Your video, Best of Jaws - Actor Richard Kiel RIP, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 45 Badge!

Richard Dawkins - Sex, Death & The Meaning Of Life #2: Death has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia on that post.

Richard Dawkins - Sex, Death & The Meaning Of Life #3: Life has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-Sex-Death-And-The-Meaning-Of-Life-Ep-3

Richard Dawkins - Sex, Death & The Meaning Of Life #1: Sin has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia on that post.

Richard Dawkins - Sex, Death & The Meaning Of Life #2: Death has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia.

Richard Dawkins - Sex, Death & The Meaning Of Life #3: Life has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia.

Richard Dawkins - Sex, Death & The Meaning Of Life #1: Sin has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia on that post.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-Sex-Death-And-The-Meaning-Of-Life-Ep-2
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-Sex-Death-And-The-Meaning-Of-Life-Ep-3

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Grimm.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by xxovercastxx. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-Demonstrates-Laryngeal-Nerve-of-the-Giraffe

@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

Can we have a name and badge number so we can make thousands of complaints on this officers employment record and get him removed....please? It looks like Richard Recine in Helmetta, NJ
This is what you get when idiots listen to the talking heads on Faux and believe them.
EDIT: I put in a request to his supervisor (r.manney@helmettaboro.com) for the forms to make a formal complaint against Richard Recine....if this kind of thing bothers you, do the same. Together maybe we can make a difference.

Yes it's a coincidence. That's the most likely outcome from trying to draw conclusions from the position of a single data point. I'm not sure if you think that the culture of a Spanish speaking Caribbean colony a thousand miles from the mainland is representative of the US as a whole, but that seems a strange position to take.

In any event, you have shifted the discussion from spree killers to killers in general. The video here is about a guy who might have stopped a spree killer (but almost certainly didn't), and did shoot a mentally ill person. You raise European comparisons, so let's do that. Let's look at Europe's recent spree killers (from wiki)
Borel, Eric, 1995, legal weapons stolen from family
Leibacher, Friedrich Heinz, 2001, legal weapons
Bogdanovič, Ljubiša, 2013, legal I believe
Izquierdo, 1990, legal I think
Radosavljević, Nikola, 2007, legal
Zavistonovičius, Leonardas, 1998, legal
Durn, Richard, 2002, legal
Harman, Ľubomír, 2010, legal
There's the top 8 by deaths (excl. the UK ones already mentioned). All using legally held weapons. There may be a pattern emerging here...

Delve Deeper:
Part one of the series: vimeo.com/84022735
The series was part inspired by Mastery by Robert Greene
amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B009U1U2IU/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B009U1U2IU&linkCode=as2&tag=adammeetsworl-21
You can read more about Leonardo daVinci's difficult years in: "Da Vinci's Ghost: Genius, Obsession and how Leonard Created the World in his Own Image" by Toby Lester amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1439189242/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=1439189242&linkCode=as2&tag=adammeetsworl-21
This series began life as a couple of essays on Medium
Difficult medium.com/i-m-h-o/a7f8bdabd67b
47 years to success medium.com/the-dept-for-dangerous-ideas/8654ee14e4b2
====
Released under a Creative Commons Licence 3.0 - Remix & share with non-commercial attribution
Credits:
All paintings and archive in the Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons & Prelinger Archives
The Craig Ferguson Show © CBS
Music released under a Creative Commons Licence
"Lullaby" by _ghost (soundcloud.com/ghost-14)
"Hungaria" by Latché Swing (jamendo.com/en/artist/latche_swing_(3)
"July" by Marcel Pequel (last.fm/music/Marcel+Pequel)
"One" by Marcel Pequel (last.fm/music/Marcel+Pequel)
"Todo se precipita a tu alrededor deprisa" by Ruido Blanco
John Coltrane By Gelderen, Hugo van / Anefo [CC-BY-SA-3.0-nl (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/nl/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons
John Lennon By Roy Kerwood [CC-BY-2.5 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons
Sir Alec Guinness By Allan warren → allanwarren.com [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons
Tim Berners Lee By John S. and James L. Knight Foundation [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Rafael Nadal By Steven Byles from Singapore, Singapore (Rafael Nadal Uploaded by russavia) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Steve Jobs By Matthew YoheAido2002 at en.wikipedia [CC-BY-3.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], from Wikimedia Commons
Bill Gates By Kees de Vos from The Hague, The Netherlands [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Richard Branson By David Shankbone [CC-BY-3.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Bob Dylan by Chris Hakkens
Horse statue By Jenny Poole from London, UK (Skopje horse statue Uploaded by raso_mk) [CC-BY-2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Mark Zuckerberg :Credit line on the web (with hyperlink): Guillaume Paumier, CC-BY.
One Direction: Fiona McKinlay
Miley Cyrus: Mike Schmid
Taylor Swift: By Eva Rinaldi from Sydney Australia (Taylor Swift Uploaded by russavia) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Subtitles:
Spanish by Ana Ribera Molinos about.me/anaribera
Portuguese by Gustavo Silveira
Story Design and Production by Adam Westbrook
adamwestbrook.co.uk
Published by
delve.tv