Gotta figure out a way to sell ad space during the weather forecast. Otherwise everyone would just Google it.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'weather, news, Hungary, bewbs' to 'weather, forecast, weather girl, news, Hungary, bewbs' - edited by calvados

>> ^critical_d:

Better wear your rubbers.

Well played sir, well fucking played.

I didnt say everything was right what critics say. Thats science. However, you can start by "debunking those 450+ studies one by one, because that article you linked didnt debunk one of them but instead just tried to personally discredit 3 people who they think are too dangerous to their cause.

How about you start by debunking the thousands of studies supporting anthropogenic climate change? More importantly, what makes you think those 450+ studies are more reliable than the pro-climate change studies? Usually, when I see a debate with a vast majority of scientists on one side and a tiny minority on the other, I believe the majority. This isn't a perfect heuristic, but it's a pretty good one. Do you have any good reason to believe the heuristic fails in this instance? What is it that has convinced you the majority is wrong?

Its very easy to say what you are saying. Just like creationists. You cant debunk it. "God told me so, prove me wrong!".

What? This is the stupidest analogy ever. Saying "Look at all this peer reviewed scientific research" is somehow equivalent to "God told me so"?

And studies that try to explain this partly (Svensmarks), and thus attack the "consensus" of the corrupt, get dismissed like its some atheist in a church trying to explain how resurrection is impossible.

This is only true if atheists in church are usually dismissed using careful peer-reviewed scientific research, along the lines of this or this.

There are enough facts plus satellite data, but as long as people like you prefer to get their money taken from them (thats what this is all about, if you still havent noticed), there is nothing objective science can do about it. You have no idea how many billions the global warming market is already. Not only the "scientists" that get paid for every mention of AGW in their studies and articles by the IPCC, but also normal people who make a living by selling stuff that is supposed to decrease CO2 emissions and levels.

And of course there's no money at all to be made in debunking climate change. Dude, the oil industry pumps millions of dollars into research that criticizes the consensus. After the last IPCC report came out, the American Enterprise Institute (funded by Exxon) offered $10,000 to anyone who published an article criticizing the report. If you think money is skewing incentives on the pro-AGW side, why don't you apply the same standards to the denialist side?

Science is falsifiable, but people like you just are saying the Al Gore bullshit "The debate is over" and are bringing old and already debunked arguments (even not used anymore by IPCC).

Care to point out where ChaosEngine made an old and already debunked argument? And just because science is falsifiable doesn't mean that science can never be settled on an issue. The debate about the chemical composition of the sun is over. That doesn't mean that those claims are not falsifiable.

I didnt even know theres actually a site like this that promotes discrimination of scientists by putting their own bullshit on it and claiming their are wrong and calling them childish names like Christy Crocks. Reminds me of those republican kids that invent stuff like "libtard" or "obamallama". Very objective and scientific. It gets sadder and sadder each day.

I know. Very sad. Let me play you the world's saddest song on the world's tiniest violin. Especially after you called ChaosEngine ignorant and stupid and then complained about how sad rhetoric like "Christy Crocks" is.

That you think climate science is a science that is even known well by humankind and thus can be easily proven, proves alone that you dont have a clue... Oh and btw, we are experiencing a cooling now it and will last until about 2020 to 2040. Lets see what new "scientific facts" will pop up to support your religious opinion until then.

Climate science is not a science that is known well be humankind, but it is apparently known well by coolhund-kind. Please tell us how you came up with this forecast, and why you think it is more reliable than the forecasts of, you know, actual experts.

The IPCC is an organization, that has no need to exist, if there is no AGW.

True, but irrelevant, since there is AGW.

You want to keep your job, or you want to get a better paid job... you just have to get rid of a few minor ideologies and then you have a good life for the rest of your life.

OK, so the thousands of climate scientists who claim to believe in AGW are lying to keep their jobs. Confusingly, a number of global warming skeptics are able to keep their jobs without pretending to believe in AGW. Someone needs to figure out how they managed to beat the corrupt system. Maybe they have compromising pictures of Al Gore?

Oh and btw, I think America is very easy to fool with things like this. Take the biofuel for example. It is nowhere near being actual "biofuel". It actually harms our eco-system. Palm oil, clearing of the rain forest to make space for more plantations, high food prices, waste of water, etc come to mind. Other countries like Germany are more skeptical about things like this and have proven once again, that they are right, even though your country (and many other who benefit from it) are still claiming there is also a "consensus" on this matter. How ironic.

What a pointless digression. America is not the only country in the world where scientists believe in AGW. The national science academy in Germany, your paragon for a skeptical country, has also endorsed the IPCC report. So whether or not Americans are easy to fool is completely irrelevant here. Incidentally, 59% of German people believe that global warming is due to human activity. Only 49% of Americans believe this. So maybe you're right -- Americans are easy to fool. You're just wrong about who's fooling them.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Do you believe that the demand for cars would have decreased if the big 3 went under? If so, please explain how and why.
I think, if the big 3 tanked, people who would have bought those cars would still need cars and would have bought cars from other manufacturers. That means increased business for those other manufacturers which means they place more demand on the material manufacturers, the parts suppliers, etc. Some of that demand would have manifested overseas, but I believe much of it would have gone to the same businesses that Ford, Chrysler and GM use. After all, as I said above, there's lots of other manufacturers that do assembly here and it's easier and cheaper to have your suppliers nearby.
No, like you say it's mostly a supply-driven story, not demand-driven. My point is that dismantling the Detroit-centered auto manufacturing infrastructure would be a huge shock to the American economy.

Like you say, eventually the economy would readjust, but even in a good economy it'd take a long time for it to adjust to a shock of that size. In a time where the financial markets had just gone into a crisis of historic proportions, it might've taken more than a decade.

A decade in which that circular flow is moving more slowly, dragged down by all the human and industrial capital that we leave idle as workers in Detroit look for new jobs, and while we wait for the prices of Toyotas and Hondas and BMW's to rise in response to the decline in supply, then wait for those price increases to build up as excess capital to the point where those companies decide to invest in opening new factories to meet the demand.

In the long run, the circular flow of our economy would eventually get back up to the rate it was at before, but in the long run we are all dead.

Or instead we could spot 'em 50 billion and avoid taking that kind of hit. Unless of course, you think there are inherent insurmountable problems with Chrysler and GM that can't be fixed with new management and some debt forgiveness?
>> ^xxovercastxx:

All the independent analyses that I read back in 2008 concluded that the cost of the bailouts vs letting the big 3 tank was close to a wash.

I'm not sure if the analyses you looked at were talking about the overall macroeconomic effects, but I bet not. I bet they just looked at "will it increase the government's debt load?" That's all most investor analyses do in situations like this.

The analysis I'm talking about would be comparing GDP forecasts with the bailout vs. without.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
There's also a cost to other businesses that comes with these sorts of bailouts that is rarely mentioned. I used to work at a small property insurance company. When the economy got rough, they played things smart. They minimized their risk, invested heavily and were one of the only companies of their kind to maintain a profit through the whole debacle. AIG, on the other hand, bet on high risk business and lost fortunes. They got a government care package and put themselves back together and now, as a result, are destroying the insurance market. My old company is struggling to stay in business (next year is their 100th anniversary) and AIG is swimming in ill gotten money.

The smartass in me wants to say "what's the cost?" After all, both companies made a profit. What's wrong with that?

But seriously, you're talking about "moral hazard". Believe me, that's not some topic nobody talks about, it's what right-wing economists and business journalists scream as loud as they can whenever there's talk about government stepping in to stave off major disruptions in the economy.

The my answer is that bailouts shouldn't be no strings attached, like the bailout of AIG was. The management of the companies that get rescued should lose their jobs, and be stripped of all their personal wealth. Depending on their actions, maybe tossed in jail too.

That way the value of company itself is preserved (and not liquidated), while there's a strong disincentive for the management to make a business plan that centers on expectations of being bailed out if the shit hits the fan.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

So the question I pose (and I know we can only speculate on the answer) is what effect have the bailouts had on Toyota, Honda, etc? Or do we not care because they don't employ as many Americans as the domestics?


Since this comment is approaching an epic length already, I'm just gonna say that it wasn't really about foreign vs. domestic ownership, but about minimizing the number of years we stay below trend in GDP during a severe recession. If you want to view it as a region vs. region dispute, it was also about keeping the perfectly good Detroit manufacturing cluster from being needlessly dismantled and rebuilt elsewhere.

>> ^marinara:

downvote for being propaganda
http://rt.com/news/syria-opposition-weather-forecast-867/


Yes, I'm sure the Russian state run media is MUCH more trustworthy. Surely the entirety of the Arab League and their observers are all making everything up...

Maybe go see what Al Jazeera is saying about it before dismissing the deaths of so many because surely the Russian state run media is above reproach and can be trusted completely.

downvote for being propaganda
http://rt.com/news/syria-opposition-weather-forecast-867/

9/11 Motivated Excessive Fiscal Spending

The wars are a tiny portion of the debt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead-war-on-terror-costs_n_856390.html

"If Congress also approves the president’s FY2012 war-funding request, the cumulative cost of post-9/11 operations would reach $1.415 trillion"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

"As of October 22, 2011, the gross debt was $14.94 trillion."

This is not even addressing the point that the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11. You're going to have to explain your lack of conservative bona fides when Bush was in power another way.

Banks should have been allowed to fail

Not bailing out the banks would have trashed the economy. When banks fail, financing dries up, businesses can't meet their short term cash flow requirements and they default. The economy collapses. The end. It doesn't matter how you're ideologically attuned to government assistance in times of crisis, that this would have happened is simply a fact.

Better yet follow it through further. When banks collapse, without federal deposit insurance, individuals lose their personal savings. How far would you follow through your rigid and impractical ideological principles? Would you say free markets dictate they lose their savings for the bad judgement of those in the financial services industry.

Keynesian Fiscal Policy Works

Every other major economy is doing it. Take a look at how much China spent and how it's barely sputtered in growth. Every economist worth a damn is saying the US is not spending enough to prop up the economy. That whatever you're reading is drawing a comparison FDR rather than you know, something in the last 50 years should tell you they're full of the BS.

If you go back and read forecasts for unemployment before Obama was inaugurated, none of them expected to fall significantly or quickly in a short period of it. The prolonged European debt crisis has exacerbated that. Unemployment falling marginally is not evidence that stimulus spending does not work.

Look, what is it about fiscal spending that you don't understand? Economic uncertainty in Europe. Businesses don't know what demand will be like, so they sit on their money instead of investing or hiring more workers. Countries face that risk that as they wait, short term unemployed become long term unemployed because they've been out of the workforce and skills atrophy. So they spend in the short term to keep people employed or incentive through deductions for companies to hire. Tax cuts improve returns marginally. Spending to keep people employed reduces the cost of social services in the long-long term from people being shunned out of the workforce. You spend but you make your money back over time.

It's simple. And it makes perfect logical sense.

How is it that hard to understand?

The rest

I'll be honest, your writing manner makes you look stupid when you're trying to make factual arguments. Have you seen a newspaper article or dissertation written like this? No. Exactly.

FYI, I live in Australia. We have free hospital visits, virtually no government debt, almost record low unemployment and we never went into a recession. Funnily enough Keynesian fiscal policy works over here, must be an anomaly though.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The question that can't be answered is whether Bush would've spent like the amateur liberal he is without 9-11. There was plenty of criticism leveled at Bush by the right during his tenure. The left was so focused on ensuring America lost in Iraq it didn't have time to thank Bush for rubber stamping all of their usual failed social "programs".
The failouts and scamulus sealed Bush 43's legacy as a failure. Everyone should've been "allowed" to fail.
Now enter His Earness. Questionable background, no experience, gets shunted through by obeisant media fawns. Tries the same Keynesian BS that FDR did with predictable results. As FDR's antics prolonged the Depression by a decade, so His Earness has spent and spent with nothing to show for it but enormous new debt (and no WW2 to save his bacon). Now this regime's media says with a straight face that the scamuli "prevented even worse unemployment". Hippie PLEASE.
We've now had six years of Taxocrats running Congress...what's better now than before?
You are going to have to defend the indefensible next year. Be sure to vote November 3rd.




>> ^RedSky:
@quantumushroom
QM, my problem with your point of view is throughout Bush's term, you didn't appear to have any issues with his profligacy as he (and the Republican congress at the time) pushed through bill after a bill that took the country massively into debt. Now your concerns are presumably that in the worst economic crisis in 60 years, the Democrat government is spending too much to prop up the economy and prevent the skills of the short term unemployment stagnating and turning into the long term unemployed dependent on social benefits.
Where are your standards here?
Or your consistency?

As Mac desktop market share increases, the payoff for developing Mac specific malware (or porting Windows malware) increases.

Nobody has put a big investment in yet, or if they have they have kept it so low profile that they haven't been rumbled. That said though, if you download pirated Mac software you're just as likely as windows users to be sending your cc details to the Russian Mafia soon after, joining your computer to their cloud computing effort, or perhaps just getting a lot more advertising pop-ups.

This week there's still much more money in Windows malware. It all comes down to accounting and financial forecasts.
>> ^deathcow:

I don't really keep track, how are Mac viruses panning out?

The hypocrisy is in it instantly going from an issue to raise, to being completely unimportant when it doesn't fit your preconceived views. And for the record:

- Every economic forecast worth it's damn before Obama was elected projected unemployment to remain high for a prolonged period of time. It's historically what happens after financial crises. The talking points that the blogs you read are pushing were being drafted by conservative interest groups while he was being inaugurated.
- Tell me what magical wand Obama will wield to bring down gas prices.
- A low US dollar helps exports and assists in transforming the economy from consumption to investment/productivity based one.>> ^quantumushroom:

So where's the incongruity? His Earness finally released it. He's still the worst President since Carter.

I know right? I was expecting some gloomy forecast of the future.

@marinara you're a strange person. Go to that URL, look in the upper left corner of your screen. Click on the chart, and you get the link I had in my original post, where Nate says "our simulation projects Republicans to gain a net of 4.0 Senate seats in this November's elections, a figure unchanged since last month" and "The Republicans now have only a 6 percent chance of an outright takeover of the Senate, according to the model".

I'm more optimistic than that about the Senate, but that's partly because I have seen polling data from May that Nate's post doesn't incorporate (yet).

As for the house, here's his most recent analysis, along with a graph plotting house popular vote vs. net change in seats. Right now pollster.com has the House Generic ballot polling an effective tie (43.1% R vs 42.9% D, for a net +0.2R), and if you look that up on Nate's chart, that would foretell a 30-seat swing towards the Republicans, which isn't enough for them to take control (the dotted red line on the graph), but it's worse than my prediction.

For a midterm, we're still very early in the process. Hell, even in 2008, at about this point in time we didn't know if it would be Clinton or Obama facing McCain in the fall, just to put things in perspective.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The biggest disaster to hit America is Barack Hussein Obama. Oil rig fail? Shit happens. But the non-stop war on the American way of life from the Red House Regime is far more dangerous and insidious than some oil spill that will be forgotten in a year.


Middle Aged Men With Swords Hacking Meat? More like Obama hacking the constitution with a hammer and sickle. Am I right quantum? Am I right?

Oh wait, wrong thread.

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^BoneRemake:
"can someone fill me in on why the Blow out preventer did not work ? The B.O.P is in the picture, right above it its leaking, is the bop messed up or non functional or what ? "
Well I am glad I did not post that before watching it all. So mr BP president, WHY OH WHY THE HELL DIDNT THE BOP WORK ? thats the things main job.. thats it only job. When all is said and done and independent investigations are away with , I really hope that its not because of a old bop that bp just did not want to replace. They should have two blow out presenters then !


BP doesn't produce the Blow-out preventers, they just use the ones that were on Transoceans rig, which Transocean placed on their rig. If you are going to blame this all on a blowout preventor fail, find the source of who makes the BOP that was used on the rig. Not only that, but do you know how hard it is to simply replace a BOP when it is in that deep of water? Not to mention the fact that they didn't know it would not work. Many of the workers on those kind of rigs say that the rigs managed by BP are some of the safest in the industry.


As for another earlier comment, "Those amoral greedy motherfuckers at BP are STILL trying to deregulate offshore drilling practices, even in the Arctic where the environment is way more vulnerable to these kinds of disasters."
Can you provide some evidence? And if its true, I'm sure the entire industry feels the same way. Don't just pick one company.


Furthermore, this rig wasn't even BP's. It is owned by Transocean. BP was essentially renting it to help them drill the well. BP has spent millions of dollars trying to clean this up, because they felt it was their duty since they were renting it. Putting all the blame on them is unfair.


You're inadvertantly falling for their racket- BP rents the rig precisely because it allows them to minimize liability and provide a level of deniability for their responsibility when- and I do stress when- these types of disasters occur. It is very exactly fair to blame them for this catastrophe, but don't shed a tear for poor BP. The US's tax laws will allow them to write off every penny of the clean-up costs.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The biggest disaster to hit America is Barack Hussein Obama. Oil rig fail? Shit happens. But the non-stop war on the American way of life from the Red House Regime is far more dangerous and insidious than some oil spill that will be forgotten in a year.


Thank you for reminding us all just what an asshole troll you are.