@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

And if you would like to listen to all these songs in this list on spotify
https://embed.spotify.com/?uri=spotify:user:126633862:playlist:6g85gv0Z2sU9Jq1DveZBwR

1. Cannonball - The Breeders
2. The New Pollution - Beck
3. Battle of Who Could Care Less - Ben Folds Five
4. Mrs. Robinson - The Lemonheads
5. Push Th' Little Daisies - Live - Ween, The Shit Creek Boys
6. Standing Outside a Broken Phone Booth with Money in My Hand - Primitive Radio Gods
7. Queer - Garbage
8. Semi-Charmed Life - Third Eye Blind
9. Cut Your Hair (Remastered) - Pavement
10. In The Meantime - Spacehog
11. Undone -- The Sweater Song - Weezer
12. I Alone - Live
13. Got You (Where I Want You) - The Flys
14. One - U2
15. Jeremy - Pearl Jam
16. Stutter - Elastica
17. Not an Addict - K's Choice
18. The Beautiful People - Marilyn Manson
19. You Oughta Know - Alanis Morissette
20. Man In The Box - Alice In Chains
21. Soul To Squeeze - Red Hot Chili Peppers
22. Lithium - Nirvana
23. What's Up - 4 Non Blondes
24. Laid - James
25. Wynona's Big Brown Beaver - Primus
26. The Sidewinder Sleeps Tonite - R.E.M.
27. People Of The Sky - Sloan
28. Good - Better Than Ezra
29. Gel - Collective Soul
30. Zombie - The Cranberries
31. Girls And Boys - Blur
32. Dyslexic Heart - Paul Westerberg
33. Your New Cuckoo - The Cardigans
34. Get Off This - Cracker
35. A Long December- Counting Crows
36. Self Esteem - The Offspring
37. Don't Speak - No Doubt
38. Silently - That Dog

To clarify this is London, Sloane Street. The Mazda comes out of a two way street onto a two way into the path of the Lambo. The Lambo clearly has the right of way but the Lambo appears IMO to be going way too fast. I think both will be getting nailed on their insurance.

That's actually pretty fantastic. A good friend of mine is a fire performer so I've seen most of these tricks before, but the camera work is really well done.

In reply to this comment by geo321:

Fire Technicians - 2011 Group Promo (HD) from Brandon Sloan on Vimeo.

Fire Technicians - 2011 Group Promo (HD) from Brandon Sloan on Vimeo.

Lebron still misses the full-court understanding and vision that Jordan had. I could say only John Stockton, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson was that far, mentally as a leader--he lacked the "ego" to force plays to happen to other guys; Karl did what Sloan wanted or Karl did what Karl wanted. Lebron is a good defender, very athletic, and a prolific scorer.

He has a way to go and grow. Basically, he NEEDS to learn how to lead; and to be like Jordan you have to grow a third-eye. Kobe had/has this same issue. Amazing player still.

Wish I could quality this so much...

LeBron "What Should I Do?"™ James (he'll always be THAT to me no matter how many rings he has, he'll always be a coward, "I need to get a championship by ponying up on a team with all my all-star buddies and make the NBA season a complete waste of time except for us the Lakers and the team that might beat us because I might be moody...", etc... and his Heat are a joke; along with this years NBA season--which bears repeating. I'm a Jazz fan, so I can sympathize with having players that were on your team, but are whiny bitches (that's more a Carlos Boozer issue; plays great when he shuts-up and also shows up to the game as long as his bunion is OK)...

D-Will and Sloan just sucked. It'll be a bit before the jazz are working again. You can especially tell this, because we're losing our home games--which doesn't happen at all usually; atleast it didn't happen under Sloan...

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^mizila:
In fact, I think atheists tend to appreciate life more and just plain be happier.
Actually, David Sloan Wilson in an amazing experiment using the "Experience Sampling Method" pioneered by Csikszentmihalyi (the guy who investigated psychological "flow" experiences) found the following:
"On average, religious believers are more prosocial than non-believers, feel better about themselves, use their time more constructively, and engage in long-term planning rather than gratifying their impulsive desires. On a moment-by-moment basis, they report being more happy, active, sociable, involved and excited. Some of these differences remain even when religious and non-religious believers are matched for their degree of prosociality." (From this article in which Sloan takes issues with some of Dawkins' statements in The God Delusion.)
So technically, your statement just hasn't been borne out by scientific investigation. That's not to say ALL religious people are happier than atheists. We're talking in the aggregate: on average, religious people tend to be happier (along with having other benefits). This should, of course, in no way interfere with your happiness as an atheist. You personally might be happier than everyone else that Wilson studied. But that doesn't mean everybody in the world besides you is better off without religion.
EDIT: What I would say, I guess, is that some people are happier and more productive being religious and others are happier and more productive being atheist. Depends on the individual.


Like Karl Marx said, religion is a drug. But what I would add is that instead of being opium, it's a mild performance enhancing drug. At least that's what religious people think. But it's simply a placebo: religious people think that by believing in god they are protected/doing good/gaining eternal afterlife/etc. and so they feel better. Classic self-fulfilling prophecy type of thing. The problem of course is that this changes their mental balance, and if something comes that challenge their world view they will get angry, like the addict you try to reason with. If something happens to make their religious worldview crumble, they get depressed, i.e. withdrawal syndrome.

On the other hand atheists are always on neutral. If new scientific evidence challenge their worldview, they'll just say "well, my experience of the world is the same, but my understanding of that experience must change". This is exactly to the contrary of the religious, who always thinks that his experience of the world itself is at stake. Religious people think their experience of the world includes a god, when in fact only their understanding of the world - gotten from the Bible or whatever source of authority - includes a god to explain Everything Else. This is why, I think, the theological debate hasn't advanced in two thousand years: religious types try to prove or disprove the experience of a god - which with the way they usually define god is impossible either way - whereas scientific types say with Laplace that a god is a superfluous hypothesis in the understanding of the experience we have of the world.

So atheists are more mentally stable and view the world and our experience of it in a more reasonable, detached manner. These, I think, are two things needed for humankind to not destroy itself with its own technological marvels. With this in min, it is no wonder that fundamentalists think global warming and weapons of mass destruction are "necessary" : they think the world is ok as it is and all is well with their god's plan, whereas they must also protect themselves against the guys that do not believe in their own god (the atheist commies and the islamic terrorists).

>> ^mizila:

In fact, I think atheists tend to appreciate life more and just plain be happier.

Actually, David Sloan Wilson in an amazing experiment using the "Experience Sampling Method" pioneered by Csikszentmihalyi (the guy who investigated psychological "flow" experiences) found the following:

"On average, religious believers are more prosocial than non-believers, feel better about themselves, use their time more constructively, and engage in long-term planning rather than gratifying their impulsive desires. On a moment-by-moment basis, they report being more happy, active, sociable, involved and excited. Some of these differences remain even when religious and non-religious believers are matched for their degree of prosociality." (From this article in which Sloan takes issues with some of Dawkins' statements in The God Delusion.)

So technically, your statement just hasn't been borne out by scientific investigation. That's not to say ALL religious people are happier than atheists. We're talking in the aggregate: on average, religious people tend to be happier (along with having other benefits). This should, of course, in no way interfere with your happiness as an atheist. You personally might be happier than everyone else that Wilson studied. But that doesn't mean everybody in the world besides you is better off without religion.

EDIT: What I would say, I guess, is that some people are happier and more productive being religious and others are happier and more productive being atheist. Depends on the individual.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Sloan - Losing California. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The majority of Americans out of work do not qualify for unemployment insurance, but we all pay for the privileged few who do to get them. Once again a case of the lowest of the low financing the people who have a leg up already keep that leg up.


The lower/middle class unemployed are "privileged" to be so? Get a clue you heartless selfish lowlife. You really need to look in the mirror. Bitch about a leak in your roof when the river is running thru the neighbors house. (yeah, I know, it ain't your problem...)

For all you that praise Bunning, take a look at this info on his "NON-profit" foundation.

Jim Bunning Foundation

On December 18, 2008, the Lexington Herald Leader reported that Sen. Bunning's non-profit foundation, the Jim Bunning Foundation, has given less than 25 percent of its proceeds to charity. The charity has taken in $504,000 since 1996, according to Senate and tax records; during that period, Senator Bunning was paid $180,000 in salary by the foundation while working a reported one hour per week. Bunning Foundation board members include his wife Mary, and Cincinnati tire dealer Bob Sumerel. In 2008, records indicate that Bunning attended 10 baseball shows around the country and signed autographs, generating $61,631 in income for the charity.[38] "The whole thing is very troubling," said Melanie Sloan, Executive Director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Well it was a live album released in 2006, and he had two studio albums (i think) before that. I haven't heard anything after 'desireless,' i was just reading up on him while rediscovering the album. 1998 was just an incredible year for music. There are a few albums I haven't really stopped listening to from that year, mostly Canadian releases. 'Clayton Park' by Thrush Hermit, 'Silent Radar' by The Watchmen, 'Navy Blues' by Sloan... man I love the late 90's.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by rosekat:
Interesting find. I listened to this album again a month ago, there are a few great songs there. He did release a couple albums since then, including his most recent release in 2006, of live material.


he released an album in 2006?was it any good?i loved his earlier stuff..downtempo and chill.

I may be way off base here, but Vader here sounds very much like the guy that does Chad Vader. Does anyone know if they're one and the same?

Edit: Never mind, answered my own question. It is Matt Sloan of Chad Vader fame.

Yes.
From wiki:

"Matt Sloan is the voice of Darth Vader in LucasArts' Empire at War: Forces of Corruption[2][3] and LucasArts' The Force Unleashed. Despite for Sloan being a local comedian and voice actor, LucasArts were impressed by his Darth Vader impression.
"

Sloan rocks!