Are you really that ignorant? (That’s a rhetorical question, I know you are)
1) watch Argo. There were multiple attempted rescues, starting within days of the revolution.
2) read about Reagan who made a secret, illegal deal with the terroristic Iranians to not release the hostages until after the election to hurt Carter’s chances, then he later sold them weapons in another illegal deal to pay for another secret illegal war with the Contras. If a Democrat did anything near that, he/she would be (rightly) shot as a traitor if not legally then by some nut job….when Cons do it the anti American crimes are ignored and cons celebrate the treason.
3) Also read about the year+ of negotiations by Carter that actually gained their freedom on Jan 20 81. Would have been much sooner without Republican interference. Carter was the one who initially “held” (seized) those $8 billion of Iranian funds, and stopped buying Iranian oil costing them billions more…all legally, unlike the sneaky, illegal, back room collusion with and payoffs to the terrorists Reagan tried, knowingly and intentionally extending the hostage crisis for his personal political gains. The “deal” wasn’t struck on Jan 20…the Iranians delayed the release at Reagan’s request in exchange for promises of special treatment from president Reagan.

Like Biden, Carter actually solved a problem created largely by Republicans despite Republicans doing their utmost to work against America. Gas prices dropped nearly 10% in the last month and continue to drop despite a massive shortage world wide thanks to Russia and Saudi Arabia. Republicans have fought against every effort to lower them, voting against all mitigation efforts in a unified “fuck your gas prices” block.
They even voted against a bill to force oil companies to stop price gouging because it would have dropped prices significantly the day it passed, also helping inflation significantly, and cons REALLY don’t want prices to drop under Biden, certainly not before November.
It’s just like when every Con just voted to protect and keep neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and violent extremists in the military and federal police forces because they don’t want their voters to lose their jobs. Keeping their power is far more important to them than helping the country, and their main methodology is to try to hurt the country then blame the president….odd since they excused the former president from any and all responsibility for his lack of leadership and absolute horrific disaster that was his last year in office, from 1 million dead to -3.5% GDP to millions unemployed to rising inflation to supply chain failures to disastrously ruining the reputation of our elections to dividing the country horrifically to actually trying to overthrow the elected government by force…all for his own personal gain….and you whine that Biden hasn’t fixed everything yet!?

Pretty dishonest for Republicans to do everything in their power to stop any attempted plans on inflation, gas prices, or hostile foreign powers, then blame the president they blocked from fixing the issues they caused. It’s not weak leadership, it’s an anti American party with veto power and a chip on their shoulders willing to hurt the entire nation rather than let Biden (and America) have a “win”.

Now…how did Trump handle it when foreign powers kidnapped and dismembered an American? He covered it up, made excuses, declared the Saudi prince innocent (and Trump was recorded laughing about how he “saved his ass” over that murder)….then his son in law was given a $2 billion payment for future services his company was completely incapable of supplying.

So let’s measure Trump….
Nice guy, no. Moral, no. Ethical, no. Honest, no. Smart, no. Loyal, no. Trustworthy, no.
Fickle to the utmost, yes. Weak leader, yes. Treasonous, yes. Dictatorial, yes. Narcissistic, yes. Criminal, yes. Anti-democracy, yes.
Most American deaths-yes. Worst unemployment, yes. Worst economy, yes. Most domestic terrorism, yes.
Worst president ever by far….unequivocally by every measure. He actually made idiotic GW look benign by comparison.

Yes, I am looking forward to that movie much more...

This one just seems like a rehash of Argo or Syriana

@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

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Best Book: Wool. If you like your dystopian post-apocalyptic SF - this is the one.

Best Movie: I enjoyed Argo, Looper and Cloud Atlas - though in general I think this was a poor year for the kinds of films I like.

Best game: As a casual gamer, dare I say, Bad Piggies? ;-)

TV: Will second Breaking Bad - I've actually gotten in to the final season of Merlin with the kids. Also, Season 2 of Game of Thrones and season 3 of Downton. Poor Cousin Matthew!

Music: This year has been a year of nostalgia - I'm listening to almost no new music except the latest from Kate Havnevik.

And lol: Before acting in films and television, Wayne Pygram was a regular on the Australian theatre circuit. In 2005, he made a brief cameo in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith as a young Grand Moff Tarkin, because of his resemblance to Peter Cushing, who portrayed the same character 28 years previously in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.

Due to the brevity of his Star Wars cameo, and the makeup he wore on Farscape, Pygram's real face may now be known best for his appearance on the TV show Lost, as a faith healer named Isaac of Uluru.

Pygram has also played the drums in numerous bands over the past 20 years, the most recent being a band named Signal Room (formerly called Number 96) along with his co-star in Farscape, Anthony Simcoe [D'Argo]. He also teaches the drums at Kildare Catholic College, an Australian Catholic school based in Wagga Wagga. (WikiPedia)

*citation needed*

How can you assert that "they surely did a part"? I call BS unless you can provide some historical evidence.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^bobknight33:
Very interesting and worthy of watching. There is more than we don't know than we do know.

More to the point, how do we know what is known is truly known (by knowledge, I might right and true belief). Epistemology is my favorite philosophical topic

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hpqp" title="member since July 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">hpqp
Many of the Greek city states pledge to a Patron God: Poseidon at Corinth, Hera at Argos, Zeus at Kos, Athene at Sparta, Tegea and Athens. Different parts of the Nile also had the same type of Patronage. It is debatable how much of a role they played in war, but they surely did a part.

>> ^bobknight33:

Very interesting and worthy of watching. There is more than we don't know than we do know.


More to the point, how do we know what is known is truly known (by knowledge, I might right and true belief). Epistemology is my favorite philosophical topic


@hpqp

Many of the Greek city states pledge to a Patron God: Poseidon at Corinth, Hera at Argos, Zeus at Kos, Athene at Sparta, Tegea and Athens. Different parts of the Nile also had the same type of Patronage. It is debatable how much of a role they played in war, but they surely did a part.

I thank you.

edit: for both of em.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
*quality

D'Argo sounds so different with his Aussie accent!

>> ^quantumushroom:
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations.

Rambling nonsense, in science there is no such term as "unproven theory" A theory is a construct and means to explain the available facts

Let’s see what data points we now have:
1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

This is more nonsense. while it is true that the highest peak on the scale so far is 1998,( or 2005, depending on how you measure) the point is that that the TREND is what counts, every year temperatures vary, some years are hot, relative to their time, some are cold, relative to their time. However, the upwards trend is not in question if we look at 128 years of recorded weather history, this is the image this report provides See image That image is scary enough, but it gets worse as we compare it to millions of years
Full report here

3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures


Again, not quite right, the actual data shows a complex pattern of both increases and decreases, overall, it is correct that there hasnt been any dramatic changes over the 4-5 years these buoys have actually been in operation, however, this is consistent with known patterns that includes "quiet years" in 5-10 year periods. The 50-year perspective is whats important

Argo Blog:
The results of Domingues et al (2008) do not show a constant rate of warming. Instead there are periods of warming interspersed with multi-year cooling periods. There is also regional variability in the multi-decadal trends. Moreover, there is uncertainty in the results because of sparse sampling of the oceans and instrumental errors during the pre-Argo era. In spite of the variability and the uncertainty, the evidence for a 50-year warming trend in the oceans is compelling.

The Argo site and the Argo blog




4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December 07, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)
5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than “normal” (whatever that is)


Since you give no source of this information, I can only take your word for it, but the term "arctic ice" on google, comes up with report after report confirming that the ice is thinning, melting, receding and dissappearing. Every climate report I've seen lately seems to say the same thing

"December 3 , 2008
Ice growth slows; Arctic still warmer than usual"


6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)


No, infact any data I can find shows polar bears are negatively affected by the climate change. again, this is either an extreme oversimplification of bits of data from an unnamed report, or simply a lie. Here is an actual article by a real scientist, showing a complex but worrying future for polar bears


7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather “sublimation”


http://www.livescience.com/environment/070611_gw_kilimanjaro.html

This is the first point that actually holds, its still melting tho, and snowfall is decreasing, I'm no glacier expert, so I'll leave this one alone.


The Antarctic is not “melting”, it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows

Yes it is, as all sources indicates. You can say different, doesnt make it so.

9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below “normal” (again, whatever that is)

no sources here either


10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below “normal” temperatures (NOAA coolest winter since 2001)

It is correct that 07/08 was the coolest winter since 2001, but it was still warmer than the average 20th century, and more importantly and the fundamental flaw in most of these points, seemingly contradicting data from 1 year does not "wipe out" the last 100 years of temperature increase. If the trend continues on a steady reversal for 10-15 years, THEN we are talking.




11) Al Gore's film was deemed “propaganda” in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists
12) It was also just revealed that some of the footage in Al's film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie The Day After Tomorrow (ABC)



13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)
This seems to be based on this article...which has been refuted here and here


14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.


Irrelevant, see my earlier post.


15) The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century (no SUVs)

No.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century".[2] Indeed, global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.


16) Many scientists are now predicting 30 years of cooling.


By "Many scientists" you mean of course this guy his prediction is based on 30 years cycles.

17) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured



Again, wrong. it is true that we humans didnt create the greenhouse effect, and compared to the total effect it actually has, our contribution is miniscule. However, since the earth, or more precicely, the creatures living on it, are evolved to fit the environment as it is, even relatively small adjustments in the system can potentionally have catastrophic consequences. Or perhaps not, and thats one of the things about GW, we do not know for sure what happens, which could prove costly


I hope to have shown, with no other preparation than google at my disposal, that nearly all of the above points are based on shallow, irrellevant cherry-picking of data, unreliable sources. One to take a closer look at the sources of these claims, it turns out that either these points are willfull misrepresentations of the full source, or that the source itself turns out to be single individuals with no actual evidence to back it up.


I also found QM's entire post on a facebook post which ofcourse doesnt mean its not true, but it indicates that this is some kind of "fact-sheet" spread around the net with little or no actual source-checking like I've just done. Its one of those things that , just because someone's written it down and cited a few reports (dishonestly represented) people will believe it and think they've become "climate Skeptics".

A proper skeptic would check the sources.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations. Let’s see what data points we now have:
1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures
.....etc

Figures quantummushroom would copy and paste his comment, most of his comments sound like they were coming right out of his ass after being written by FOX news.
I knew he couldn't think for himself.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations. Let’s see what data points we now have:

1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures

4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December 07, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)

5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than “normal” (whatever that is)

6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)

7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather “sublimation”

The Antarctic is not “melting”, it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows

9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below “normal” (again, whatever that is)

10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below “normal” temperatures (NOAA coolest winter since 2001)

11) Al Gore's film was deemed “propaganda” in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists

12) It was also just revealed that some of the footage in Al's film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie The Day After Tomorrow (ABC)

13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)

14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.

15) The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century (no SUVs)

16) Many scientists are now predicting 30 years of cooling.

17) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured

18) Several publications, including those that are warmist have recently written that the natural cycles of the earth may mask AGW. Give me a break.

19) 31,000 scientist have signed a petition against AGW!

---------------------------

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims


“I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. As a scientist I remain skeptical.” -

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'argo, wheelchair, walker, tool, paralysis, paralysed, robotic' to 'argo, wheelchair, walker, tool, paralysis, paralysed, robotic, exoskeleton, israeli, 00s' - edited by Eklek

VideoSift> BBC news for my daily gloom and doom> Ceebeebies> Argos> Vulcan V-bomber fan sites> Videosift> Videosift> Top 10 mad scientists> how to take over the world.com.

Then i turn off my computer, go to MI5, and save the world, again. I seem to do nothing these days.