I think it's very important to recognize that there is more than 1 camp in this that has completely abandoned science. Sure there are plenty denying that things are warming, or that our activity contributes to warming. Don't spend so much time decrying them that you miss the people demanding the science clearly indicates impending catastrophic disaster that only emission reductions can save us from.

Also take note that we are just beginning to move into the measuring the 'real' part of the issue now by satellite for the last few decades. Previously temperature was the only proxy measure for showing increasing energy trapped in the atmosphere. With satellite records though we have been able to directly measure radiation coming in and going out and observe the real trends. The IPCC that shared Al Gore's nobel prize on climate change has this to say on the satellite measured energy budget:
Satellite records of top of the atmosphere radiation fluxes have
been substantially extended since AR4, and it is unlikely that
significant trends exist in global and tropical radiation budgets
since 2000.

It's important to read that closely and correctly. There has been an overall net influx of radiation, as in more energy coming in than going out. The RATE of that increase is the flux they are referring to. The IPCC is stating that since 2000, it is unlikely that the rate of energy being trapped in our atmosphere has been changing.

All that means is that it's not time to panic. If you look at the latest IPCC temperature projections you'll similarly see that the projections are much less scary for 2100 than the first IPCC projections from 1990. Better news still for us, the instrumental record thus far looks to be tracking the lowend of the IPCC projections.

All that is to say that science is agreed things are warming. It is agreed we are contributing. It also agreed that the severity isn't some doom and gloom we are all gonna die in 2050 scenario either.

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.

I love them!!! They seem so clumsy though, it's a wonder they don't fall out of trees.

Your question prompted me to do some research and this is what I found out after exploring that youtube channel's other videos:

Lumholtz's Tree Kangaroos are a unique Australian species that are found in select, tropical rainforests of north Qld.

Honestly I would like some back ground information.. not only for myself but for those that also are wondering why a penguin is on sand... on tropical water.. oh and the fact someone said it is a penguin. Oh they also said it was being eated by a known being known for the dawwnunder scenario.. or africa etc. but really ??? an actual penguin .. Source ?

put this info in the info spot because it seems bs to all those that watch it, why would some one upvote this thinking... blach I will leave it at that, I have a bunny running around my living room for the first time. holy shitfuck do they move fast in open spaces. and so effin darn curious. I mean.. they are snow boots, OOOOoO I will turn them on their side so he can go in them.. a gave of feet smell. ]

Sorry for the rant, no one else around but a certain small thinger to listen to my blah blah blah.

If trees could feel pain, tropical trees would suffer the worst pain in the winter

I'm not sure what that all meant, but I can sense that you are surprised/disappointed by my comment. Not to backtrack, because there is something that certainly struck me as odd and upsetting when I realized what the makeup artist had done here, but my comment was pithy to a fault; inappropriate was the wrong choice of words.

I have thought several times about it since I first made the point, and 'offputting' or 'disturbing' might have been better. I am not offended (specifically because I am white, so what the fuck do I have to be offended about) by the use of makeup in this case nor do I think that it violates some moral code (of which I am but a subjective arbiter). Rather, I think it was so poorly done as to draw attention and detract from the end product.

Blackface can be done right (a la Robert Downey Jr in Tropic Thunder) and it can be done wrong (e.g., every privileged white kid who dressed up as Trayvon Martin this Halloween). In this case, it was done wrong, if only subtly so.

Regarding precession, much of modern Western astrology does not make that correction, but Indian (Vedic) astrology certainly does. The correction is called ayanamsa in Sanskrit and is considered very important in casting Indian charts. Some Western astrologers also perform a correction, using a process that is actually closer to the way the ancient Greeks did it.

In more general astrological terms the difference is called tropical vs. siderial astrology.

He can play any scene, but just one character.... every damn movie. Unless he is trying to overcome a bad public image in which case we get a purposely against type character ala Tropic Thunder.

Mine smells like flowers-The imported kind from the tropics that grow at the arboretum....blooms once a year.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'oculus rift, vr, virtual reality, should advertise like this' to 'oculus rift, vr, virtual reality, is tropical, dancing anymore' - edited by Eklek

Megaforce / IS TROPICAL / DANCING ANYMORE has been added as a related post - related requested by Fusionaut on that post.

From the music video Dancing Anymore by Is Tropical.

Hehe. I've tried moving out of the country several times, but I have been unable to secure a job, which is my primary concern. That said, I've been successfully supporting myself independently for the last 2 years, so if I can sustain, I may be able to finally do it someday.
Thank the gods for the internet.
@chingalera - I'd recommend Costa Rica. They have gulf-side beaches, it's the most stable democracy in central America, the food is amazing, the women are beautiful, and living expenses are wonderfully cheap.
The only caveat for me is that, in the case that global warming continues to push the climates to more extremes, tropical/equatorial regions will not be fun to live in.
Regardless, that's my main draw next to Sweden, Germany or New Zealand, but make no mistake: the rest of the world will slowly follow suit eventually.

I say we eat them alive on live TV and then all go hangout in their mansions. But, I call the big room on the top with the waterfall that flows into the tropical pool. It will nt be a problem see, because we can sell the lambo, the jag, the Bentley all that crap to the not one percenters, then start building homes on the property that is a big as most counties... and not at our expense MUHAHAHAHA

They look to be about 1'... so not big, but not tiny. I'm guessing that for that area, they aren't very big (spider species in tropical areas can get much bigger than what we have in the states... though they have plenty of small spiders as well)

Imagine how many insects there would have to be to feed a colony of spiders that large. I hope that some scientists are able to study the effects that such a large population of insect predators have on the surrounding ecosystem.