Thumbnail pretty much telegraphs the punchline, thanks.

There are depressingly few journalists who call Osbourne out on his permanent-surplus horseshit....

While we're on the subject, the rhetoric from the left flank of Syriza against austerity seems to be shifting from failed policy to tool of class warfare. Or maybe it's just getting reported more prominently.

The IMF, and Lagarde especially, is also receiving more heat by the day for letting themselves get dragged into this troika business by Strauss-Kahn.

Yet in all this, there still isn't anyone willing to pull the trigger.

They all try to appease the mighty gods of the economy, with austerity chosen as their way of showing penance.

This one deserves more attention than it currently gets, I'd say:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11447805/Eurozone-faces-first-regional-bankruptcy-as-debt-debacle-stalks-Austrias-Carinthia.html

Short version: Austrian bank ignores due diligence, does shitload of risky business in Balkans/Eastern Europe, business goes sour, trouble gets magnified by several events, bad bank is created, bad bank is now insolvent, new bail-in rules apply -- murder and mayhem everywhere.

The bank itself has a rather fascinating history of corruption within both Austria and Germany. In fact, it was taken over by a public bank from Bavaria under extremely dubious circumstances, and separated again a few years back under equally dubious circumstances. A whole lot of money laundering for our conservative party went through that bank, I can tell you that much.

Good source of entertainment, that one.

Sounds like he is ok, he will just have some issues getting through airport security now:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/virals/11432624/Driver-films-himself-being-cut-out-of-car-wreckage-following-crash.html

Paul Mason's reporting on this entire farce has been sublime, just like AEP's over at the Telegraph and YS's at NakedCapitalism.

And yes, that guy is representative of the views of our government as well as of significant parts of parliament. Pacta sunt servanda, there's a moral obligation to pay for your sins (debt = sin), and expansionary austerity works.

Economic creationists, loads and loads of 'em. And that's not even the worst of it. There are also plenty of folks who are eager to use debt as a means to extract resources and to subjugate entire countries -- colonialism redux.

Did you happen to see this recent study. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11316316/Red-meat-triggers-toxic-immune-reaction-which-causes-cancer-scientists-find.html

Your video, Luckily, his car hit that telegraph pole..., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thought this would interest you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11316316/Red-meat-triggers-toxic-immune-reaction-which-causes-cancer-scientists-find.html

Link between red meat and cancer. Science bitches! Dont want to hear the there is no proof meat isnt bad for you shit anymore.

Now if there was a video to post regarding this study.

Yeah, not going to happen. Most mainland Chinese, even those who are studying in HK, have very different political outlook:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/hongkong/11131802/Analysis-Hong-Kongs-democracy-protests-pose-little-threat-to-China.html

Also, the scale of this protests is not unique, even for HK standards. Annual protests routinely drawing hundreds of thousands of people.

@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

You're a fucking idiot... There ya go, THAT was an example of an ad hominem. Now you can recognise it for future reference.

You asked for an explanation, I gave you one. I didn't even insult your dumb ass, I said that the Telegraph was lying and then I provided you a link which explained it.

Clearly I should have used smaller words.

edit: and now you're randomly downvoting my videos out of pettiness. Wow, I really must have gotten to you. How sad for you.

HA HA HA!
Congrats, even climate deniers who get millions in funding stopped claiming that a long time ago. Denying basic physics is a bit harder, you see.

Also, I love how The Telegraph (a.k.a. the-evil-media-are-all-liars-except-when-it-suits-you) is somehow a credible source, but the NASA is not. You know. The NASA. That organization that put people on the Moon, somehow would know less science than some journo.

You seem to be one special kind of genius, we're really interested in your views, could you please fill in this quick poll?

Which number is bigger:
* 5
* 15

There is. It's the telegraph, who are ideologically opposed to global warming and just so there's zero ambiguity here...

THEY ARE FUCKING LYING

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

While the "overwhelming evidence" for human caused climate change remains underwhelming, in ether case, I'll do what helps the most people to limit greenhouse gases: stop consuming beef (since "we the people" have little to no power over the major causes of climate change: U.S.A.'s and China's governments).

Still, while it's worth doing what we can to diminish greenhouse gases, it's probably wise to get a better understanding of the meteorological conditions affecting the planet from sources other than televised comedy shows.

(Surely, someone somewhere has an explanation, say, for this, but I doubt televised comedy shows have the time, expertise, or attention spans to adequately address a complex issue).

@lucky760 pretty sure this is the same video with a few seconds of lion footage added at the end.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/10627119/Copenhagen-zoo-kills-and-dismembers-young-giraffe.html
*backup=[...snipped...]

-edit- well that didnt work