Squiggly tongue!

snuck isn't a word, guys. i know, because mozilla firefox is putting a RED SQUIGGLY LINE UNDER IT RIGHT NOW!

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

Let's play it by ear. We can meet at 20 Meyers Place and decide then. I'll update this post for late arrivers so people will always know where we're at. You can also email me at "brianh [squiggly symbol] videosift.com"

>> ^Unsung_Hero:

>> ^westy:
curling with helicopters and cows, shud be winter olimpic sport

I commend your courage to ignore the little red squiggly lines under your comment when posting.
Fuk U Spel Sheck!


Spel shecking is practicaly neanderthal. To spend so much time primping and preening your communication feels dishonest imo. Thank the maker for teh internetz!

>> ^westy:

curling with helicopters and cows, shud be winter olimpic sport


I commend your courage to ignore the little red squiggly lines under your comment when posting.

Fuk U Spel Sheck!

Upvote for using the squiggly equals sign in a sift title.

"So the fact that the clip said "College Humor" at the bottom didnt clue you in?" -Chaucer

I think College University and College Humor are different things. I mean the first bunch of squiggly lines is the same, but the second bunch is a totally different bunch of squiggly lines.

Then again, I don't use a 14th century poet and author sometimes referred to as the father of English literature as my screen name, so I could be wrong. Maybe not, I am pretty smrt. I mean ess-em-ay-arr-tee.

Interesting video until the corny logo-URL-spelling-mistake-red-squiggly ending.

Ok you caught me. I can't type and I'm an even worse speller. Thank God FireFox gives me the little red squiggly lines of death when I fuck up. Only problem is, it doesn't work the the title or tags boxes.

So, you disagree that the sea level will rise significantly in the 100 years?

Furthermore, I think you have the problem backwards. The issue is not that people are doing too much to deal with global warming, the issue is that not enough is being done. I am not advocating a global freakout, but at this point the science needs to be taken seriously and assination and politically motivated pieces like these need to stop. My impression, and this could be wrong, is that in the US there is an overwhelming opinion that Science is wrong when it comes to global warming. And I believe that is ridiculous, without any proof otherwise people are taking it on FAITH that science is wrong.

I believe you are mistaken about scientists recieving political pressure to confirm or disprove a result, it may happen but if it does it is extremely rare. If it was prevalent, then NIST, which is headed by a Bush appointee, would never have come out so strongly in the case of global climate change. Have you had personal experience in this matter? My guess is no. Because that is not how grant writing works. In my experience in physics(myself) and biology(my fiancee), when we write grants we explain the proposed theories or experiments and state the possible outcomes, but a grant is never submitted stating the conclusion ahead of time.

And the squiggly...

lol. Tous Chez.

I managed to bork my original response... :-(

Anway, the gist of it was this: Yes, I have read it. And yes I have read his later "Letters" where he attempts to defend his calculations. I especially like the one in 2003 where he gets downright testy that he is being questioned. I think that work like this clearly points to an absolute requirement that as scientists we all are COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT in our calculations. While it is obviously not possible to present complete datasets in a journal, I think it is clear that in cases such as this there should be an online resource where everyone can see (not edit of course) the original source data. Then, it is your responsibility in your methods to explain clearly how you reach your numbers. In cases of satellite data, this is easily done and that's why the authors get so many questions about their work. But I think this is absolutely necessary to prevent absolutely uninformed people being told half the story and then going off on a rant "ZOMG! So and so LIED! GLOBAL WARMING IS TEH F4kZ0RS!" We must police ourselves and I think all of the responses the authors received demonstrate that at least some people are committed to that.

And if by the red squiggly you mean Word and its helpful spell check... If I remember correctly, Mr. Gates lets me know that immunohistochemistry, clupeidae, sciaenops, and otolith are not words as well. I should really let my advisor know about that if it's true.

My antagonism is based on the fact that I am tired of people making intelligent comments and then ruining it by naming calling... It was just frustration.

However, I maintain that sheeple is not a word(See red squiggly). Other words could have expressed your viewpoint equally as well, and not, in my opinion, trivialized you comment.

This is his paper, which is widely regarded as one of the very few(if not the only) papers which presents data that suggests the globe is not warming.

SPENCER RW, CHRISTY JR
PRECISE MONITORING OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TRENDS FROM SATELLITES
SCIENCE 247 (4950): 1558-1562 MAR 30 1990

It was followed by a subsequent paper, which calls into question his conclusions and analysis. I can get that reference for you as well.

And actually there was another paper in Science

LETTERS
Consensus About Climate Change?
Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; and Naomi Oreskes (13 May 2005)
Science 308 (5724), 952. [DOI: 10.1126/science.308.5724.952]

which reiterates my comment. There has been absolutely NO peer reviewed published data showing that the globe is not warming(which has not been subsequently called into question or repealed). In most cases, I would never say anything so unequivocable, but what I have said is true. Or at least was true the last time I checked the literature. If you can find a citation which shows data that the globe is not warming, I would love to see it.

I see that you agree, that the globe is warming. I would still argue that the at least 75% of the published data suggests that the cause is anthropagenic. [Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; and Naomi Oreskes, Science 308 (5724), 952]

Tags for this video have been changed from 'parasite, squiggly, ewww, endoscope' to 'parasite, squiggly, ewww, endoscope, worms, stomach, internal organs' - edited by lucky760

Tags for this video have been changed from 'parasite squiggly ewww endoscope' to 'parasite, squiggly, ewww, endoscope' - edited by thesnipe

So a republican working at a media firm with ExxonMobil as one of its clients throws together a video that makes no points nor counters any of V.P. Gore's. The obvious conclusion is that it was made by public relations professionals at the direction of a multi-national behemoth? Ha! Good work, ABC; you've connected the dots and come up with... a squiggly line. Every cloud looks like something to the mind of the observer.

It's ABC who is presenting the argument here. But since they couldn't tie it to more than one guy, they set it up so our naturally suspicious minds fill in from the supplied info. I can't believe they spent money investigating who made the sad satire.

Propaganda actually presents some kind of information. Penguin army just calls the movie boring. How dare! And people might believe it based on this subtle animation. Scandal. Too bad the creator of the video didn't work in the idea department instead of the graphics department. And take it home to post it.