Your video, Noam Chomsky on Stupid People, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

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.

Your video, noam chomsky-why marijuana is illegal and tobacco is legal, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, noam chomsky-the military is misunderstood, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 7 Badge!

Well they're both Wars committed by the same Empire but they're not really that similar at all. Noam Chomsky talks about it a lot, you can find a talk about it if you google it. Off the top of my head though the Protesting is completely different. We outright attacked Vietnam and there was no protest for around 5 years. Iraq had major protests before the war even began, that's something that's never happened in history and it really helped. Iraq could've been much much worse, but protests around the world and within Iraq itself prevented the US from completely owning the country. They had to concede and let them have their own free election, which they had no intention of doing on the Iraqis terms.

You should do the research though, it's pretty interesting, there's not really too many parallels though.

I love VS for these kinds of debates, but I see some straw-man arguments going on here.

First, not every Palestinian belongs to Hamas. In fact, the majority of the population does not belong to Hamas. Similarly, very few Germans were actually members of the Nazi party. German citizens backed the Nazis because they felt they were the best hope for getting Germany's economy out of the toilet, getting Germany out of what the citizens perceived as the unfair terms of the Versailles Treaty, and protecting Germany from (Nazi manufactured) external threats. Again, similarly, Palestinians back Hamas because they see Hamas as the best hope of dealing with Israeli oppression.

For 45 years the world (read: United States) has shown little interest in stopping the Israelis--who are supplied with arms and training by the United States-- from forcibly displacing people from their homes and relocating them to what Chomsky calls "the world's largest open-air prison."

How could the Palestinian people possibly expect to defend themselves against Israel in an open and conventional conflict? The Palestinian people back terrorism because it works--it forces Israel to the negotiating table. Consistently, these Israeli "flexing our big muscles" incursions and retaliations by the military have failed completely to stop rocket attacks, suicide bombs, etc. and at some point they must always go to the negotiating table. A side benefit is that the terrorist attacks and subsequent negotiations get the world's media eye focused on the region and what Israel is doing there.

So this talk about whether Hamas are terrorists or freedom fighters is besides the point. They're terrorists to Israelis and they're freedom fighters to the Palestinians. Israel and the U.S. are just as much terrorists as Hamas if not more so. You can watch Chomsky clearly explain why on this Sift: http://videosift.com/video/noam-chomsky-is-america-a-leading-terrorist-state

Second, let's look at the casualties from this latest conflict:
Israel: 3 Israeli's dead, 60 injured from shrapnel (all adults according to latest reports)
Palestine: 100s dead, including 26 children

Yet, Israel tries to spin its military campaign as one of self-defense. The balance of power is so skewed here it's comical.

If there is any hope for peace in this region, it will only come after the U.S. not only stops actively supporting Israel but openly condemns them as well. But that can't possibly happen without the U.S. looking supremely hypocritical about the actions it takes globally (for instance in Afghanistan) in the name of the "War on Terror."

From there, as others have mentioned, you have to stop the occupation and bring both sides together on equal terms. Yes, there will still be fanatics who will fight to the end. But they won't be finding the sympathy and support of the majority of the populace if that populace is no longer oppressed and instead is living in free and safe conditions. Without that popular support, those fanatics will be much easier to deal with than they are now. It's not going to be an easy road to peace because hatred has been bred into both sides so deeply. But I do think it is possible if only the U.S. government will get its head out of its ass.

My 2 cents, anyways.

EDIT: Please don't take this post to mean that I support terrorism in any form or think that it is justified by the Israeli occupation. I am only pointing out the historical fact that terrorism gives the Palestinians pretty much their ONLY bargaining chip at the negotiating table--the Palestinian leadership (whoever is in charge at the time, though it is currently Hamas) agrees to reign in the terror attacks in exchange for humanitarian aid such as food, building supplies, etc. In other words, it "works" in achieving short-term goals but clearly doesn't help achieve lasting peace in the region--which as others have pointed out Hamas doesn't really want anyway.

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*promote


i lub joo!!!

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
*quality


thanks bro!!

>> ^CaptainObvious:

>> ^Asmo:
>> ^CaptainObvious:
Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |
Or, ya know, the right of self determination?

"The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists...
The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments... such as the torture, rape, and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians....
...execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists), and restrictions on [[freedom of religion[[ and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion)...
...execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes....
Under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s human rights record "has deteriorated markedly," ... --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_
Iran
Not all countries are built the same.
"right of self determination" - well, where do you draw the line? Can dictators pull this card out as well?


You are conflating two entirely different issues, and doing a bad job of it to boot...

Iran has done the same things for years, but the only thing that get's the US and Israel wet is when nuclear is involved. Don't kid yourself for a second in believing either country would go in to save the people from a dictatorial regime, all they care about is someone else dealing themselves in to the nuclear game. I suspect you know this very well of course but it makes a much more compelling case to break out the violins and claim the action is humanitarian.

Yes. Every government has the right to self-determination. On what grounds could you think otherwise? As soon as a dictator appears, does that give the US the moral or legal right to militarily dictate that country's defence strategy? Nope. Neither.>> ^CaptainObvious:

"right of self determination" - well, where do you draw the line? Can dictators pull this card out as well?

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^CaptainObvious:
Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |
Or, ya know, the right of self determination?


"The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists...

The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments... such as the torture, rape, and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians....

...execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists), and restrictions on [[freedom of religion[[ and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion)...

...execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes....

Under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s human rights record "has deteriorated markedly," ... --

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

Not all countries are built the same.

"right of self determination" - well, where do you draw the line? Can dictators pull this card out as well?

>> ^CaptainObvious:

Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.


What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |

Or, ya know, the right of self determination?

Fuck no.

Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.

ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.

I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.

I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.

Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.

We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.

The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.

One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.

---------

"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

In reply to this comment by Norsuelefantti:
You are preaching to the choir, my friend.
In reply to this comment by Yogi:
In reply to this comment by Norsuelefantti:
The sarcasm button is only for craven sifters, who are afraid to stand by their words.


If you want to compare Israeli crimes to Palestinian crimes, you know Israel has committed way more acts of aggressing and killed way more people. It's going to be no contest, not even Alan Dershowitz could argue that with Noam Chomsky, he looked like a retard.



I'll preach to your choir you son of a bitch! And that's why we use sarcasm button.