I don't cut and paste, moron, unless they are my own words.
I leave that to idiots like you.

I note your inability to address any of the points I made. It's much easier to cast aspersions than think for yourself. BTW, Chomsky has ZERO credibility and no credentials in the field of climate science. He might take a walk across the yard at M.I.T. and consult with a real expert, like Prof. Richard Lindzen who, I am sure, is not pontificating about linguistics and expecting to be taken seriously..

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits in the lamestream media mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.” Al Gore and Henry Waxman have become masters at this. Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics. Once he ventures outside of his specialty, he’s just a run-of-the-mill leftist loon.

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”), a fact totally lost, or grossly misrepresented, by global warming religionists.

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat.

Contrary to morons such as Al Gore (who will never agree to debate the topic, so fearful is he of getting his clock cleaned), scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, temperatures have flat-lined. They are now at 14.5 degrees Celsius which is exactly where they were in 1997. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Malloy is just the latest in a long line of demagogic politicians trying to capitalize on the scare. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.”

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”).

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat. The scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, as Mr. Hart correctly points out, temperatures have flat-lined or declined. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term. Obama has already wasted billions trying to fix a non-problem.
And now he’s even orchestrating the mindless followers of a new secular religion to march on the Mall to advance this silly agenda.

I'm at a loss. Knife fighting? I see no knife combat anywhere. Is it something I'm missing within the linguistics?

He is a member of the Industrial Workers of the World, who's stated goal is the destruction of capitalism and wage labor. Chomsky is a linguist and likes to play word games, but words mean things.
At the least, he is more pro-commie than pro-capitalism. He makes his living off of the wages of others, so I don't know why he's so pro-communism. Perhaps he could make more money if his socialist utopia was realized.

^ You can make all of that make sense by simply shifting your epistemological position to the only ones which truly make sense i.e. phenomenology &/or perspectivism.

To rephrase that in less impenetrable terms:
"Materialism" (or in your case I assume "Scientific Materialism") that is to say 'matter is primary', from a philosophers POV is a deeply flawed assumption. Flawed because there appears to be not one experience in human history that did not occur entirely within the mind.
When one see's say a Dog, one only ever experiences the images and sensations occurring within ones mind. You don't see the photons hitting your retina, only the way your mind as interpreted the data.

However the opposite position "Idealism" (mind is primary) is also fundamentally flawed in the exact opposite way. If our minds are the only "real" things then where exactly are they? And how do we even derive logic and reason if there is not something outside of ourselves which it describes? etc. etc.

Philosophers like Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre' got around this by defining a new category, "phenomena". We know for certain that "phenomena" exist in some sense because we experience them, the categories of mind and matter then become secondary properties, both only existing as definitions we apply retrospectively to experiences. i.e. stuff happens and then our brains kick in and say "that happened because of X because in the past X has preceded similar experiences" or "that thing looks like other examples of Y so is probably Y".

The problem then is that this appears to come no closer to telling us what is objectively happening in the universe, it's more like linguistic/logical housekeeping. The phenomenologists and existentialists did a superb job of clearing away all of the old invalid baggage about how we try to describe things, but they did little or nothing to solve the problem of Kants "nouminal world" (i.e. the "real" stuff that we are experiencing by simulation in our minds).

Its stumped philosophers for centuries as we don't appear to have any way to ever get at this "nouminal" or "real" world we naturally assume must exist in some way. But....

I reckon ultimately one of the first western philosophers in history nailed the way out 3000 or so years ago. Pythagoras said "all is number" and due to the work of Euler, Riemann and Fourier in particular I think we can now make it stick. (yeh its turning into an essay sorry )

Without wishing to go deep into a subject you could spend half your life on; Fourier transforms are involved in signal processing. It is a mathematical means by which spatio-temporal signals (e.g. the vibration of a string or the movement of a record needle) can be converted with no meaningful loss of information into frequency (analog) or binary (digital) forms and back again.

Mathematically speaking there is no reason to regard the "signal" as any less "real" whether it is in frequency form or spatio-temporal form. It is the same "signal", it can be converted 100% either direction.

So then here's the biggie: Is there any reason why we could not regard instrumental mathematical numbers and operations (i.e. the stuff we write down and practice as "mathematics") and the phenomena in the universe they appear to describe. I.e. when we use man made mathematical equations to describe and model the behavior of "phenomena" we experience like say Physicists do, could we suggest that we are using a form of Fourier transform? And moreover that this indicates an Ontological (existing objectively outside of yourself) aspect to the mathematical "signals".

Or to put it another way, is mathematics itself really real?

The Reimann sphere and Eulers formula provide a mathematical basis to describe the entirety of known existence in purely mathematical terms, but they indicate that pure ontological mathematics itself is more primary than anything we ever experience. It suggests infact that we ourselves are ultimately reducible to Ontological mathematical phenomena (what Leibniz called "Monads").

What we think of as "reality" could then perhaps be regarded as non dimensional (enfolded) mathematics interacting in such a way as to create the experience of a dimensional (unfolded) universe of extension (such as ours).

(R = distance between two points)
Enfolded universe: R=0
Unfolded universe: R>0

Neither is more "real", they are simply different perspectives from which Ontological mathematics can observe itself.

"Reality": R>=0

I've explained parts of that poorly sorry. Its an immense subject and can be tackedled from many different (often completely incompatible) paradigms. I hope at the very lest I have perhaps demonstrated that the Holographic universe theory could have legs if we combine the advances of scientific exploration (i.e. study of matter) with those of Philosophy and neuroscience (i.e. study of mind & reason itself). The latest big theory doing the rounds with neuroscience is that the mind/consciousness is a fractal phenomenon, which plays into what I've been discussing here more than you might think.

Then again maybe you just wrote me off as a crackpot within the first few lines "lawl" etc..

I already know after watching Chomsky and reading about 30 of his books that this is going to be SUPER Repetitive. It's sad because it's not his fault that he HAS to be super repetitive. Even the people who consider him one of the greatest academics ever don't read his works or pay attention to what he says.

After studying Chomsky for the past decade, I have great respect for him, and very little respect for those who either petulantly criticize or ignorantly quote him.

I mean we live in a world where people analyze Joss Whedons works at Universities with greater deference and specificity (outside of Linguistics of course).

Indeed. It's the difference between allowing the guest (person with information and knowledge beyond that of the novice or aficionado, or layman) the floor in a forum friendly to his cause or of the defining of it.

Fox, MSNBC, (insert corporate news organization here), all have formulas to promote not the free exchange of ideas but the molding of a worldview of her steady patrons using all the wonderful tools in the arsenal of linguistic cybernetics, crowd-psychology, labels and branding....how many can you name??!

The format I gather is the host and co-host, one as devil's advocate with the interviewee free to roam-A well-configured framework for a discussion. No one interrupts on another either, you won't see this on the Telescreens...refreshing.

Also, note the lack of smarmy or smug tone or affectation of the hosts....Is this Canadian??

What is religion anyway? Many of them exude the same principles of which I believe have some truth in all of them. Hinduism and Buddhism probably moreso than others but that is just me and what I have seen and learned.

Though there is definitely more verifiable truth to Math and Science. We were built and evolved in this intergalactic system, a system largely devoted to geometry... and an intergalactic system that we do not know much about.

We hardly even know how our brain functions and even less about the subconscious or what happens when we sleep, we know these aspects of our own being impact us, we can study the brain waves, we can hypnotize, we can slip in different molecules into our serotonin receptors, but we still do not understand why. It is a mystery yet to be solved. Much like this phenomenon we might believe as God. Eventually, I believe that we can figure out the science and it will be mindbogglingly simple creating much complexity. Akin to a simple formula as x=abs(x) or y=abs(y) or m=x*x+y*y or x=x/m+cx or y=y/m+cy. But, math will not contain the science of all of the states of being, spirit realms, and matter that do not relate to us on Earth. In my opinion this is only one life. The science of the next could be completely different.

Is God a deity or a they? The programmers of a gigantic reaction that occurs probably in many more places than we can imagine. Who are connected to everything. Maybe, it was a blob of energy that never knew it could create consciousness and the Earth evolved us to be conscious to protect it. Yeah, great job guys.

No one has that great of an idea because if it is real, it would be absolutely mind blowing and beyond all human comprehension, yet probably very simple once we understood it. There is only one way I know to reach out and touch a little bit of it on Earth and it is absolutely amazing and terrifying all at the same time and beyond human linguistics. Science so far is hardly trying to figure it out but it is science, because if all living things ingest this molecule that resides in everything and then is able to see through dimensional portals, into afterlife, through the universe, think it is dead because it is impossible otherwise... well that is Spirit Science something of which is only beginning to come to fruition.

I just think everyone is somewhat right, even Christianity, hehe, as long as they are teaching compassion and love; there is something to it be it group therapeutic, psychological, or really there is something much bigger going on that science has no way of quantifying. Again, I am not saying anyone is right or wrong but that there are truths in everything and to completely disregard them might not be the best approach, even if it is an amalgamation of prior knowledge so very twisted by imperialists throughout these two thousand plus years.

Science is what we need to get behind to begin unraveling these mysteries, even though it is a slow process. I bet that science will eventually grapple to learn that these mystical underpinnings of religions, cults and ancient sacraments... these things Christians call holy light, prayer, God, resurrection, afterlife, angels... fit into the coding of the universe. If string theory and quantum mechanics did not already open that can of worms up. But, I also doubt that whoever created this thing that we are, wants to be seen and would have put up many barriers, knowing full well that its creations would seek them or it out. Or maybe it is the exact opposite....

I'm going to have to run this by my folks to see if this is linguistically correct. Yes, my folks speak Cantonese. Can't say the same for my bro-in-law's side (Mandarin).

Scientific disciplines that young earth creationism contradicts (from Wiki, which has citations):

Physics and chemistry (including absolute dating methods), geology, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, climatology and dendrochronology among others.

Damn, this scientific conspiracy goes deep!

FF to 17:23 for Harris' incredulous look while Chopra tries to cram linguistic nonsense in his earholes.

I really liked Leonard Molodinov's cameo - he seems quite a good public speaker and quite likeable.

Is the term anti-Semitism confusing? Probably. But that doesn't mean the word "should" be used in one way or another. Words are what they are. "Anti-Semitism" is an English word, and the meaning of that word is "prejudice against Jewish people". The etymology of a word in no way dictates its modern meaning. Languages, especially English, are filled with words that don't reflect their original meaning. Even in your comment, the second word is "refer". It originally meant "to carry again". Now it doesn't. That's language.>> ^vaire2ube:

semitic refers to language origins and should no longer be appropriated to mean "anti-jewish"
arab peoples are semitic as well.
good day.
"...first used to refer to a language family of largely Middle Eastern origin, now called the Semitic languages. This family includes the ancient and modern forms of Akkadian, Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic, Ge'ez, Maltese, Canaanite/Phoenician, Amorite, Eblaite, Ugaritic, Sutean, Chaldean, Mandaic, Ahlamu, Amharic, Tigre and Tigrinya among others.
As language studies are interwoven with cultural studies, the term also came to describe the extended cultures and ethnicities, as well as the history of these varied peoples as associated by close geographic and linguistic distribution.
...a few Semitic languages today are the base of the sacred literature of some of the world's great religions, including Islam (Arabic), Judaism (Hebrew and Aramaic), and Syriac and Ethiopian Christianity (Aramaic/Syriac and Ge'ez). " -wiki

semitic refers to language origins and should no longer be appropriated to mean "anti-jewish"

arab peoples are semitic as well.

good day.

"...first used to refer to a language family of largely Middle Eastern origin, now called the Semitic languages. This family includes the ancient and modern forms of Akkadian, Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic, Ge'ez, Maltese, Canaanite/Phoenician, Amorite, Eblaite, Ugaritic, Sutean, Chaldean, Mandaic, Ahlamu, Amharic, Tigre and Tigrinya among others.

As language studies are interwoven with cultural studies, the term also came to describe the extended cultures and ethnicities, as well as the history of these varied peoples as associated by close geographic and linguistic distribution.

...a few Semitic languages today are the base of the sacred literature of some of the world's great religions, including Islam (Arabic), Judaism (Hebrew and Aramaic), and Syriac and Ethiopian Christianity (Aramaic/Syriac and Ge'ez). " -wiki

It should be stated that Brussels is an entirely different culture from the rest of Belgium. Brussels is surrounded by Flanders, where they all speak Dutch, but once you go into Brussels, it really is a different culture (not only ethnically, but also linguistically - French is spoken in Brussels instead of Dutch). Brussels has very large Moroccan and Turkish populations (~26%), which are machismo cultures on steroids.

>> ^Trancecoach:

racism is the cause, not the effect.>> ^EMPIRE:
so...many...huh......racial...stereotypes.... must..huh......resist... urge... to.... make....racist...... joke.



Hmm... but Latinos are subject to racism (even codified into law, such as in Arizona), have greater linguistic challenges as ESL speakers, and haven't yet closed the US gaps in academic performance, but you never see Latino flash mob robberies, and the average Latino crime rate is actually (contrary to stereotypes) almost as low as the mainstream US crime rate.

At some point it becomes useful to talk about cultural differences and personal accountability, and how we can help kids get out of self-destructive cultures and improve their lives.