@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

ya well people weren't so stupid back then. They also had exposed radiators in every schoolroom and streetcars on most commercial streets.

It is simplified.

Some of the concepts are actually pretty hard to put into words and just are how they are. And for each cosmologist you speak to you will encounter a different opinion of the standard cosmological model or parts of its construction.

There are parts of it i don't like because i can't follow and feel comfortable with each step. The maths makes sense, but there's nothing logical and connected in my understanding. At first i didn't like that, but then i realised that we all accept quantum mechanics where charged particles accelerate without radiating, and "instantaneously" move between distinct energy levels.......

In other words, every physical law we've got is just our primitive way of understanding the signals sent from our senses to our brain. Things seem to make sense to us the more experience we have with it happening. We don't understand why matter moves towards other matter via "gravity" - a word which we accept and go 'ahhh gravity - i understand now' but why the hell should it and/or why should it exist in the first place merely to move towards one another?!

So gravity attracts things (why?!) and time only runs in one direction (why!?) and energy is quantized according to the planck constant (WHY!?) and ... the universe is more or less like it's shown in the video! But why why why!? Well, that's a question for a philosopher.

It's like radiation on your wedding day. It's the good advice that you just didn't take.

Wait -- radiation? Oh thank you iOS spell checker. Thank you for the correction.

"Absorbed in it's world it's so hard to find us
It shapes our minds the most;
maybe the mother of our Nation
should remind us
that we're sitting to close to. . .

Television, the drug of the Nation
Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation." -Michael Franti

Smash one in a den or living room near you, today! It's cathartic, reduces energy consumption, and drastically mitigates malignant ignorance worldwide!

Shiny, from the context in which Volump used the quote, it really seems that he did understand what Lumbsten was saying, and was accurately pointing out that it is incorrect, or at least misleading. The human eye has a pretty significant blind spot as the result of the nervous connections having to pass through the layer of photoreceptors. While there are some who argue that the layout of the vertebrate eye helps to cope with damage cause by UV radiation, it doesn't make sense to argue that it functions this way because it is 'designed' for use out of water. The eyes of fishes have the same design (...extremely good evidence for evolutionary relatedness), and fish, of course, usually use their eyes underwater.
A stronger argument suggesting an adaptive trade-off between the costs of having nervous connections in front of the photoreceptors and some other benefits of this anatomy would be that the arrangement of the vertebrate eye allows for the photoreceptors to be closer to their blood supply in the choriod.

You've quoted that without understanding what he is talking about, or what the controversy actually is. Evolutionists suppose that the human eye is poorly designed because of a layer of nerve fibers in front of the eye. They base this partly on the fact that the octopus, whose eyes have a similar design to ours, have the same nerve fibers located in the back of the eye. They say the nerve fibers in front impair our vision in comparison, and perhaps they might a little(dont know if they do or not), but it is for a tradeoff. The truth that is missing from the discussion is that the nerve fibers in front have a purpose, which is to block damaging radiation that the octopus isn't exposed to because it is underwater. That is why the octopus can have the nerve fibers in the back of the eye and we have them in front.

What is your proof that he wasn't an atheist? Where did you read that he was kicked out of the University? I wouldn't be surprised that he was kicked out of the University after he converted, but I've never read that he was kicked out.

Off the track at 23:30---from his comments---he thinks he hit a slick of someone else's radiator fluid

You beat me to it.
Also, they have to jack the car up, change 20 lug nuts instead of 4, fill the gas tank with a can, clean the windshield, clear the radiator intake, and make all adjustments.

This? 12 guys to change the tires. 3 with jacks (one backup?) 4 to walk up and hold the car (2 front, 2 middle.) And 2 guys who stand around and watch.

UPDATE: As of February 2014 ALL coastline of California now reads CPM's as high as the exposure at 40,000 ft while flying in a commercial jet from cosmic radiation....Check incidences of cancer in commercial airline pilots vs. folks on the ground, and move inland if you are taken to windy walks on the beachfront in Cali, peeps...Cali coast and the fishes therein from that side of the Pacific are already fucked for centuries.

Dumbo. He didn't need no bitches or dicks to fly...
Mothra. Survives radiation, self-replicates.

Hey newt, check the latest data and studies of the changing magnetic field of the planet and solar radiation may become a more pressing an issue than GW as a threat to human health-Cosmic radiation may kill us off before cyclical and human-effected climate woes.

The problem with GW responsibility of individuals could be solved in a single, collective stroke if humanity stopped buying shit they don't need-LIKE electric lights after sundown, LIKE fossil fuels, LIKE industrially manufactured bullshit for the masses. If anyone needs to pay carbon taxes it's the machine that teaches each new generation to over-extend their luxuries for the sake of the bowing at the alter of a contrived system printing the unnecessary, HARD CURRENCY.

Yeah, the Japanese are for the most part some some piece-a-work dysfunctional, throw-backs to empire & isolation fucking savages oh and, Thanks Japan, for ass-raping the Pacific with radiation...Brilliant move, dumbassess!

Do love a lot of their whack-ass psycho shit though, but they treat their women like dogshit, so fuck em.

Were you not paying attention in physics class the day they explained the difference between mass and weight? As @Payback pointed out the energy required to overcome inertia is the same no matter what the gravity, low gravity simply allows you to "spread the duration" of the force like a fulcrum.

I.e. it would be easier than on earth but you still have to apply enough force to move 2-300kg of mass, you just have the option of doing so less rapidly (making it easier but not easy).

Even if this were not the case your argument still makes no sense. If it was indeed faked then surely they were on wires anyway? How else are you proposing they replicated the effects of low gravity?

The fact your comment got 3 likes is rather depressing. As someone who makes researching conspiracy theories a borderline obsessive hobby I can say with some confidence that the whole faked moon landing thing is about the most debunk-able one ever conceived. It is an insult to the very term "conspiracy theory" and helps give the rest of us a bad name .

Radiation belt? = 7 mins of expertly calculated exposure, there is a 1000ish page NASA manual on how they did this.

Cameras? = they had about 20 DIFFERENT cameras & much like anyone else would the crappy poorly framed or exposed shots weren't used for publicity

Multiple light sources? = The surface of the moon is both highly reflective and uneven. (mythbusters did the shit out of that one)

Most complicated machine ever built? = Actually launched, several times, to the freaking moon and back!

Waving flag? = Funny how every single shot of the flag waving is when someone is holding/touching it eh? (& what kind of retard leaves evidence of wind in the most expensive coverup of all time?)

The Russian space programme? = They just turned a blind eye to their arch rivals lauding it over them? They were in on it? You have to get really paranoid before that one starts to make any sense whatsoever.

etc. etc. etc.

I have a lot of time for conspiracy theories and I'm happy to speculate with the best of them but I've yet to find a single good argument for the landing not happening. I can maybe work with the possibility that some things were omitted/covered up (Monoliths etc.) because this could not be conclusively refuted by empirical facts. Suggesting that it never happened however is so easy to disprove it blows my mind that people still have time for the idea.

For your own sake try looking into the opposing arguments. There are plenty people with PHD's and direct experience who are happy to take you through the counters to all this stuff. And they back it up with actual evidence and experiments rather than conjecture and selective information. Your mind will thank you for it

It is pure infrared. The installed filter blocks out all visible light.
The LED Headlights were on the whole time for example, but they appear off because those wavelengths did not hit the cameras sensor.

The glowing effect has nothing to do with thermal radiation.
We thought so too at first and hoped for "hot" surfaces to glow.

It is an optical effect that has to do with the wavelength of infrared light. The trees glow white due to the contained chlorophyll which reflects those wavelenghts very well.