Apparently this Morricone evening was so popular they’re doing it again on August 18-20 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

https://www.history.com/news/the-hindenburg-disaster-9-surprising-facts ...

Goebbels wanted to name the Hindenburg for Adolf Hitler.
Eckener, no fan of the Third Reich, named the airship for the late German president Paul von Hindenburg and refused Goebbels’ request to name it after Hitler. The Führer, never enthralled by the great airships in the first place, was ultimately glad that the zeppelin that crashed in a fireball didn’t bear his name.

also...

Frau Eva von Zeppelin was offended by the group's name (Led Zepplin) for "dishonouring the family name". The direct descendant of Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin demanded the band to change their name. On 28th Feb, 1970, the group performed one show in Copenhagen as The Nobs but decided to retain their original name afterwards due to popular and critical opinions that favoured their original name.

https://www.thesound.co.nz/home/music/2018/09/Led-Zeppelin-Facts-2.html#:~:text=Frau%20Eva%20von%20Zeppelin%20was,band%20to%20change%20their%20name.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/the-elements-song-by-tom-lehrer-live-in-Copenhagen for the melody

the elements song by tom lehrer live in Copenhagen has been added as a related post - related requested by makach.

Pretty sure that's called a "Siftup"

Some examples...
https://videosift.com/video/Youdiejoe-s-vid-of-the-2009-SoCal-siftup
https://videosift.com/video/Spocos-2011-Melbourne-Siftup-Footage
https://videosift.com/video/EURO-SIFTUP-2009
https://videosift.com/video/Copenhagen-Siftfup-Crake-jessefromthenorth-and-gwiz665

That was amazing! *doublepromote

Locations in order of appearance:

1:15 Pont de Bir-Hakeim, Paris, France
1:30 Berlin Wall Memorial, Berlin, Germany
1:43 La Sagrada Familia, Barcelona, Spain
1:56 Hoxton Alley, London, UK
2:11 Regents Park, London, UK
2:33 Calle Traghetto Vecchio, Venice, Italy
2:49 St. Pauls Cathedral, London, UK
3:08 Rooftop Terrace, Copenhagen, Denmark
3:25 Sand Dunes, Dubai, UAE
3:33 Red Square, Moscow, Russia
3:45 Gulfoss and Gljúfurárfoss Waterfalls, Iceland
4:01 Mrs. Macqauries Point, Sydney, Australia
4:19 Shibuya Crossing, Tokyo, Japan
4:36 Brooklyn Bridge, New York City, United States of America

Congratulations! Your video, This is what Rush Hour looks like in Copenhagen, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 11 Badge!

Your video, This is what Rush Hour looks like in Copenhagen, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Very cool, but fake, I think. My guts says Copenhagen would not let them set the side of a building on fire; as well as, something about the light the fire is giving off.

I agree with a lot of this.

What I'd dispute is whether we know know for certain it is largely man-made. Again I would defer to NASA where it specifies it is "very likely due to human activities" that is the consensus. I study statistics and the hypothesis/ significance testing you could perform to test time periods before and after human activity would be very rigorous in determining a trend change, and there is certainly no lack of data.

As far predicting the benefit/harm and the most cost effective policy alternative if one is required, I agree it's debatable. There are organisations such as the Copenhagen Consensus that argue for technology based solutions such as stratospheric aerosol injection or carbon capture rather than pure taxes/reduced emissions.

My own (layman) take here is that mitigating a potentially large unknown is pragmatic. At the very least until such technologies are proven to be effective and feasible in reversing the trend. European colonists destroyed ecosystems through introducing but a handful of non-native species to a previously isolated habitats. I think it goes without saying we should not be naive about the unforeseen impacts of a global change like this and taking a conservative approach is warranted.

@Trancecoach holding a doctorate doesn't make you capable of understanding the scientific literature. If you held a bachelor's degree in one of the three sciences you'd stand a lot better chance of being able to understand the literature than someone who had a doctorate in say Art History. I would actually refer back to the Dunning Kruger effect and suggest that holding an unrelated qualification might lead you to overestimate your abilities.

And for someone who says that they *are* capable of understanding the scientific literature (and therefore the scientific method and approach), you dismiss "scientific consensus" as not being "scientific evidence". I don't understand what you mean here, but i think that's because you don't understand what scientific proof is.

I think it's a fundamental mistake that you're making. Scientists propose theories. Those theories that most accurately describe the situation and are most rigourously investigated are the ones that are accepted as being the case, and when things are found that are not correct, adjustments are made to the theory or other theories are proposed. There is never ever, ever.... EVER.. absolute evidence of anything in the way in which you request it, and that's your fundamental error, and stems from you not understanding the scientific method.

We have a lot of scientific consensus about gravity, but we do not have "scientific evidence" in the way you describe it. The evidence is ALL of the science that is done, ALL of the experiments ALL of the conclusions, positive and negative, and the consensus of the scientific community is reached and refined based on that research and ongoing research. There is no one document anywhere that constitutes "proof" that gravity is how we think it is. Not even all of the documents do that. They merely indicate to us what is most likely to be happening according to all of the knowledge and ingenuity that we've built up over the years.

I don't appreciate the scatter gun method you've used by posting all those links. You said in your latest post here that people try to confuse the issue by redirecting your request for "evidence" - the type that doesn't exist - towards other issues that you deem contentious. Yet you have almost drowned me in what appears to be about 15 different links to pages that seem to show singular examples of individuals that deny climate change. (Again, there are so many, and so many quotes, and no actual specification of what you are disagreeing with me about, that i can't rightly assess any of them.)

My point here is twofold - 1) don't try to be confusing like you accuse your opponents of, i.e. throwing as many links as possible to extend the argument to other points and 2) if that isn't what you were doing, could you perhaps condense your 15 links and selected quotes into a smaller point; that point being what it is about my previous posts you disagreed with?

Here are my points for you, simplified:
1) Scientific consensus does not mean "THIS IS HOW THINGS ARE" - it means that, on balance, according to everything we know and the opinions of those that are in the know, this is how we think things are until we know better.
2) There is no such thing as "scientific evidence" in the way you use the term; the only absolute proof is the one Descartes spoke about; the only thing you can know for sure is that your consciousness exists.
3) It is very easy to be misled by articles such as the one you linked from "the libertarian republic" website. This is also true of the last link you recommended for my research; you used that book to support your opposition to my assertion that human-caused climate change is not a matter of debate in the scientific community. Yet the same author was involved in the Copenhagen Consensus which lists as 6th most worthy of investigation (for the benefit and future of mankind), i quote; "R&D to Increase Yield Enhancements, to decrease hunger, fight biodiversity destruction, and lessen the effects of climate change"

I think that out of courtesy you should select one link which backs up whatever it is that you wish to refute, because it's not a good use of my time to have to go through each individual link, find out what you disagree with me about, and then spend time looking into it.

So, we disagree on one of the following:
1) The scientific consensus is that human-caused climate change is real, and that consensus represents the best of our current understanding as a species.
2) "Proof" in the sense you use it doesn't exist, the correct term is scientific evidence. The more evidence and the more convincing it is, the more firm the belief in a theory.
3) The article you linked from the libertarian website was unfairly representing its argument in relation to the paper it was referring to.

Please let me know. Remember - nothing is "beyond scepticism" in your words. I am sceptical about everything, including gravity, which i have an incredible amount of evidence for. However i am still sceptical about our understanding of it - i am always looking for differences. That doesn't mean that our understanding isn't the best one we have, and we should use it for our own advantage and safety.

I also note that you seem loathe to have a proper discussion with me. Our discussion could have been either about the scientific method or about the article you linked, but to throw all these links at me makes me feel you're unwilling or incapable of challenging your own opinion based on evidence. You don't even refer to the assessments of the article that i offered; you immediately discarded the article from your argument and linked me to other people that may or may not be misrepresenting the argument.

Your video, Copenhagen Soccer Fans' Giant Cannonball Poster, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

"Copenhagen is ours" - classic city rivalry..
*comedy, and kind of *animation, isn't it?

Giraffe Copenhagen Zoo chief: 'I like animals' has been added as a related post - related requested by bareboards2.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Giraffe-Copenhagen-Zoo-chief-I-like-animals