*lies

Not only is he not the first, he's a limping snail compared to Dan Osman

Edit: I stand corrected. He is, indeed, faster than Dan

Yep, and as a result each of the stories is progressing at a snail's pace. Also while the premise is interesting I feel the dialogue tries too hard to be deep and meaningful.

Also the nudity is absurdly gratuitous. I get they want to convey the dehumanised aspect of the hosts and that the park is basically a harem to satisfy the carnal pleasures of the wealthy, but they've made that point an umpteen times too many already.

Acting's solid though and production values are obviously insanely high.

That is clearly not true. It may be one of the less toxic human made functioning, profitable herbicides, but that's not what you said by far.

Roundup is not a pesticide, it's an herbicide. Conflating it with pesticides is ridiculous and incredibly misleading. Roundup is used to control weeds and remove genetic 'contamination' of specific crops. EDIT: Many of those crops are genetically modified to act as pesticides without spraying chemicals, which is a good reason to want to limit cross contamination in either direction.

Other alternatives are no chemicals at all, or only ecologically safe (usually natural) chemicals. I don't use chemicals on my farm, I weed, I spray horticulture oil, I spread ashes, I grow twice what I can eat so some loss to insects won't matter, and I remove insects, slugs, and snails by hand. It takes more work, but the statement that the only alternative to Roundup is worse chemicals or agriculture collapse is completely and obviously false and indicates a total ignorance of the issue you speak about.

"Modern Agriculture" today means hydroponics, aeroponics, and aquaponics, none of which can benefit a whit from Roundup. You mean to say "Industrial Agriculture". The collapse of industrial agriculture might not be a bad thing, as it's incredibly destructive and produces a sub par product. More people farming on smaller farms puts more people to work, makes better product, and makes the people who work on the land feel responsible for it's upkeep, not consider it a resource to be exploited as efficiently as possible.

Mentioning Monsanto's involvement in the project is not the same as saying "neither Einstein or Openheimer or others were behind the Manhattan project, it was Monsanto all along that plotted to destroy Japanese cities with nuclear weapons". They clearly implied that Monsanto joined the project as a way to 'cozy up to' the political elite, and it worked.

Where did you hear this ridiculous hypothesis about their motive? Do you see and hear things that other people don't see and hear? It's clear that the motive in all cases was profit, either directly, or future profits secured by 'making friends' in government by cooperating with them or by forcing farmers into untenable contracts and positions where, in some cases, farmers that don't use Monsanto crops were sued because Monsanto said the pollen that pollinated the crops came from a neighbors Monsanto crops, so the seed belongs to Monsanto. Monsanto does not set out to cause damage and harm, they simply don't care if it happens as a side effect of their profit making methods, which they will protect with any means possible.

Just wow, a more deliberately misleading description of the video would be hard to create.

Your video, Scientist attacked by a giant land snail in Madagascar, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Ditto. My areas have plenty of small snails and shellless slugs, and they're bad enough. Argh!

Lots of snails!

Snail: Awolnation Sail Parody has been added as a related post - related requested by lucky760 on that post.

Yes, you did say all that, but you also said none of that is a problem, at least not one to be really worried about. To me, that sounds a lot like climate change denial 3.0, where 1.0 was 'it's not happening at all, don't panic', 2.0 was 'it's happening, but it's natural and normal, don't panic' and 3.0 is 'it's human caused, but no problem, don't panic'. All of those are arguments designed to stall, not to be correct. If I'm reading you wrong, I apologize, but I've heard that argument before from those definitely in that camp.

If the IPCC says it won't be disastrous, yes, we would disagree, because I say it already is, and so have they in their summaries of their last few reports. Just abnormal drought alone is disastrous in many places worldwide already, as is increased flooding in some areas. I did not read the entire PDF's, only what you quoted because they were only linked as downloads/files, and I don't download files from sites I don't recognize.

I linked the first google search pages that came up with water/glacial data, not the other dozen that said the same, or near the same thing, not the NOVA on glacial retreat that said the same thing, not the movie on the same topic with photographic proof of the retreats-Chasing Ice. You ignored that they did list their source for the 2/3 of Chinese cities low on water and the 50% loss of glacial mass per decade as the Chinese military and claimed they were source less so easily dismissed.
As for the diatoms and shellfish, I've seen numerous studies on them, and again just grabbed the first one that came up in a search with data. You seemed to dismiss it as well, but it's not alone. In one snail study I saw, the woman said the last few years it had become nearly impossible to get measurements because the snail shells literally turn to paste in her fingers and weighed nearly nothing! I'm glad to read now that you don't disagree that it's an issue, you only think it's not severe?

I'm not holding my breath on fusion or fission, we've heard the 'we're only 5 years away from fission/fusion' line before about as often as 'Iran is only 2 years away from having a nuclear bomb', but we can agree on wind and solar, except I say it is great for base load, you just need to pair it with micro hydro storage (pump water uphill with surplus solar/wind, then run micro hydro at night). Small solar/wind also decentralizes production, safeguarding from terrorism, and is quite cost effective. Mine paid for itself in well under 10 years.

My issue with your position is that what we do today just with CO2 production reduction won't really effect the atmosphere for 20-200 years (the accepted lifespan of 65-85% of atmospheric CO2, the remaining 15-35% takes thousands of years to be trapped) and that's only IF the ocean CO2 sink continues functioning, so we're already well past the point of avoiding moderate climate change. Without quick action, feedback loops like methane and/or ice sheets melting make the problem exponentially larger and difficult/impossible to manage at all. It may already be too late even if we cut to zero CO2 tomorrow, but it's certainly too late to avoid more, massive, unsolvable global issues if we don't even mitigate them before 2050.

Let's not get into the quagmire of global dimming from sulfur in coal actually mitigating a large part of expected global warming by reflecting sunlight. I've yet to hear a plan or study involving that variable.

@newtboy
Your mind is made up that there's no issue of ocean warming, rising, and/or acidification, so of course you will be taking advantage of those islanders that have been 'tricked' by the climate change frauds (oh, and also tricked by that water in their homes, the loss of snails, shellfish, fish, and the destruction of their reefs), and you'll be buying their properties at reduced rates, because the ocean rising is a fraud and you'll make a mint when everyone sees the 'truth' in 30 years...right?

Well, I have to say that you'd have me beat if I'd said any of that...
I've already stated the planet is warming.
I've already stated that CO2 is rising.
I've already stated we are responsible for the CO2 rise.
I've already stated that the CO2 rise has caused the TOA energy imbalance.
I've already stated that TOA energy imbalance is causing temp rise.
It seems redundant, but I'll spell it out more as it seems you don't understand me.
The Ocean's are warming, they are in fact absorbing alot more energy than the rest of the planet, as water does that alot more quickly than air.
The additional CO2 is acidifying the ocean's, that's once again HS chemistry.
Sea level is rising, and has been for the last century or more at a relatively consistent and steady rate, and no doubt again is because of the energy increase/warming.
Shell fish and coral reefs are dependent on acidity levels in the oceans and shifts absolutely will impact them.

Now, with that all on the table, where my opinion diverges from yours is when you state:
by 2050 is going to solve the issues, (issues that will be totally disastrous by then by most estimations, for tens of millions it already IS disastrous)

I've pointed out the severity, as assessed by an international body of relevant experts in the IPCC, disagrees starkly with your opinion. The scientific community simply does not assign disastrous results right now for tens of millions from climate change, I'm sorry but that is contrary to the science. The scientific community simply does not predict the severity of these consequences to be disastrous by 2100, let alone your claimed 2050.

You've linked to blogs and a news blurp, and I've responded with direct links to the IPCC affirming my position, and at least a dozen scientific journal articles corroborating their position. If you want to claim any actual scientific veracity to your position back it up or lay off mis quoting and misrepresenting what I've claimed to try and make cheap points burning a strawman.

I'll just say I must expect if you're so certain, you must put your money where your mouth is, and are looking seriously into buying as much beach front property in Vanuatu as possible. Your mind is made up that there's no issue of ocean warming, rising, and/or acidification, so of course you will be taking advantage of those islanders that have been 'tricked' by the climate change frauds (oh, and also tricked by that water in their homes, the loss of snails, shellfish, fish, and the destruction of their reefs), and you'll be buying their properties at reduced rates, because the ocean rising is a fraud and you'll make a mint when everyone sees the 'truth' in 30 years...right? I have put my money where my mouth is, I have solar, I grow (most of) my own food, and I'm building a water catchment system.
Pay attention to what the scientists say, yes...but don't put too much stake in any single statement by any single group. Take the science as a whole, discard the crazed outliers, then examine and compare the remainder. After doing that, I always find that things are getting worse faster than nearly any study suggested it would, certainly more than the public 'consensus', in numerous ways that often re-enforce each other, and in ways that often were hidden under older study methods (such as the Greenland ice sheet, which is not only moving far faster than expected, but is also losing density much faster than expected, meaning older methods of measuring glaciers by size no longer apply...or the heating of the ocean where so much heat was 'hidden' in deep water, not found until recently so claimed to not exist, or the theory that certain diatoms might do better in acidic CO2 saturated water, but they found that that was wrong because in reality low light due to turbidity more than erased any positive effect.)

Today, one can find a 'study' to show anything one wishes, complete with scientists, data, conclusions, and affluent backers. The study you quote actually claimed that there will not be a loss of ice cover in Greenland and/or Antarctica, contrary to current conditions where there already IS loss of ice cover and it's accelerating exponentially. If you wish to believe that simply slowing the rate at which we increase the amount of CO2 we create by 2050 is going to solve the issues, (issues that will be totally disastrous by then by most estimations, for tens of millions it already IS disastrous) I've got some swamp land to sell you in Florida. The same goes for if you believe China and India are going to DECREASE their emissions. To date, they have done nothing but ignore their own additions to climate change as far as their energy production is concerned, they have not put extra money into 'clean' energy, but instead consistently go for the cheap, but dirty methods. There's no reason to believe this will change in the next 35 years as they ramp up their energy use to first world levels, that goes double if people are convinced (as you seem to be) that there's really no big problem with the climate, nothing to worry about, and any small inconvenience will be solved by technology and intelligent governments doing the right thing, even though it's the more expensive thing that they normally avoid like the plague. Unfortunately, history does not show that this is how people or governments operate.

Sorry, but that's a stupid argument. Just because we live in a digital world doesn't mean people have any less right to privacy.

Or do you think people whose emails are hacked should have used snail mail?
What about all those idiots who use online banking?

Stop blaming the victim.

It was April the forty-first
Being a quadruple leap year
I was driving in downtown Atlantis
My barracuda was in the shop
So I was in a rented stingray
And it was overheating

So I pulled into a Shell Station
They said I'd blown a seal
I said, "Fix the damn thing
And leave my private life out of it
Okay pal?"

While they were doing that
I walked over to a place called the Oyster Bar, a real dive
But I knew the owner
He used to play for the Dolphins
I said "Hi Gil"
You have to yell, he's hard of herring

Think I had a wet dream
Cruisin' thru the Gulf Stream
Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh
Wet dream

Gil was also down on his luck
Fact is he was barely keeping his head below water
I bellied up to the sandbar
He poured me the usual

Rusty snail, hold the grunion
Shaken not stirred
With a peanut butter and jellyfish sandwich on the side
Heavy on the mako

I slipped him a fin
On porpoise
I was feeling good
I even dropped a sand dollar in the box for Jerry's squids
For the halibut

Well the place was crowded
We were packed in like sardines They were all there to listen to the big band sounds of Tommy Dorsal
What sole

Tommy was rockin' the place with a very popular tuna
Salmon Chanted Evening
And the stage was surrounded by screaming groupers
Probably there to see the bass player

One of them was this cute little yellowtail
And she's giving me the eye
So I figured this is my chance for a little fun
You know, piece of Pisces

But she said things I just couldn't fathom
She was too deep, seemed to be under a lot of pressure
Boy, could she drink
She drank like a . . .
She drank a lot

I said "What's your sign"
She said "Aquarium"
I said "Great, let's get tanked"

Think I had a wet dream
Cruisin' thru the Gulf Stream
Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh
Wet dream

I invited her to my place for a midnight bait
I said "Come on baby, it'll only take a few minnows"
She threw me that same old line
"Not tonight, I gotta haddock"

And she wasn't kidding either
Cause in came the biggest, meanest looking haddock
I'd ever seen come down the pike
He was covered with mussels

He came over to me and said
"Listen, shrimp, don't you come trollin' around here"
What a crab
This guy was steamed
I could see the anchor in his eyes

I turned to him, I said
"A-balone, you're just being shellfish"
Well, I knew it was going to be trouble and so did Gil
'Cause he was already on the phone to the cods

The haddock hits me with a sucker punch
I catch him with a left hook
He eels over
It was a fluke but there he was
Lying on the deck, flat as a mackerel
Kelpless

I said "Forget the cods Gil
This guy's gonna need a sturgeon"
Well, the yellowtail was impressed with the way I landed her boyfriend
She came over to me, she said
"Hey, big boy, you're really a game fish
What's your name"
I said "Marlin"

Think I had a wet dream
Cruisin' thru the Gulf Stream
Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh
Wet dream

Well, from then on we had a whale of a time
I took her to dinner, I took her to dance
I bought her a bouquet of flounders
And then I went home with her
And what did I get for my trouble
A case of the clams

Think I had a wet dream
Cruisin' thru the Gulf Stream
Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh

Wet dream
Cruisin' thru the Gulf Stream
Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh

Wet dream
Cruisin' thru the Gulf Stream
Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh

Your video, spider lifts snail shell with webs, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.