Bollocks.

He's not taken seriously by one guy who's a student and tv intern and one other meteorologist. It's hardly "by any meteorologist", but hey, 2 people is absolutely a representative sample for the climate denying brigade.

Most meteorologists agree with Bill Nye

Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
Yes 89%
No 4%
Don't Know 7%

How sure are you that global warming is happening?
[Asked if answer to Question 1 is “Yes”]
Extremely sure 46%
Very sure 37%
Somewhat sure 16%
Not at all sure 1

Um, Yes, it is a right.
It certainly is my right, and to all that claim that right, it's their right not to be under surveillance of any kind.

"Privacy is a fundamental human right recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights and in many other international and regional treaties. Privacy underpins human dignity and other key values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. It has become one of the most important human rights issues of the modern age. "
-- http://gilc.org/privacy/survey/intro.html

I feel like both of you likely made mistaken 'assumptions' in your arguments.
I can't understand how a survey can say 'consumer prices are 36.9% higher there' yet 'local purchasing power is 14.29% higher in the US'...Those numbers don't seem to jibe, or really mean anything without more info. Is that per dollar, per capita, average salary, mean salary, what? If things really cost 36.9% higher there, we SHOULD have near 25% more 'purchasing power' per dollar here, not 14....but you also have to ignore that they have far more dollars per person (even after paying higher taxes) to make your point...and you must also count 'national oil revenue' as 'personal tax' to come up with your numbers...if you did the same for the US, I would accept that, but you don't...as if the fed only gets money from personal taxes.

EDIT: Also, are your numbers AFTER tax income? I note they are AVERAGE incomes, and in the US, most people make far less than the average, because the top 5% takes 50%GDP (+-). Remove the top 5% and the bottom 5% and you'll see the numbers change drastically, and it will give you a much more realistic picture of the average person's income. I seriously doubt the wage disparity is nearly as pronounced in Norway, but I don't really KNOW.

All you complain about them paying for (whether they use the service or not) is the same in the US, yet the (underfunded) services provided in the US for the money are almost useless, so a near TOTAL waste. Do you not understand that? We have decided that, in a society, it benefits YOU if your neighbors children get educated, and also if your neighbors don't go bankrupt over medical bills, and it benefits you to not throw destitute elderly out on the streets, and even if you don't drive, it benefits you to have roads in your area...etc.

I find it hilarious that YOU are outraged and indignant FOR THEM, while they are apparently MUCH happier with the system they live in than you are with yours. You might think about that a minute.

It was explained in the link in the description, but it was so they could compare datasets between the ground and remote measurements:

The objective, which was accomplished during Operation IceBridge’s March 19 inaugural flight of the 2015 Arctic campaign, was for the C-130 to overfly a survey field located on an ice floe next to the vessel, while taking remote measurements of snow and sea ice thickness. The survey field was almost simultaneously measured from the ground by the ship-bound researchers, so that scientists can compare both datasets in coming months.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com

re sifters: Doing a survey because i think the current member list may be broken. I'm sending this because it says you are currently on the sift. If when you see this you know you were not on the sift when this was time stamped could you let me know thanks.

re sifters: Doing a survey because i think the current member list may be broken. I'm sending this because it says you are currently on the sift. If when you see this you know you were not on the sift when this was time stamped could you let me know thanks.

re sifters: Doing a survey because i think the current member list may be broken. I'm sending this because it says you are currently on the sift. If when you see this you know you were not on the sift when this was time stamped could you let me know thanks.

"By the numbers", which means "recent surveys", "studies have shown", "a nationwide poll", "let's look at some data", "overwhelming evidence has shown". All the statistical buzz phrases. I would rather see this issue presented in a ponderous TED presentation than this overly glib Michael Moore cartoon short.

To be clear, my problem is with the messenger, not the message.

Well, first you must determine the average lifespan of a species...impossible until we survey the entire universe.
Then you must determine the average distance between populated planets.
Then you must determine the 'lifespan' of all possible transmission technologies (on average). (how long 'they' emit that kind of transmission)
Then you must determine the maximum range and speed of any transmissions, and what form those transmissions are in, which is what most of this video is about. Now we're looking in 2 small ranges of possible wave form communications for the first time. Subtract any with a maximum range lower than the distance from transmission to us (another unknowable).
Then you must determine how many ranges of not just wave form energy are we ignoring, but how many other forms of communication/emission/energy might there be that we aren't looking for or even conceiving their existence (another impossible question to answer)?
Only once ALL those (impossible) questions are answered (and I'm certain more that are unknown but important variables) can you do even preliminary calculations to determine how statistically likely it should really be to 'find' evidence of extra-planetary species/civilizations, and that number is almost definitely tiny by any standard.

To think they might be 'here' already, you must either assume they are a space fairing species (which would also indicate a species that 'raids' planets and moves on, not one that settles and/or trades, so lets hope not) or you must assume they have much faster than light travel, which if true, should mean one would expect to see aliens 'teleporting' everywhere, and likely some crazy looking evidence of the transportation method. If neither of these are true (space fairing or faster than light travel) you would not expect to ever hear or see them.
Since technology evolves, so do the types of transmissions that technology produces. To think that in the time frame a single type of transmission is used somewhere in the universe (+ travel time) we'll be searching for exactly that type of transmission form would be such an INSANELY unlikely coincidence that many would see it as proof of god (because it couldn't statistically happen naturally, like a babble fish).
What this means is, unless we become space fairing raiders ourselves, or find faster than light travel ourselves, we'll likely be alone forever, even if there is other intelligent life out there.
There's just too much to search in too many ways over too long a time span, like looking for a single protozoa in the entire ocean, when you don't know what it looks like or even what a protozoa is, and the protozoa only exists for one random week in your life time.
That's where I think they are....unfindable.

Hi Poolcleaner,

I think you're arguing from a false premise, that a belief in Creation science does not contribute to what you call true science. Some of the greatest scientists who ever lived were creationists. Here is a list of a few of them:

http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm

Their belief that God created an orderly Universe based on laws (which is the reason we call them laws) highly influenced and inspired their exploration of the cosmos. Here are a couple of quotes:

When with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets when with excellent microscopes I discern the unimitable subtility of nature’s curious workmanship; and when, in a word, by the help of anatomical knives, and the light of chemical furnaces, I study the book of nature I find myself oftentimes reduced to exclaim with the Psalmist, How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast Thou made them all!

-Robert Boyle, Chemistry

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.

-Louis Pasteur, Medicine

Creation science is a collection of data which supports the idea that the Earth is young. Some of the theories within creation science are testable and predictive, but as a whole you cannot put it in a lab and perform a measurement any more than you could do so for macroevolution, because they both concern what happened in the past. You cannot observe macroevolution happening anywhere nor can you subject it to empirical testing. You can make observations and inferences based on a theory, but that is subject to interpretation.

I can imagine it:

Beneficent aliens on a survey mission (the Kritchans) crashed onto our planet due to an unpredictable burst of solar energy. Stranded and alone, their ship destroyed, they were rescued by a local farmer. In time they taught him of their Kritchan ways.

The farmer now knows that in their culture, not holding a door open for someone is considered the ultimate insult. But they were hungry and desperate and had a coupon for a value meal.

They tried to just come in and order a burger, but people were rude and slammed the door in their face.

Confronted with the judgmental reactionary stupidity of mankind, our alien ambassador farmer friend finally freaks out and wrecks some fake flora in a fast food joint, facilitating the flight and future fury of our foreign friends. Was it worth it?

It's just a theory.

It's not fringe when a good chunk of muslims around the world (not just the middle east) have extremist points of view:


Muslims in most countries surveyed say that a wife should always obey her husband." (including 93% in Indonesia and 65% in Turkey).

Only 32% of Muslims in Indonesia say a woman should have the right to divorce her husband (22% in Egypt, 26% in Pakistan and 60% in Russia)

1 in 3 Muslims in Austria say it is not possible to be a European and a Muslim. 22% oppose democracy

21% of Muslim-Americans say there is a fair to great amount of support for Islamic extremism in their community.

61% of British Muslims want homosexuality punished

Turkish Ministry of Education: 1 in 4 Turks Support Honor Killings

WZB Berlin Social Science Center: 65% of Muslims in Europe say Sharia is more important than the law of the country they live in.

Pew Research (2013): 81% of South Asian Muslims and 57% of Egyptians suport amputating limbs for theft.

Pew Research (2013): 72% of Indonesians want Sharia to be law of the land

Pew Research (2010): 82% of Egyptian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
70% of Jordanian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
42% of Indonesian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
82% of Pakistanis favor stoning adulterers
56% of Nigerian Muslims favor stoning adulterers

MacDonald Laurier Institute: 62% of Muslims want Sharia in Canada (15% say make it mandatory)

Pew Research (2013): 39% of Muslims in Malaysia say suicide bombings "justified" in defense of Islam (only 58% say 'never').

Pew Research (2013): 76% of South Asian Muslims and 56% of Egyptians advocate killing anyone who leaves the Islamic religion.

Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam

Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.


CLEARLY, what we need is more Islam in the world. Such a force for good...

Grrr..., freakin' *blocked

Believe it or not I got to fill in a survey of their's on how I like their site - And I let them have it on the blocked site issue. At the very least, they should forward me through to the page on their Canadian site where I can see this clip. The Canadian site doesn't even have "clips", only episodes. So I have to wade through episodes just to find this. I doubt they will even read my official complaint though.
OK, rant concluded - Thanks for baring with me

Simply by having the same education level does not grant you equal pay (unless you're working in government). You're paid for the supply and demand of your skills. There are by far MANY more men than women in engineering and physical sciences, and those fields pay rather well. There are by far MANY more women than men in veterinary and educational fields, and those fields pay atrociously.

It is indeed unfortunate if any discrimination occurs, and even if women achieve 99% of men, it is still not nice. However, recognize that nobody is particularly certain about these numbers. I see numbers ranging from 87% to 103% in this video, so our certainty is horrible. Inequality is bad, but if you're going to get particularly opinionated about it, crunch the numbers for yourself instead of letting other boneheads skew the numbers for you.

The statistics can be pulled either way by horrible analyses, and trying to compare 'equal jobs' can be hard...particularly when you factor in cost of living differences, seniority, relative success of different companies, etc. The most compelling evidence was the Yale study where identical resumes with different names were awarded different amounts of speculative money. That was the only real telling evidence that, at least among the people in that study, there is a bias towards paying women less for exactly the same job. However, the statistics can be pulled either way in a study like that as well; what is the uncertainty of the pay level for that poll? Is it random chance and statistical noise happened to end up with the woman paid less in that study? If they surveyed an order of magnitude more people, would the average salaries converge to the same value? In most polls and studies like this, the sampling size is usually quite poor, and getting such an exact dollar figure difference with high certainty is nearly impossible. It would be great to see that study to make an assessment of how much uncertainty was present for myself.