WOW
I realize you are a leftist liberal nut and that you not only drank the Kool Aid but you are guzzling it down.

You are the TOOL of the Left.

Are you pro ANTIFA?
Pro Socialist?
Pro Communism?
Anti American?
Anti Cop?

You at least 3 out of 5 but most likely 5/5.

Clearly fake. Everyone knows that geese are universally mean-spirited creatures whose primary interaction with other animals only include hissing and pinching with their beaks.


Seriously though, when I was a very young child my family had a couple of geese that were raised from little goslings. Those suckers would go after pretty much every other living thing that got anywhere near their pond. They'd chase and pinch our dogs, before the dogs learned to stay away from the pond.

They also once guzzled down a huge amount of old motor oil that got left out after an oil change. We figured they were goners, but I guess they just had extra-oily shit for a while, they never showed any ill effects from it.

I think the problem is more a general attitude of PC nonsense like making a crusade out of people dressing up like people of other races for halloween. Well, I guess that means only people from fuckin Transylvania can dress up like Dracula and tell the black girl she can't be Cinderella -- that's fucked up. And that's what's generally fucking wrong with PC: it's just one sided shit. I come from a family with a long line of racist beliefs so I can tell you there is a HUGE difference between edgy behavior and actual racism. And people should know the difference.

I can just tell when a conversation is going to be a quick hello and goodbye when it's impossible to speak my mind. I can just walk away without offending someone, a comedian cannot. Praise Elune I only spend time with pot smoking trannies, angry gamers and booze guzzling musicians. I would probably murder myself before it ever got close to 1984. You can take my life but I'm taking my good genes with me and the Chosen One will never be born.

Maher is a smug prick all the way. He bashed Ron Paul over and over for the man staying true to his convictions and then has the audacity to bash his son for not? By this I mean he never complimented the father at all for telling special interests to fuck off, fix what a lot of Republicans broke or just being an honorable man. Yeah Maher, you could hate Ron's policies, but you made the attacks personal and petty.

Maher is the type of piece of shit that causes this stuff to happen. Yeah, this bashing is on both political isles but to wonder how a party makes their candidates their bitches, he needs to look at his cum guzzling asshole first. He would complain about Rand if Rand was full blown to his convictions...

Sorry, Maher is a piece of shit at best here. Kind of like the woman who goes home with the asshole over the good guy, then wonders why she has herpes on her face the next day.

One more thought that I had:

Before Tesla, electric cars were niche marketed as adequate. In the sense that if you were a person very highly motivated to be "green", you could get one, drive around short distances, and in general enjoy a small subset of the versatility of an internal combustion gas guzzling car. You could get by, but in general life with an electric car was a step back from life with a gas car.

The reason Tesla is amazing is that it flipped that on its head. You're not sacrificing anything, you don't need an attitude of "I can use a bit less and take one for the team" for a Tesla to appeal to you. Everything I watch about the Model S says it is a fast, high-performance, fun to drive, luxurious car -- objectively BETTER than a similarly priced gas-powered car to most users (who can afford one, but that will include more and more people over time).


Same thing goes for home solar and other "green energy". Adoption rates are NEVER going to soar when solar is "adequate". And then only adequate if you make very big lifestyle changes like cutting back on heating and cooling, using low-draw appliances, etc. etc.

But as Tesla is doing to cars, maybe this can do to energy. Musk is saying NO, you don't have to cut back. You don't have to settle for less. You don't have to take one for the team. Install some (currently fairly expensive) solar panels and 1, 2, or however many of our power packs, and you can have a BETTER experience than being on the grid, paying high bills every month and dealing with the occasional outage, etc.

I guarantee that pitch will do more to push the adoption of green energy than 10 years of Al Gore living in a mansion and flying around constantly on a private jet to give $100,000 lectures explaining why everybody else needs to cut back or we're all going to melt...

Okay, if this seems angry it is because it is. My wife and kids were hit head on by a car (Who sped up to get around the car she was passing...,) in a new van we just purchased, by a lady with no insurance. In Florida we get fucked for it (Thankfully they are alright...)

So here goes. You work for a bunch of cum guzzling money grabbing fuckfaces. It is a shameful job, unappreciated because your bosses want the most money at the expense of those who have just been through a terrible, horrible ordeal.

Insurance companies donate billions to lawmakers to keep these fucking stupid laws up. Florida's You-Pay-for-Uninsured-Motorist's laws are proof-fucking positive about that. "I am responsible so fuck my asshole wide please."

And the scare tactics of god damn claims adjusters?! Holy fuck, that shit would be considered assault anywhere else. Congratulations if you are one of the rare ones that don't threaten or low-ball...

Of course your company would charge it as 50-50 (or 70-30.) They would do it in every situation they could. Because it's all about the money to those anal-warted motherfuckers.

Progress has a sense of humor. Awesome. Of course these guys would like to see every square foot of north american asphalt replaced with this stuff, but I think that they are smart enough to know that that isn't going to happen any time soon.

What could happen, however, is that we all gradually adopt the technology. First we start with with the densely wealthy liberal eco-conscious places that have a cultural incentive to swallow the initial economic hurdles and lower overall manufacturing costs to a point where it starts to make sense to the wealthy conservative gas guzzling folks, and then slowly expand from there.

The concept is sound. At some point the hardware might just become cheap enough to be viable - it's an option worth exploring, at the very least.

And if you think that making really long roadways out of relatively expensive tiles is impossible, try telling that to the ancient Romans.

I'm sure you're all far more stunned than I am.

Who would have ever believed a drifter from the wrong side of the tracks, with a penchant for mischief and nonconformity, would someday be crowned. Only in Siftopia may the lowest-of-low rise to such majesty.

But I couldn't have done it without all of you. And for that, I'm much obliged! Thanks, for watching my videos and begrudgingly upvoting 2/3 of them.

But seriously, special thanks to my friends: kulpims, geo, alco, enoch, kronos, choggie and blankfist (don't they have a reality show by now?), usesprozac, evildisco, lurgee (thanks, for the push), rasch, swarmy, marinegunrock (yeah, you! you big glug), bareboards, dag, chingelera, chichorea, Nicolebee (kicked my ass in Civ), pumkin, mint and netrunner (take me off block, dude), gwizz and lann, selter, lucky, rottenseed, gorilla, eric, playhouse, death kitty, laura, peggedbea (you're one of the best), and all the others (I've overlooked a lot of good ones, but I should be doing homework right now -- I'll promote your videos while you sleep, precious forgotten) wonderful folk who stomp the shores of Videosift.

And thank you, for not kicking me out that one time. Let this be a lesson to weigh dooming judgements when the waters are muddied by anger.

And to all the haters ... a motherfucking crown, mofos!!!

Now that I've finally earned the right to deflower every maiden on her wedding night, I'm starting to warm up to this place.

Now guzzle your drinks, and salute your favorite things!

yeah..and they worried about Obama indoctrinating the kids.

if making a kid, who isn't old enough to make an informed decision do a video like this isn't indoctrination, I don't know what is.

keep kids out of politics assholes

I like how they have him pose in front of their gas-guzzling shit kicker as if they're proud they're part of fucking up the environment. What's that? I have an excess of wealth that I'm not doing anything with and you want to help the less fortunate? COMMUNIST!!

@bcglorf, I've skimmed through this conversation, and I think that this is the most succinct expression of your position on global warming:
>> ^bcglorf:

Rapidly cutting CO2 emissions before we have the replacement technology in place would be costly, not just financially but world history shows big financial impacts generally spill over into violent impacts. Battery technology is getting very close to making electric cars that are superior in every way to their gas guzzling brethren. I truly do believe that the enormous CO2 contribution made by burning gasoline is rapidly on it's way out for purely economic rather than environmental reasons. Another reason I don't feel the need for panic.
As I stated above, I am NOT being a skeptic in declaring that H2O dominates the greenhouse effect. It is the uncontested scientific fact.
I am NOT being a skeptic in declaring that H2O's role in climate models and forcing/feedbacks is very poorly understood. It is an uncontested scientific fact, some models even disagree on whether to assign it as a positive or negative feedback.
Think about those two for a good long while before thinking everything Al Gore said should trump peer reviewed science.


I think John Cole still has the perfect description of the conservative/denier shtick on global warming:

You know the drill: global warming isn’t happening, if it is happening then it’s not caused by human behavior, if it is caused by human behavior then we can’t do anything about it, if it is caused by human behavior and we can do something about it, then that something is too expensive, if it is caused by human behavior and we can do something about it that is not too expensive, then that something is not what Democrats are proposing. And Al Gore is fat, he flies too much, look at his electricity bill, and sometimes when he goes somewhere it snows there, which is very ironic.

Now, to your credit, you have executed this script in a more thoughtful, reasoned, honestly skeptical way than most do, but ultimately you're following it to a tee. Hell, you even made a swipe at Al Gore along the way.

I think this comment of criticalthud's is pretty much speaking to why I posted the video in the first place:
>> ^criticalthud:

and I would add:
we have a psychological issue at hand.
the human species thinks it's entitled, and it's OUR planet. We think we're special.
This kind of psychological issue hides reality from us.
We have shown ourselves to be very poor stewards of the planet. How many species have we wiped out? How else have we affected our environment? What sort of poisons have we created, what scale of trash heap? Mindlessly fattening ourselves.
This makes me think it is quite likely that we are the frogs in the slowly boiling water.
So, we can argue about this and that, and whether our governments should act. But in actuality, it is up to each and every one of us to stop being energy and consumer gluttons, feasting during the oil orgy.


Human psychology isn't wired properly for dealing with things like climate change. We have trouble with making connections between our actions in the here and now, and consequences to people elsewhere in space, and in time. We're also weird about our assessment of risk. Some people are deathly afraid of flying, but have no problem driving around in a car, even though driving a car is vastly more likely to result in your death than flying on a plane.

The science isn't certain on exactly what's happening, but then science isn't certain about anything. Everything has a fucking error bar on it. We won't be certain it's gonna kill the human race until the human race dies. We won't know it's not going to be a big problem until it's already stopped...and it's showing no signs of stopping on its own.

Environmentalism at its most basic level is about trying to lessen the impact humanity is having on the natural systems we rely on for the basic necessities of life. It's about not felling forests, not poisoning our water, not blighting our soil, and in this case, it's about trying to get people to stop giving a big fucking shove to the equilibrium of our atmosphere when we don't know exactly how it works (and what we do know suggests doing that could possibly be very bad for us).

The basic disagreement here is about what our default position should be in the absence of certainty. Mine is that we should be humble, and curtail our CO2 emissions rather severely. Yours seems to be that as long as the science isn't yet 100% definite, we should just ignore the problem and just wait until scarcity of coal and oil pushes us off them.

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^criticalthud:
just out of curiosity, in the midst of global warming doubters promoting the theory that the earth is warming through solar/cosmic/natural means... has there been much consideration into the idea that the earth is currently in a cooling phase -- enormously offset by what we're doing to it?
second,
one large concern i have with global warming is "system adaption" - that being that it generally takes the ecosystem a bit of time to adjust to whatever is happening to it (ie: glaciers don't melt immediately). Meaning that the damage we caused 10 years ago is being felt now. Meaning also that even if we were to cease mucking about right now, we could expect continued and possibly even escalating ecosystem problems in the years to come.
so, is it time to panic? dunno. could be.

Which is why it's so important to understand things better. Rapidly cutting CO2 emissions before we have the replacement technology in place would be costly, not just financially but world history shows big financial impacts generally spill over into violent impacts. Battery technology is getting very close to making electric cars that are superior in every way to their gas guzzling brethren. I truly do believe that the enormous CO2 contribution made by burning gasoline is rapidly on it's way out for purely economic rather than environmental reasons. Another reason I don't feel the need for panic.
As I stated above, I am NOT being a skeptic in declaring that H2O dominates the greenhouse effect. It is the uncontested scientific fact.
I am NOT being a skeptic in declaring that H2O's role in climate models and forcing/feedbacks is very poorly understood. It is an uncontested scientific fact, some models even disagree on whether to assign it as a positive or negative feedback.
Think about those two for a good long while before thinking everything Al Gore said should trump peer reviewed science.

you seem to mistake me as someone who is arguing with you. i'm really only interested in insights.
I'm certainly not a climatologist. I work with spines. But in answer to your proposition that it would be chaotic if we cut back, I think the strength of the human species is in their ability to adapt, and as far as i'm concerned, the ballooning world population combined with a worldwide contracture in resources makes this inevitable (not to mention the growing climate change issue) - but it's up to us on how painful we want it to be.
Our entire economic system and our culture of consumerism needs to be revised. We are mindless automatons, with little awareness to our impact on the earth as a species. Our daily lives are almost entirely self-centered.
Secondly, as to "the" question of human contribution, I would offer the microcosm of the forest fire, in which carbon is suddenly released into the atmosphere. The overall effect is, clearly, very warming, almost suffocating. On a grander scale, the species is continually burning and releasing carbon into the atmoshphere all over the planet. How that would fail to warm the planet escapes me. but, like i said, it's not my field. peace out.


Sorry if my tone comes off as combative, it's not really my intent so please don't take my vehemence on issues personally. Maybe I'm just getting older but I'm of the mindset that the fastest way to know where I'm right and wrong is to be forward and assertive with how I understand things and allow the opportunity to be corrected where I'm wrong.

My thoughts on the human contribution are tempered by a few things. From the very top, that CO2's contribution is small compared to H2O(I count this an uncontested fact). Annual CO2 emissions are small(5%) compared to natural CO2 emissions(I again count this an uncontested fact). The experts do insist that the human CO2 emissions are building up and still driving the natural CO2 levels significantly higher each year. We don't understand the natural CO2 emission and absorption processes very well, so poorly in fact our margins of error on them are larger than the human contribution. There is evidence that CO2 levels are rising in the last 100 years, and there is a correlation there to human emissions. What we don't have strong evidence for yet is what impact that has on climate. We DO know it is warming effect, but the magnitude of it is still poorly understood. As I've outlined above the understanding of temperature trends over the last 2k years is still a work in progress with large margins of error(even systematic ones that are being worked out). The computer models we have by definition are no more reliable than that data, which places us without a strong correlation or confidence in what magnitude of change the CO2 will have when all other variables are considered.

As a side point, if you look at the IPCC or listen to certain climatologists, you may hear it sounding like they disagree and believe my last statement is disproven. What they have studied is the impact CO2 increases should have overall with the assumption of all other variables being equal. It's a useful figure to have, and the confidence in it is better than my last statement described. That is because I was talking about something different, I stated that CO2's impact, with all other variables being considered NOT equal, is still poorly known and has very low confidence levels. In the real world the impact of one climate variable impacts the role of all the others, and often significantly. The IPCC and a select few climatologists talk about CO2 projections that ignore that interaction as a base assumption and somewhere along the line between them and the public or them and Al Gore, that base assumption gets dropped off. That base assumption is central and vital, and it's why as our climate models improve we will see predictions for CO2 that fall outside the error margins of the IPCC models with that assumption. That doesn't invalidate the IPCC's work, it is an advancement of it and improvement upon it. Remembering the base assumptions is vital for the public to maintain faith in the integrity and reliability of scientific research. People need to know WHY the predictions they were told by the IPCC a few years back have changed so much and yet the IPCC insists they weren't wrong. The truth is simply that they were misunderstood.

As yet another rabbit warren, there is an even smaller set of people within the climate community who actively encourage that misunderstanding. They do it firmly believing that the impact of CO2 with all else ignored is still indicative of CO2 with all else considered. Which is even a reasonable and normal expectation. The trouble is it falsely communicates the level confidence and margin of error of current known facts. I can't abide that kind of thinking, it's what is supposed to differentiate scientists from priests and politicians, they are supposed to refuse to make that kind of compromise when presenting what they do and do not know is demonstrably true.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^criticalthud:
just out of curiosity, in the midst of global warming doubters promoting the theory that the earth is warming through solar/cosmic/natural means... has there been much consideration into the idea that the earth is currently in a cooling phase -- enormously offset by what we're doing to it?
second,
one large concern i have with global warming is "system adaption" - that being that it generally takes the ecosystem a bit of time to adjust to whatever is happening to it (ie: glaciers don't melt immediately). Meaning that the damage we caused 10 years ago is being felt now. Meaning also that even if we were to cease mucking about right now, we could expect continued and possibly even escalating ecosystem problems in the years to come.
so, is it time to panic? dunno. could be.

Which is why it's so important to understand things better. Rapidly cutting CO2 emissions before we have the replacement technology in place would be costly, not just financially but world history shows big financial impacts generally spill over into violent impacts. Battery technology is getting very close to making electric cars that are superior in every way to their gas guzzling brethren. I truly do believe that the enormous CO2 contribution made by burning gasoline is rapidly on it's way out for purely economic rather than environmental reasons. Another reason I don't feel the need for panic.
As I stated above, I am NOT being a skeptic in declaring that H2O dominates the greenhouse effect. It is the uncontested scientific fact.
I am NOT being a skeptic in declaring that H2O's role in climate models and forcing/feedbacks is very poorly understood. It is an uncontested scientific fact, some models even disagree on whether to assign it as a positive or negative feedback.
Think about those two for a good long while before thinking everything Al Gore said should trump peer reviewed science.


you seem to mistake me as someone who is arguing with you. i'm really only interested in insights.

I'm certainly not a climatologist. I work with spines. But in answer to your proposition that it would be chaotic if we cut back, I think the strength of the human species is in their ability to adapt, and as far as i'm concerned, the ballooning world population combined with a worldwide contracture in resources makes this inevitable (not to mention the growing climate change issue) - but it's up to us on how painful we want it to be.
Our entire economic system and our culture of consumerism needs to be revised. We are mindless automatons, with little awareness to our impact on the earth as a species. Our daily lives are almost entirely self-centered.

Secondly, as to "the" question of human contribution, I would offer the microcosm of the forest fire, in which carbon is suddenly released into the atmosphere. The overall effect is, clearly, very warming, almost suffocating. On a grander scale, the species is continually burning and releasing carbon into the atmoshphere all over the planet. How that would fail to warm the planet escapes me. but, like i said, it's not my field. peace out.

>> ^criticalthud:

just out of curiosity, in the midst of global warming doubters promoting the theory that the earth is warming through solar/cosmic/natural means... has there been much consideration into the idea that the earth is currently in a cooling phase -- enormously offset by what we're doing to it?
second,
one large concern i have with global warming is "system adaption" - that being that it generally takes the ecosystem a bit of time to adjust to whatever is happening to it (ie: glaciers don't melt immediately). Meaning that the damage we caused 10 years ago is being felt now. Meaning also that even if we were to cease mucking about right now, we could expect continued and possibly even escalating ecosystem problems in the years to come.
so, is it time to panic? dunno. could be.


Which is why it's so important to understand things better. Rapidly cutting CO2 emissions before we have the replacement technology in place would be costly, not just financially but world history shows big financial impacts generally spill over into violent impacts. Battery technology is getting very close to making electric cars that are superior in every way to their gas guzzling brethren. I truly do believe that the enormous CO2 contribution made by burning gasoline is rapidly on it's way out for purely economic rather than environmental reasons. Another reason I don't feel the need for panic.

As I stated above, I am NOT being a skeptic in declaring that H2O dominates the greenhouse effect. It is the uncontested scientific fact.

I am NOT being a skeptic in declaring that H2O's role in climate models and forcing/feedbacks is very poorly understood. It is an uncontested scientific fact, some models even disagree on whether to assign it as a positive or negative feedback.

Think about those two for a good long while before thinking everything Al Gore said should trump peer reviewed science.

hpqp, I think you are judging things based on Switzerland. But since this video mentioned American waistlines, I speak for America... We don't believe obesity is an epidemic (Even though it is over 25%...) Most don't believe children should be taken even when it is clearly abuse... Conservatives wonder why healthcare is so fucked up but those corn-fed boys and girls are part of the problem...

(All the above is not just ignorance, it's disbelief and/or denial.)

Now, I will reiterate, obesity and religious beliefs, despite your single objection, can be paralleled the way I do.

Not believing in something that is apparent and proven is equal to or greater than believing in something that is insanely speculative and based on fantasy.

For example. I don't believe in global warming, STDs or cats... Crazy as believing in god? I think so. But you are free to disagree as you have quite clearly done so.

The reason I thought you considered obese people crazy-ish is that they are posioning themselves. And parents? You say "neglect," but would you feel the same way if parents poisoned their children with mercury instead of simply dangerous overfeeding? I mean, one may be quicker, but that doesn't really make either right (The obesity will probably be around for their entire lives, as studies have shown, and/or the effects of the obesity...)

Lastly, you did it again. You left out the single part of my point that makes it defensible. Obese people can live a life without problem. Nowhere in my post did I say contrary, despite what you noted. "B-It always destroys what (Not "who") it touches in some way or another (Society, self, self esteem, healthcare, etc.)"

In other words, even though it may not destroy a person's life, even though a person can live fine being obese, it does destroy. In America, for example, it's okay to be obese. I mean 1/4 of us our, so why not? Let's just let it spread is now the motto. It is no longer a sickness, it is just a personality trait. And that is a crazy disbelief of something real.

p.s., Sorry this reply took so long.


>> ^hpqp:

@Lawdeedaw
Obesity and religious beliefs can hardly be paralleled the way you do. Obesity is largely caused by a change of diet affected by processed foods (corn syrup anyone?) and an extremely sedentary lifestyle, made worse by the fact that it is often cheaper to buy unhealthy/processed foods. Moreover, it is quite possible that genetics are involved in a person's likelihood of being obese (http://www.cdc.gov/Features/Obesity/). Do I think obese people are crazy? No. Like you said, the fat is there, you can feel it, you can taste the 10th liter of coke you're guzzling. I may consider the morbidly obese highly irresponsible, or perhaps mentally ill in cases of obsessive binge-eating, but it is not akin to the superstitious beliefs of religion that one is indoctrinated with as a child. Of course, stuffing one's kid with unhealthy food when an alternative is possible is at best the result of ignorance, at worst irresponsible neglect.
Btw, humans may wired to project agency (thus evolving superstitious beliefs), but religious belief is a matter of indoctrination. Recent studies are showing that young children will not naturally offer supernatural explanations for phenomena (see also this article).
p.s.: one can be overweight and still live a happy and successful life... obesity does not necessarily "always destroy what it touches".