Tags for this video have been changed from 'Pink Panther, tune, song, theme, band, group, live, televised, television, TV, live, stage' to 'Pink Panther, tune, song, theme, band, group, live, televised, Henry Mancini, stage' - edited by Fantomas

Wait ... what? I'm just pointing out a CNN reporter said $50 minus $42 is $7 on live television as a matter of fact. Sure, she might be leaving out the change, but then you round up to not look like you can't add?

EDIT - Oh wait, misinterpreted your comment, my bad.

Your video, That moment Saddam Hussein took power on live television., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It's officially known as a report on the "Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series." In lay-speak, it's a study of just how long the current pause in global warming has lasted. And the results are profound:

According to Canadian Ross McKitrick, a professor of environmental economics who wrote the paper for the Open Journal of Statistics, "I make the duration out to be 19 years at the surface and 16 to 26 years in the lower troposphere depending on the data set used."

In still plainer English, McKitrick has crunched the numbers from all the major weather organizations in the world and has found that there has been no overall warming at the Earth's surface since 1995 - that's 19 years in all.

During the past two decades, there have been hotter years and colder years, but on the whole the world's temperatures have not been rising. Despite a 13 per cent rise in carbon dioxide levels over the period, the average global temperature is the same today as it was almost 20 years ago.

In the lower atmosphere, there has been no warming for somewhere between 16 and 26 years, depending on which weather organization's records are used.

Not a single one of the world's major meteorological organizations - including the ones the United Nations relies on for its hysterical, the-skies-are-on-fire predictions of environmental apocalypse - shows atmospheric warming for at least the last 16 years. And some show no warming for the past quarter century.

This might be less significant if some of the major temperature records showed warming and some did not. But they all show no warming.

Even the records maintained by devoted eco-alarmists, such as the United Kingdom's Hadley Centre, show no appreciable warming since the mid-1990s.

Despite continued cymbal-crashing propaganda from environmentalists and politicians who insist humankind is approaching a critical climate-change tipping point, there is no real evidence this is true.

There are no more hurricanes than usual, no more typhoons or tornadoes, floods or droughts. What there is, is more media coverage more often.

Forty years ago when a tropical storm wiped out villages on a South Pacific Island there might have been pictures in the newspaper days or weeks later, then nothing more. Now there is live television coverage hours after the fact and for weeks afterwards.

That creates the impression storms are worse than they used to be, even though statistically they are not.

While the UN's official climate-scare mouthpiece, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has acknowledged the lack of warming over the past two decades, it has done so very quietly. What's more, it has not permitted the facts to get in the way of its continued insistence that the world is going to hell in a hand basket soon unless modern economies are crippled and more decision-making power is turned over to the UN and to national bureaucrats and environmental activists.

Later this month in New York, the UN will hold a climate summit including many of the world's leaders. So frantic are UN bureaucrats to keep the climate scare alive they have begun a worldwide search for what they themselves call a climate-change "Malala."

That's a reference to Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani schoolgirl who was shot in the head by the Taliban after demanding an education. Her wounding sparked a renewed, worldwide concern for women's rights.

The new climate spokeswoman must be a female under 30, come from a poor country and have been the victim of a natural disaster.

If the facts surrounding climate-disaster predictions weren't falling apart, the UN wouldn't such need a sympathetic new face of fear.

Live Television VS Earthquakes has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

Sometimes being heinously dumb is the correct response. I defy you to find a more adequate response to sports news.

Seriously.

The validity of a pastime requires only itself as fulfillment, which is entirely subjective. Whether you mechanically understand statistics to marvel your peers or get shit faced and punish your public image on live television for the amusement of your peers, I don't see any moral implications that don't already implicate the entirety of sporting events and human society as a whole.

People lead.
People follow.

People like to revel in their intelligence.
People like to revel in their stupidity.

Ok, but there's been maybe a couple of cases where military interventions were conducted for humanitarian reasons, this wasn't one of them.

Actually we have an interesting history with Libya. The bombing of Libya in 1986 was the first bombing ever to be conducted for Live Television. It took careful planning but it happened just when nightly news came on in the united states, and they don't have bureaus in Libya so they had to find out that this stuff was going on well before in order to get people to film it.

The US has never been interested in humanitarian intervention and should never be given false credit for it.

Also, to contrast 1969 with present day - everything we see on live television TODAY, CAN be faked with current video tech.

This is just "Gun Theater." It's merely a distraction to those people upset about guns. Nobody answers any questions, nobody says anything new, both sides present their rhetoric in a new and even more passionate way.
No one learns anything but instead we are even more hardened to our original viewpoints. THIS IS NOT GOOD TV. and we pay to watch it and there are ads... good god... millions of dollars in production costs, state of the art live television, full orchestra accompaniment... fills our hearts with bile and venom.

>> ^legacy0100:

The show host keept interrupting Ms. Gillard whenver she gets to speak, and I find it rather annoying. On a bigger matter I happen to agree with Julia Gillard on her views of Assange. This man just loves to stir shit up and gain more attention.
Many journalist who has worked with past whistle blowers made contacts with Assange and later cut ties with him because they were was put off by his character. They often described Assange of "having his own agenda."


When it comes down to it, doesn't everyone have their own agenda?

"Here it comes"

Possibly the most perfectly timed ironic use of that phrase on live television...

The Fox News website doesn't seem to work on Firefox, FF must have an automatic anti-bullshit-addon pre-installed

I was trying to find the full video, because I want to see what this video looks like unedited.. If anyone could post that, I would love that.

Do you guys think Stewart didn't go on live television, because he didn't want to, or so Bill O'Reilly could cut up the vid to his own lokings afterwards? I think the latter.

Nice sift, demon_ix, Steward did pretty well, and although I agree with JiggaJonson that he could have said a lot more things, it's no use with a guy like Bill to try and shout every time he says something stupid.

I will go and watch the old video with Stephen Colbert at O'Reillys' show now He may probably never come back there, because he absolutely destroyed Bill that show

Other uploads of "A woman kills her husband on cheated!!! Live television mayhem. Uncensored!"

http://www.google.com/search?q=A+woman+kills+her+husband+on+cheated!!!+Live+television+mayhem.+Uncensored!&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz
=1R1GGGL_en___US359

Veoh three weeks ago.

Unrelated, but Profiler 1 also appears to be pseudo-scientific junk. I think we should *bandy this about.

A woman kills her husband on cheated!!! Live television mayhem. Uncensored!
Profiler1 dot com style !
Cheers,
Han.

I find this sift to be somewhat fishy!!! Sifter did not vote on own video. Spammer!
In that website and video are all advertisement content style !

Cheers,
Kev.

(PS. Note the second probie account 'bermanyaniv' that was also created today and whose only contribution has been to vote on this one video. Any bets on the IPs of both accounts being similar?)

Rush is incapable of being wrong. Even if court ordered, he would find some way, not to correct himself. Someone, who can go on live television, and admit their mistake, and correct things, is a classy person.

Although, it doesn't help Rush's case that on more then one occasion (and not just the ones Rachel), he has behaved with a racists slant on things. Does the topic of 'immigration' ring any bells? How often does he complain about French citizens, illiegally sliding in through Mexico, verse, Mexicans? I rest my case.