism being an opportunistic side-issue in this entire debacle), who did so with guns as well-were within their rights to do so, breaking no laws. For this, they are called all manner of names and labeled as agitants, crazies,etc., by people without a clue as to how they are being ass-fucked.

The media, an arm of the state's machine, focuses upon this and continually pumps their brand of newsspeak, loaded language (like newtboy here repeats and foments to his own audience of parrots), and in doing so guides the story in a direction that further ignores facts while blatantly promoting the further erosion of individual rights under the constitution in favor of bigger, stronger, more restrictive government.

We are going to see more and more of this in the coming decade, as well as more people who favor the cozy protection of government control over individual responsibilities and accountability.

Just fail dude.
I never claimed to be an expert in geology, just to have enough knowledge to understand the science involved, unlike you.
EDIT: but your millionaire uncles HAVE talked about money with you, right...so you understand, say, interest?
Uniformitarianism as stated was proven false in the early 1800's. Many factors are involved in the time frame for feature formations, they are not uniform.
Yes, you are consistently anti-science here. You completely ignore the scientific method when making obviously false claims like 'that proves it was caused by a giant flood'.
Oh dude, no where in your fairy tale book does it ever say the earth is 6000 years old, you've been duped by idiots with agendas. Give it up, even your religious 'leaders' have realized the insanity of that stance and the requirement to suspend reality for it to be correct. Try listening to them.
There is absolutely zero evidence for a 'world wide flood' unless you can create some out of thin air with your level of faith in ridiculousness. There is not a single whit of actual evidence, which would take the form of a single, homogeneous layer of sediment world wide at the same geologic age. Doesn't exist. Sorry, you're just plain wrong about what you claim.
The 'evidence' in this video is evidence that landslides happen fast, not that layered non-volcanic sediments can be put down in tens of thousands of distinct and differing layers in an instant, then massive erosion can happen also in an instant, as you claim it does. True enough, erosion can happen fast, but doesn't often, and sedimentary layering simply can't...neither can fossilization. (oops, forgot, the devil put those stone bones there to fool me...but since I AM the devil, I'm not fooled)
Your claim that there is a homogeneous sediment layer all over the world is a complete fabrication. It does not exist. If it did, that would be HUGE scientific discovery heard on every network and science program for years to come, not one only heard about in church and/or afterwards in the lobby.
Once again...fail....as I suspect you did in your science classes.

EDIT:...and I love that your 'proof' video includes Uluru, the oldest large rock in the known world, which is proven by numerous differing methods to be well over 550 Million years old (that's how long ago it was rotated, it existed well before then) I guess the devil/gawd made that too, in order to confuse scientists? I'm not going to watch more time wasting ridiculous unscientific propaganda by the scientifically challenged, so it goes unwatched.
and good job with the cut and paste in order to quote me and answer me without me noticing,...sorry, didn't work.
SECOND EDIT: Do you not notice that on one side you claim uniformitarianism is wrong, but you also insist it's held as a major tenant of modern geology? If it's that obvious to you, an admitted lay person, don't you think it might be more obvious to professionals?

I can claim to know far more than you seem to because I went to college and graduated with a degree in science, have a NASA geologist uncle, and read numerous scientific publications monthly, and because I didn't get my science training from Wikipedia, the worst place to try to learn something because it can be changed by those with an agenda and no knowledge.

Uniformitarianism as described is NOT the cornerstone of geology, that's ridiculous. Geologic forces are not uniform...erosion, for one, happens at it's own rate each time depending on uncountable factors. Differing geologic forces act in concert on differing geologic features to change the rate at which features are made/changed. That means that there is NO uniformitarianism as described...except to a quite small extent in the lab where ALL other things are equal. That's probably why they never mentioned it in any of the numerous geology classes I took, nor from my uncle, nor in Science, nat. geo., Scientific American, etc..
I imagine you know about it because you have been told it can be used as a tool to try to debunk geology, and as an anti-science guy you grabbed onto it without understanding.
Once again, there are certain processes that happen at certain rates, like the decay of radioactive materials down to their bases, usually lead. That is not the same as saying all features are created at the same rate, which you suggest uniformitarianism claims. EDIT: apparently that IS what uniformitarianism claims, and why it was discarded as a hypothesis in the early 1800's, it was wrong in it's basic assumptions.
None of it has a thing to do with a landslide, which is what the video describes. Not a whit.
I would guess you believe the earth is about 6000 years old, right?

EDIT: I hope I can be forgiven for not knowing every discredited theory from the late 1700's.

The first person to cry 'racist' is usually the racist him/herself-
Japan
Ethnicity
Race?
Fuck Racism.

*edit-Another question? If I had written, 'Fuck Australia' after bashing her culture's shortcomings would you have been as quick to use the the 'cry racism' model so easily considering her peoples are a compendium of a mixed-bag similar to the America you expatriated from, equally as complicit in crimes against humanity at large and isolationism? You got yer crazy bag of fucks there as well expat, check a mirror.

I hold no racist views towards the Japanese, I am trashing a culture's savage and mundane aspects Mr. Official warning, and whom or what did I offend I would ask? YOUR sensibilities sir?

The Japanese suffer as a peoples because of the backlog of baggage they carry into the future-I do not discount their contributions to the planet, the shining aspects of their culture, HOWEVER. I do recognize their dysfunction and regret and lament their dwindling numbers, the erosion of families, their skewed sense of sexuality and their treatment of the female within their culture. Ask any Japanese woman of the age of 20 and not one will tell you that she has not been sexually exploited or violated in a public place. Sure, it's fun to watch and giggle at their television, their obsessions and odd social practices but form whence does the spectacle arise, from what psychological mindfuck that reaches much further back than Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

Oh the IRONY of someone so self-important and all-powerful as to pass judgement on intent or meaning without first inquiring as to the motivation for the word.

Fuck em I suppose, is what set you off Dagmar-Pretty strong a statement I suppose but not so much in the context of the motivation behind my problem with their culture-on-the-skids.

Evolution IN Action

Are you asking why evolution doesn't behave in a more efficient manner? For what purpose would you filter out the natural qualities of existence that give it diversity?

The lazy mistakes of our universe are erosion, planet formation, star formation, etc. etc. It's all mistakes. The universe doesn't care if one quality is more beneficial than another, otherwise all of existence would be perfect and in harmony -- One thing changed and causation caused another thing to happen. Because those things happened, it lead to another thing, which formed another thing in a pattern that eventually gave shape to something greater than all the random, lazy changes before it.

That's language, that's sports, that's art, that's technology, and that's mankind.

The universe is not "correct" as defined by human concepts of efficiency or return on investment. Things take time to evolve because the process of evolution is gradual and made up of changes with no particular value. We merely add value to things based upon our needs and desires. Correctness forms over time, as we either process things into "culture" or deviate from that culture for a more efficient pathway.

You don't need high speed internet either, technically (I do, but I am a robot). Technically, you don't need a lot of things, it is all pretty much arbitrary when you talk in those terms. When you make people have to sign up for certain rights via some sort of process, it is the beginning of a real erosion of rights. I'll even meet people half way to say if you want to be in public areas with a gun, some kind of permit is needed like cars...I don't like it, but Ill give you that. But as long as I am not using it to commit crimes, your right to restrict my behavior is over...period. It might be that freedom comes with a hefty prices of dead people, innocent people, innocent people that we could of protected with ever increasing restrictions of social liberties. I mean, look at Saudi Arabia, lower murder rates than even some European countries of pretty good order. But they live in a totalitarian dictatorship, and I am not trying to make a scarecrow argument about totalitarian dictatorships and whatnot, what I am trying to say is people dying isn't the only important metric when talking about rights to do things.


It might be true that more people will die with lacks gun laws, it might be true that more people die because of lacks drug lacks, lots of things might be true about how freedom serves to make economics weak, countries less secure, more prone to internal strife and faction, it might be true that the seeds of freedom and the ability to self regulate cause harms that extend beyond ones self. Even so, I still don't think a better framework exists for conducting ourselves that doesn't cripple and stifle people who have done no wrong. If the price for a drunk driver is abolition, the price of a murder disarmament, the price of wreck less driving horse drawn carriage, then we have failed to address the underlying problem and snub out freedoms ability to creatively deal with complex social challenges via the creative process of problem solving.

I think history has shown that any attempts to snub out action instead of guide it fail miserably. Gun control starts and ends with people, not laws, I suggest we start there. Starting neighborhood gun responsibility programs, safety education for youths, ect...whatever, I don't know, I can't pretend to know what is the best way to address the complex issue of gun control for every community, the point is that is their bag, it can be done without force given the context of the USA. Not every country has that luxury, children roaming the streets with AK-47s is not a real problem in this country, nor would it be if gun control laws were more lacks. We do have problems, I don't want there to be any mistake about that, but I don't think the solution is wholesale elimination of thing that only CAN be dangerous, I mean, anything can be dangerous, ask the folks in Oklahoma about ammonia nitrate...you don't even need a licence to buy that stuff.

Point is, the world is dangerous, and I think freedom allows for a certain amount of that danger to exist. It is the price we pay. We should look to the unwritten code that manages us, the code of culture and community.

"The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty. But all this ease in our private relations does not make us lawless as citizens. Against this fear is our chief safeguard, teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws, particularly such as regard the protection of the injured, whether they are actually on the statute book, or belong to that code which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace."

Pericles' Funeral Oration from the Peloponnesian War