@dannym3141, I understand that you are "stepping out of the debate," but, for your edification, I'll respond here... And, for the record, I am not "funded" by Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Solar, or Big Green. Nor am I a professor of climate or environmental science at a State University (and don't have a political agenda around this issue other than to help promote sound reasoning and critical thinking). I do, however, hold a doctorate and can read the scientific literature critically. So, in response to what climate change "believers" say, it's worth noting that no one is actually taking the temperature of the seas. They simply see sea levels rising and say "global warming," but how do they know? It's a model they came up with. But far from certain, just a theory. Like Antarctica melting, but then someone finds out that it's due to volcanic activity underneath, and so on.

And also, why is the heat then staying in the water and not going into the atmosphere? So, they then have to come up with a theory on top of the other theory... So the heat is supposedly being stored deep below where the sensors cannot detect it. Great. And this is happening because...some other theory or another that can't be proven either. And then they have to somehow come up with a theory as to how they know that the deep sea warming is due to human activity and not to other causes. I'm not denying that any of this happens, just expressing skepticism, meaning that no one really knows for sure. That folks would "bet the house on it" does not serve as any proof, at all.

The discussion on the sift pivots from "global warming" to vilifying skeptics, not about the original skepticism discussed, that there is catastrophic man-caused global warming going on. Three issues yet to be proven beyond skepticism: 1) that there is global warming; 2) that it is caused by human activity; 3) that it's a big problem.

When I ask about one, they dance around to another one of these points, rather than responding. And all they have in response to the research is the IPCC "report" on which all their science is based. And most if not all published "believers" say that the heat "may be hiding" in the deep ocean, not that they "certainly know it is" like they seem to claim.

They don't have knowledge that the scientists who are actively working on this do not have, do they? It's like the IRS saying, "My computer crashed." The IPCC says, "The ocean ate my global warming!"

Here are some links worth reading:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274

And, from a different rebuttal: "Referring to the 17 year ‘pause,’ the IPCC allows for two possibilities: that the sensitivity of the climate to increasing greenhouse gases is less than models project and that the heat added by increasing CO2 is ‘hiding’ in the deep ocean. Both possibilities contradict alarming claims."

Here's the entire piece from emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen: http://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-understanding-ipcc-climate-assessment/

And take your pick from all of the short pieces listed here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/08/is-gores-missing-heat-really-hiding-in-the-deep-ocean/

And http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/

"Just where the heat is and how much there is seems to depend on who is doing the modeling. The U.S. National Oceanographic Data Center ARGO data shows a slight rise in global ocean heat content, while the British Met Office, presumably using the same data shows a slight decline in global ocean heat content."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/03/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-2/#sthash.idQttama.dpuf

Dr. Lindzen had this to say about the IPCC report: "I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/01/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-1/#sthash.oMO3oy6X.dpuf

So just as "believers" can ask "Why believe Heartland [financier for much of the NPCC], but not the IPCC," I can just as easily ask "Why should I believe you and not Richard Lindzen?"

"CCR-II cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers to show that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide controls."

And from the same author's series:

"Human carbon dioxide emissions are 3% to 5% of total carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, and about 98% of all carbon dioxide emissions are reabsorbed through the carbon cycle.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf

"Using data from the Department of Energy and the IPCC we can calculate the impact of our carbon dioxide emissions. The results of that calculation shows that if we stopped all U.S. emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.003 C per year. If every country totally stopped human emissions, we might forestall 0.01 C of warming."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/08/01/climate-change-in-perspective/#sthash.Dboz3dC5.dpuf

Again, I have asked, repeatedly, where's the evidence of human impact on global warming? "Consensus" is not evidence. I ask for evidence and instead I get statements about the consensus that global warming happening. These are two different issues.

"Although Earth’s atmosphere does have a “greenhouse effect” and carbon dioxide does have a limited hypothetical capacity to warm the atmosphere, there is no physical evidence showing that human carbon dioxide emissions actually produce any significant warming."

Or Roger Pielke, Sr: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/pielke-sr-on-that-hide-and-seek-ocean-heat/

Or Lennart Bengtsoon (good interview): "Yes, the scientific report does this but, at least in my view, not critically enough. It does not bring up the large difference between observational results and model simulations. I have full respect for the scientific work behind the IPCC reports but I do not appreciate the need for consensus. It is important, and I will say essential, that society and the political community is also made aware of areas where consensus does not exist. To aim for a simplistic course of action in an area that is as complex and as incompletely understood as the climate system does not make sense at all in my opinion."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/meteorologist-lennart-bengtsson-joins-climate-skeptic-think-tank-a-968856.html

Bengtsson: "I have always been a skeptic and I believe this is what most scientists really are."

What Michael Crichton said about "consensus": "Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Will Happer on the irrelevancy of more CO2 now: "The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds."

Ivar Giaever, not a climate scientist per se, but a notable scientist and also a skeptic challenging "consensus": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

Even prominent IPCC scientists are skeptics, even within the IPCC there is not agreement: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/

And for your research, it may be worth checking out: http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/dp/0521010683

"OMG global warming!"

Mom did a great job. All their acting was great actually.

Excellent choreography and special effects and gore. They really went all out.

*quality

I'd always vote Game of Thrones over Lord of the Rings.

Blaming me for the destruction of the planet or whatever else seems... looney, at best.

"I've never met one that wasn't, and I know hundreds of scientists."

Send me (privately) the names and numbers of these hundreds of climate scientists and I'll conduct a survey. Or perhaps you should spend your days debating every single person online... Y'know.. for fun.

The authors of this article (both of them meteorology professors) have better climate science credentials than you do. One even served within the climate group that shared the Nobel prize with Al Gore for climate change advocacy.

(you may have to search for it online if this link does not let you read the full article)


If you really care about climate change, these are the folks you should be debating.. Not me... And not random people on videosift.

Good luck!

"Messrs. McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Al Gore."

Raise up to a higher level

Nuh-uh - trailer wreckage is not gore/snuff. You're assuming too much, Mr. Morbid Michael Bay.

As far as I can tell it would get no votes because Videosift (thankfully) doesn't allow gore/snuff videos.

Can't stand politics. Apolitical. In a reasonable world, politicians would be rounded-up and placed in internment camps awaiting trial for crimes against humanity....Or wait, that's too harsh-Dress 'em in clown make-up, strip 'em naked and toss em one by one into oncoming roller-derby traffic for a few healthy rounds of clothes-hanging.

'No Country' and 'True Grit' of the last 7 films (did love the scenes with Richard Jenkins and J.K.Simmons though in Burn After Reading, otherwise that film was simply hard to watch) and of course Lebowski and O brother....but seriously....Inside Llewyn Davis? What more of a complete piece of shit can one imagine?

Imagine if you will, two Jewish men driving down the street laughing at people while throwing burning hundred-dollar bills out the window.

A series as a nod to Fargo screams rehash of pop-culture on the fucking skids and a reason to spend your cable money on learning to plasma-weld or something.....

Welcome back BTW @volumptuous. Still got yer Aunt Jemima Cookie Jar

Last time I tried to vote they turned me away at the polls in that rigged election-machine Gore/Bush election back in 2000....I was gonna write-in a made-up name. I realized that year that my mission was to decry all presidential elections as complete and utter farce and an insult to the collective consciousness.

Who the hell takes children to watch the slaughter and dismemberment of an animal?

I understand it can have some sort of residual educational purpose, but still...it's pretty gore.

reminded me of that curb scene in American History X...
I can deal with blood and gore and violence, but that scene really makes me cringe.

I wonder if Al Gore didn't make his movie if this issue wouldn't have become a political boondoggle

About a week ago I opened my wallet at a bar or a bank or something, and I received a compliment for having a library card in my wallet. O.G. Huntington Beach and Westminster Library card holder representin'!

Before the internet, the common man was dumber than shit and my edge was that I read books at the library. In fact, it was NOT cool to know things about things.

Now I'm comparitively dumb because motherfuckers be like "3rd law of thermodynamics, pssshhh, I know EVERYTHING bout that." /ALTAVISTA

I mean, that's cool that people know things now --but, damn, having that edge was really nice.

And then I had the internet and no one did, and my edge was even huger. I made bank designing shitty ass webpages for shitty ass old people with shitty ass businesses. Now everyone gots it and the people with money laid down the pressure and it's a machine of controlled behavior and wallet squeezing. (I squeeze wallets for a living but it's more in sync with Winston Smith working for big bro.)

But I digress... Shhhhh, I'm on my iPhone -- nope, A BOOK.

Bring it back! Don't let Barnes & Nobles close dooooowwwwn. You may dis on the B&N, but that's part of the levee of popular opinion; how assholes of the future will monetize. If our corporate overlords and money trading thugs realize that books ain't selling, they won't hesitate to shut down a library. For the people. For the taxes. For God. You got a book. It's the bible now STFU.

Then we'll only have the internet and information will successfully be filtered down into an easily manipulated data stream -- which it is, but it's not fully there yet. We need to INTEGRATE FACEBOOK WITH EVERY ASPECT OF EXISTENCE.

Shut down all printing presses. When you pick up a book in the future it will turn to dust in your hands and then the CAVE PEOPLE WILL DEVOUR YOU.

Brains. Brains. Nom. Guts and gore. Your children will be eaten alive; torn to shreds, while blood flows out of their arteries into the machines of death.. Force fucked women of your sub-species impregnated by the semen of the dead in order to make more food. More foooooooooooooood -- YOUR PROGENY ARE FOOD.

And all because of the system which interrupts a motherfuck for reading a book.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Gore-Vidal-on-Media-and-Government

Gore Vidal on the media has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims on that post.

Gore Vidal on Media and Government has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims.

So they are implying I won't kill game characters because they look real? It can look as good as real life and I will kill game characters... Why? Because they have no soul, and no matter how good the gore and graphics look, that is fundamental of me killing them.

Just be glad I believe real people have a soul, otherwise I would feel the same way about killing you, your family, your dog and anything else purposed to be "real".