The real problem here is everyone's hysterical attitude to abortion and infanticide.

So you shit out a retard baby? Toss it in a skip and, if you want, make a better one later.

I just can't understand why we all focus on what makes us different from each other instead of what we have in common. We're always looking for differences. Always.
That's the real problem. A lack of empathy, an addiction to differences.

Shouldn't there be a circle outside the fundamentalist circle? I'd think the way she's talking she's outside that circle too. The sheer numbers in all the discussed circles is certainly something to be weary of, and I agree the issue needs to be addressed more by those outside the fundamentalist circle.

The same circles can be applied to Christians as well. The inner circle includes people like that guy who killed those at the Planned Parenthood. The next Islamist circle would be mostly the Tea Party type Christians, those that want to force one type of Christian view on others via political action. The Fundamentalist include fundamentalist Christians, those that think gay marriage is a sin and should be outlawed. Now beyond that inner circle, most of Christianity has outgrown it's radical violent past... though their support of the death penalty and stand your ground and murder somebody for stealing your TV sort of suggests they haven't... They criticize Muslim support for chopping off hands of thieves as barbaric, but believe in stand your ground for theft... And those in the fundamentalist circle and further to the center are the ones who do all the speaking for Christianity. There was no outpouring from Christians after the Planned Parenthood terrorist attack about how he doesn't represent Christianity. There is no mass outpouring from the majority of Christians who have no issue with gay marriage to stand up for those who sin differently than them, instead letting the fundamentalist rule the show and present their views as the dominant Christian view, which appears to be that it is worth judging homosexuality as a far worse sin than the ones that they committing... The same arguments she's making for the moderate Muslims to be standing up against fundamentalist to Jihadist Muslims should be applied to Christians as well... no, they radicalized Christians generally aren't as big a threat in terms of violence, but the growing public image of Christians as being bigoted, self-righteous, feeling repressed demigods is a real problem for Christianity as well, and is in large part to blame for its shrinking numbers.

Violence and war against Islam though helps grow the radical elements. As much as Christians love to play the "help help we're being opposed" card, Muslims are increasingly more able to play that card with legit purpose. Trump's call to stop them all from even visiting the US, to register all US Muslims into a database and track them is an open invitation to radicalize more, to move more of them from moderate to fundamentalist and to move fundamentalist towards jihadist... and if it was just one radical idiot like Trump that would be one thing, but he has a huge swath of support, which makes it again easier to radicalize more as they can point out that their faith is under a real and legit attack... which proves their faith is the one true faith as the enemy is working so hard to attack it... this is an argument made by Christians all the time with the we are being oppressed cries, that prove that Christianity is the one true faith, because the devil is working so hard to push Christianity down, yet they don't recognize their attempts to push Islam down proves the exact same point to the Muslims...

I think they all show that religion does far more harm than good.

I also chose the four of clubs. What the fuck? Need to get Penn and Teller in on this shit.

That there are two american talk show hosts called Jimmy causes a real problem for me, given that like everybody else I bet, I can't be bothered to remember which is which. Is Jimmy Kimmel the good one? Oh yeah, then Jimmy Fallon must be the worthless sack of shit.

The real problem for the cat is the Skype ringtone going off at the end of the video.
That flower isn't going to get removed for a while...

@lucky760

Frankly, it was borderline racist and definitely sexist, but the real problem was that it was just boring and unfunny.

I watched more than half the video because I was hoping it was going to get better. It didn't.

Sorry if thinking a comedy video should be funny counts as "trolling".

But it's just political show for the masses. Look here, we do something about our shitty police! That's the sad part.
That won't stop cops from showing up with SWAT teams at your house because you didn't pay parking tickets.
The problem isn't being run over with a tank or getting shot to pieces by .50 cal machine guns. Any sensible law enforcement officer working in the US should just know that this is ridiculous overkill. They're not fighting Terminators or Transformers, they're fighting fleshy, squishy humans.
And here's the real problem. They shoot people with handguns and kneel on their throats. They spray you with mace or beat you with sticks. They use somewhat low tech weaponry to cross the lines.
The only field where that military equipment could become a real problem is in mass-protest situations. Just look at the occupy protests. However, teargas, riotgear and batons are still the very effective go-to-solution.

No idea. Most of the economic and legal aspects are way above my pay grade.

Edit: After reading the comment sections below those two TAN articles, I'm none the wiser. Good food for thought though.

Edit #2: The more I let it marinade, the more it strikes me as wierd enough to allow the different governments to bamboozle the public into acceptance. Might be just the thing to let everyone keep face while not solving any real problems. The usual dragging along just at the edge of a cliff. Schäuble would strike it down in a second.

/off-topic & longish

I'm not trying to belittle you or anything, so please don't misinterpret the things I'm about to talk about. Regarding your supernatural experiences (which to be perfectly honest IF they do exist, and that is a big if) there are a few problems with them or rather that type of "belief". If it really did happen to you, then it wouldn't be very hard to see why you would believe in religion or be spiritual in a very strong sense of the word (though it depends I suppose on just what you experienced, or what "they" experience).

But, if your faith can be helped along by these type of events, then it would be the type of thing that science should be exploring. I know people will clearly state that you just "can't catch these events", but to be honest, if your body is able to see, hear, smell, or sense it...any number of scientific tests could as well. But, the problem is: when do they happen, how do they happen (by what mechanism, i.e. sound, smell, sight, etc...), and to whom will it occur (and even where will it occur might be a justified question too).

Eventually this should become something, even if on the "fringe" of science or rational belief, should become a real talking point...recognized by all. Simply because, eventually scientists must experience them too, or those with no faith or belief at all...

But, this is why I ask what kind of "event" did you experience?

I suffer from Narcolepsy. With this, I suffer nightly from huge attacks (around 3-15) sleep paralysis events. These events come in ALL sorts of flavors, and since it is from Narcolepsy it doesn't necessarily have to happen at night--like ghosts, or alien abductions (I mean, is it not a good question to wonder why these things almost always happen at night--oh, and the animals don't seem to be involved too much in this stuff for some reason as well). I also (and this is the real winner right here) suffer from, more or less, permanent bouts of hypnagogic hallucinations (typically they happen just as you are about to fall asleep or as you are waking up--with me, they can occur as soon as I'm getting tired). I also have severe Sleep Apnea, just to make all of this more "grandiose"...

Sleep Paralysis is something that was reported constantly even in the Middle Ages; a great painting named "The Nightmare" depicts someone that is actually going through one of these events. This is the actual foundation for succubi, demons, and even angels that visit people in their sleep--these people will feel unbelievable things, things you simply do NOT feel in normal day life...thus many believe a supernatural event has just occurred. The first one I had was when I was just waking up, for some reason I was petrified, couldn't move (and barely breath). Then I looked around my room. It was early morning so I could see in my room, in the corner of my room sat a dark humanoid "solid" shadow. From it emanated a feeling of pure, utter evil (which is were you get a supernatural feeling to this; because for one you do not see "humanoid shadows", nor is it possible to "feel" evil). Eventually I snapped myself out of it and later woke up. It left a stark impression upon me. Later my mind figured out somehow that if I relaxed in these moments, it ended immediately--meaning that I started o become somewhat lucid during the majority of these. I remember my friends and family always saying I was weird or that I scared them sometimes, because I would sleep with my eyes opened--well, this is part of that problem (like I said, I could see my room...everything seemed for the most part, real; it's like being awake and partially asleep--in a dream--at the same time).

Onto my real problem: Hypnagogic Hallucinations. I have no doubt whatsoever that EVERYONE that believes or rather has experienced ghosts/haunting(s), alien abductions, angels, demons, people yelling outside, dogs barking, your phone ringing when it hasn't, and "you name it, because EVERYTHING can happen in this category"... I suffer from this so much that the things I experience now are just a joke to me. Things grabbing me, my body changing shape (and YES you do "feel" the change), all manner of sounds (which is the most annoying; sometimes it sounds like someone has called my name...so I have to go check, it's very frustrating). Then combine this WITH a Sleep Paralysis event (and trust me, it does happen, but it it rare), you get an epic "light show".

So, this is why I asked you what type of supernatural event did you experience. Because, you may want to remember (this is JUST some things Narcolepsy can cause; other medical issues, medications, etc... can cause the same issues if not worse, more pronounced in certain ways and even causing certain changes in behavior, sensations, and feelings) that just with Narcolepsy I run into these issues--sleeping disorders are possibly responsible for a LARGE assortment of the "supernatural" issues you see out there. Then add in the countless number of other things that also affect our bodies and it isn't far fetched to soon realize that you just may have to hold onto what science has proven--only--or you may get lost.

I cannot say that this is you. I will not either. I don't pretend to know your experiences. But, I can share mine... The first Sleep Paralysis and or Hypnagogic Hallucination (as I have been able to move in a few Sleep Paralysis events...but very rarely; if I can though I move slowly) event I had, believe it or not, was when I was around 8 or 9. I imagined that I woke up in the night, turned and looked under my bed (it was a sleepover, so I was on the floor that night) and I saw a pair of red glowing lights, shaped vaguely like eyes looking at me. I kept looking at it, trying to figure out what it was, but very quickly it "blinked" and I knew it was alive. I was scared enough that I simply turned my back from it and tried to go back to sleep. The fact that I simply just turned my back to it and went back to sleep...is proof that it simply wasn't even real.

Had that BEEN real, I would've jumped up, flipped the light on; told everyone in the room and gotten my parents in the next room... But, it felt extremely real. Even to this day, the only thing that makes me realize it was fake was HOW I handled the situation...that is it. In fact that is usually the best way to tell reality apart from a dream (or hallucinations caused by enhanced REM cycles--REM cycles that start even while you are awake). You simply do not act like yourself in a dream, period.

I'll agree with you otherwise. I was definitely smothered by religion and it "stunted" me. It didn't cause me to hate it as much as many might think, but I became extremely wary of anything to do with it.

As I see it, the real problem is that regardless of anything else, you don't use an actual infant to test theories about what may or may not be dangerous to an infant.

Another rant from the harbinger of doom. I believe his followers gain succour from his dystopian views because it gives them an excuse for the shortcomings in their own lives. OK, that's a bit strong, but the fact is, no matter what figures you want to analyze, never in history have humans been so fortunate both in health and general well being. Generally, each generation lives longer, is better cared for and enjoys a better quality of life than the last. Is it perfect? No. Will it ever be? Probably not. Do we care enough about our third world cousins? Again, probably not.
I never quite "get" what Chomsky's real problem is. Is it Multinationals? Media? Government? Corporations? It seems to be all of these, and a whole lot more. North Korea would be a good place for him to rail against evidential control, injustice and a true dystopian existence. Here we are allowed to take advantage of education, free thought and certain rights. In short, to make the best of things. I suggest he, and his followers, do the same. Moaning on, and on, and on about this awful, oppressive existence we suffer in the west, really gains no sympathy from people who live in places where they would love the chances Chomsky seems to take for granted.

The real problem is that even once thing become so obvious that climate change is real, and the predictions are real, they'll still deny it was humans had anything to do with the acceleration of climate change, or at least they'll deny it had as much as science proves it does. They'll just point to it being more signs of the end times, which is all the more reason to vote against fundies, as they are prone to letting stuff go, or trying to encourage things to happen that they see as end time predictions just because they think if all the signs are there that means the return of Jesus is soon, of course they discount that there is an appointed time which might still be 50,000 years from now and if we muck things up now, that's 50,000 years of end times in full force that could have been avoided. And I base this on personal experience with deniers who are already willing to pass it off as just signs of the end of times...

Another problem is that they think that scientist are saying 100% of all climate change is caused by human activity, or at least that's how the right wing media sells that is what is being said. They don't understand that what is being talked here is the acceleration from the norm. They just point to the Earth goes through warming/cooling periods all the time and ignore the acceleration, and if they do acknowledge it, they pass it off as debatable, because the far right doesn't understand science (I should know I used to be one). Once the changes become so drastic, they'll just point to God letting go, or causing it for it being the end times, and point to the Bible versus that show such things will happen.

Understand, for people who have faith, faith is knowing the unknowable.

Example: I know that intelligent life exists on other planets. It is a 100% certainty in my mind. I am so certain of this "fact" in fact, that I think it's ridiculous that there are people who even question it. Yet, there is no actual scientific proof. Nothing published. Nothing discovered. I believe it though. I know it to be true. If someone were to tell me I shouldn't believe or talk about it, I would find it nonsensical and offensive. This is what faith feels like.

There's a difference between passively not believing in God and actively hating people who do.

If someone offers some bullshit as fact, and you know it isn't, welcome to every day on earth (or at least the internet). It doesn't matter if it's religion or not.

For example: (paraphrasing) 'Most people proselytize'.

Most of the (almost 6 Billion) people who believe in God go through their day to day lives without ever even mentioning their beliefs let alone trying to proselytize when they do.

And on that note I will say that proselytizing is not necessarily wrong either. You believe what you believe and they believe what they believe and everyone gets to express themselves (all proselytizing) and everyone can make up their own minds. Now, I'm talking about people expressing themselves, not entities who have an agenda.

Which brings me to my last point. None of this is to suggest that I disagree with Bil Nye. Kids should not be fed bullshit. Adults either. The real problem? It's not "money is the root of all evil". It's "the love of money". Greed is behind the majority of evil.

There are those who desire positions of power and pervert religion into a tool to achieve their own agenda. This is a very old story. And it is these people who "take God's name in vain". But that's just one hammer in their toolbag. Religion is one. Anti-intellectualism another. Manipulation through fear. On and on.

Science is truth but it is not the only "truth" in life. Art exists. Beauty exists. Love exists. There is more. Maybe all of that can be boiled down to some chemical reactions in the brain and sociological pressures, but I believe there is a greater truth.

Sorry for ranting. Don't take any of this personally please!

I'm guess from you're tone your American, or at least only figure Americans are going to be reading? You note that 'we' can't get to the moon, while Chinese rovers navigate it's surface. You note with alarm what coastal Florida will face from sea level rise, and not an entire nation like Kiribati. When we look at a global problem we can't ignore technology just because it's Chinese, or focus so hard on Florida's coast we ignore an entire nation in peril.

Sea levels aren't going to be fine in 2099 and then rise a foot on the eve of 2100. They will continue to rise about 3mm annually, as they have already for the last 100 years.(on a more granular level slightly less than 3mm nearer 1900 and slightly more nearer 2100 but the point stands). Coastal land owners aren't merely going to see this coming. They've watched it happening for nearly 100 years already and managed to cope thus far. Cope is of course a bad word for building housing near the coast and at less than a foot above sea level. It's like how occupants at the base of active volcanoes 'cope' with the occasional eruption. All that is to say, the problem for homes built in such locations has always been a matter of when not if disaster will strike. The entire island nation of Kiribati is barely above sea level. It is one tsunami away from annihilation. Climate change though is, let me be brutally honest, a small part of the problem. A tsunami in 1914 would've annihilated Kiribati, as a tsunami today in 2014 would, as a tsunami in 2114 would. And we are talking annihilate in a way the 2004 tsunami never touched. I mean an island that's all uninhabited, cleared to the ground and brand new, albeit a bit smaller for the wear. That scenario is going to happen sooner or later, even if the planet were cooling for the next 100 years so let's be cautious about preaching it's salvation through prevention of climate change.

Your points on food production are, sorry, wrong. You are correct enough that local food growth is a big part of the problem. You are dead wrong that most, or even any appreciable amount is to blame on climate change now or in the future. All the African nations starving for want of local food production lack it for the same reason, violence and instability. From this point forward referenced as 'men with guns'. The people in Africa have, or at least had, the means to grow their own food. Despite your insistence that men with guns couldn't stop them from eating then, they still did and continue to. A farmer has to control his land for a whole year to plant, raise and harvest his crop or his livestock. Trouble is men with guns come by at harvest time and take everything. In places like the DRC or Somalia they rape the farmer's wife and daughters too. This has been going on for decades and decades, and it obviously doesn't take many years for the farmer to decide it's time to move their family, if they are lucky enough to still be alive. That is the population make up of all the refugee camps of starving people wanting for food. It's not a climate change problem, it's a people are horrible to each other problem. A different climate, better or worse growing conditions, is a tiny and hardly worth noting dent in the real problem.
CO@ emission restrictions do not equate to global economic downturn, they could just as easily mean global economic upturn as new tech is adopted and implemented.
I stated meaningful CO2 emission changes. That means changes that will sway us to less than 1 foot of sea level change by 2100 and corresponding temperatures. Those are massive and rapid reductions, and I'm sorry but that can not be an economic boon too. I'm completely confident that electric cars and alternative or fusion power will have almost entirely supplanted fossil fuel usage before 2100, and because they are good business. Pushing today though for massive emission reductions can only be accomplish be reducing global consumption. People don't like that, and they jump all over any excuse to go to war if it means lifting those reductions. That's just the terrible nature of our species.

As for glaciers, I did read the article. You'll notice it observed that increasing the spatial resolution of models changed the picture entirely? The IPCC noted this and updated their findings accordingly as well(page 242). The best guess by 2100 is better than 50% of the glaciers through the entire range remaining. The uncertainty range even includes a potential, though less likely GAIN of mass:
. Results for the Himalaya range between 2% gain and 29% loss to 2035; to 2100, the range of losses is 15 to 78% under RCP4.5. The modelmean loss to 2100 is 45% under RCP4.5 and 68% under RCP8.5 (medium confidence). It is virtually certain that these projections are more reliable than in earlier erroneous assessment (Cruz et al., 2007) of complete disappearance by 2035.

If you still want to insist Nepal will be without glaciers in 2100 please provide a source of your own or stop insisting on contradicting the science to make things scarier.

It worked to give a visible aerosol, I'm just thinking it makes more than you would normally create, which I'm sure was intentional. You have to have more so you can see it if you don't have a Schlieren setup. That's what I want to see, in slow motion and HD so you can see the droplets along with the air currents. Then I'll have to design a negative pressure toilet or I'll never feel like using the bathroom again!

It reminds me of a good lesson I learned with fish. It's a good idea to not learn too much about something you use habitually, it can cause real problems! Sometimes it's better to just not know. ;-)