>> ^messenger:

That Yes or No part was silly. A politician can't make promises like that, and to conclude that the answer must be yes is unfair. I'm glad Cenk went back to his YouTube-only format. Reading scripts to a camera is not his way.
That said, he still has some stupid arguments with guests on his YT show. Case in point: http://videosift.com/video/TYT-pratt-defends-zimmerman-and-cenk-loses-
it. IMO that interview was much worse. I wish he wouldn't do that. It takes away his credibility.>> ^Sotto_Voce:
On his internet show, Cenk used to have good debates with conservatives because he would remain calm and allow them to speak while still putting forward his case forcefully. You really got a sense that he was interested in having a conversation rather than using his guest as a foil for his own argument. See his interview of John Ziegler, for instance.
Now it seems like he's decided that the way to make it on cable TV is to turn into a liberal version of O'Reilly, and that's sad. Take, for instance, his ridiculous "ANSWER THE QUESTION! YES OR NO!" tactic. I hate that. There are often answers that are more complicated than just a straight yes or a no, and to demand that they be simplified just encourages a dumbing down of the discourse. I'm on Cenk's side on the substance here, but his style was really annoying.



Jesus, that is a horrible interview. But it looks like that's from his Current TV show, so it's consistent with my "TV is ruining Cenk" hypothesis. I never thought he was a particularly profound analyst, but AFAIK he wasn't always this ridiculous. I really think he's deliberately going down the route of garnering attention by providing red meat for the base. Maybe that is the way to be successful on cable news, but it's still pathetic.

Honestly, are there any good hosts on cable news? Maddow is pretty smart, but her constant snark is a little grating. Lawrence O'Donnell does the whole outrage thing a bit too much, although he does it infinitely better than Cenk. I like the format of Chris Hayes' new show a lot, but he really comes across as a smarmy tool. The best I can think of is Fareed Zakaria. Anderson Cooper is decent too, but he covers too much fluff.

On his internet show, Cenk used to have good debates with conservatives because he would remain calm and allow them to speak while still putting forward his case forcefully. You really got a sense that he was interested in having a conversation rather than using his guest as a foil for his own argument. See his interview of John Ziegler, for instance.

Now it seems like he's decided that the way to make it on cable TV is to turn into a liberal version of O'Reilly, and that's sad. Take, for instance, his ridiculous "ANSWER THE QUESTION! YES OR NO!" tactic. I hate that. There are often answers that are more complicated than just a straight yes or a no, and to demand that they be simplified just encourages a dumbing down of the discourse. I'm on Cenk's side on the substance here, but his style was really annoying.

>> ^legacy0100:

^So you're saying Zimmerman is Hispanic?
Or maybe you were trying to prove a different point? In that case you may want to use a word other than 'white', because the confusion over this word is the exact reason why we're having this discussion in the first place.
If you may allow me, I would like to recommend you the word 'light skinned'.


What I'm saying is that "Hispanic" is not a racial classification, so it doesn't preclude him being white. Suppose I told you he was Irish. You wouldn't then say, "Well, is he Irish or is he white? He can't be both."

The classification "Hispanic", as used by the US government, refers to people with origins in Spanish-speaking countries. There are white people with origins in these countries, so there are white Hispanic people.

>> ^legacy0100:

>> ^longde:
Doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman was white. Yeah, anyone can be racist, but the dynamics in this case aren't colorblind. Zimmerman's racial status in his own eyes and in the eyes of the local police had no small role in his actions and the (lack of) police response.

Eh..... I dunno dude. Could you define what you would consider as 'White'? Because for me, this dude would be considered Latino. Their skin may be 'light', but they ain't white.


In the US census, hispanic is considered an ethnicity, not a race. You can be a black hispanic, a white hispanic, or an american indian hispanic.

I've got to say, when I first heard the tape (before all this "coon" stuff started) it sounded to me like he said "fucking punks". That's still what I hear, but I can also believe that he said "coons". Still, though, it seems to me that there's enough doubt about what he's saying that we shouldn't get carried away with this.

Only in an Eddie Izzard video would you see that combination of tags.

I didnt say everything was right what critics say. Thats science. However, you can start by "debunking those 450+ studies one by one, because that article you linked didnt debunk one of them but instead just tried to personally discredit 3 people who they think are too dangerous to their cause.

How about you start by debunking the thousands of studies supporting anthropogenic climate change? More importantly, what makes you think those 450+ studies are more reliable than the pro-climate change studies? Usually, when I see a debate with a vast majority of scientists on one side and a tiny minority on the other, I believe the majority. This isn't a perfect heuristic, but it's a pretty good one. Do you have any good reason to believe the heuristic fails in this instance? What is it that has convinced you the majority is wrong?

Its very easy to say what you are saying. Just like creationists. You cant debunk it. "God told me so, prove me wrong!".

What? This is the stupidest analogy ever. Saying "Look at all this peer reviewed scientific research" is somehow equivalent to "God told me so"?

And studies that try to explain this partly (Svensmarks), and thus attack the "consensus" of the corrupt, get dismissed like its some atheist in a church trying to explain how resurrection is impossible.

This is only true if atheists in church are usually dismissed using careful peer-reviewed scientific research, along the lines of this or this.

There are enough facts plus satellite data, but as long as people like you prefer to get their money taken from them (thats what this is all about, if you still havent noticed), there is nothing objective science can do about it. You have no idea how many billions the global warming market is already. Not only the "scientists" that get paid for every mention of AGW in their studies and articles by the IPCC, but also normal people who make a living by selling stuff that is supposed to decrease CO2 emissions and levels.

And of course there's no money at all to be made in debunking climate change. Dude, the oil industry pumps millions of dollars into research that criticizes the consensus. After the last IPCC report came out, the American Enterprise Institute (funded by Exxon) offered $10,000 to anyone who published an article criticizing the report. If you think money is skewing incentives on the pro-AGW side, why don't you apply the same standards to the denialist side?

Science is falsifiable, but people like you just are saying the Al Gore bullshit "The debate is over" and are bringing old and already debunked arguments (even not used anymore by IPCC).

Care to point out where ChaosEngine made an old and already debunked argument? And just because science is falsifiable doesn't mean that science can never be settled on an issue. The debate about the chemical composition of the sun is over. That doesn't mean that those claims are not falsifiable.

I didnt even know theres actually a site like this that promotes discrimination of scientists by putting their own bullshit on it and claiming their are wrong and calling them childish names like Christy Crocks. Reminds me of those republican kids that invent stuff like "libtard" or "obamallama". Very objective and scientific. It gets sadder and sadder each day.

I know. Very sad. Let me play you the world's saddest song on the world's tiniest violin. Especially after you called ChaosEngine ignorant and stupid and then complained about how sad rhetoric like "Christy Crocks" is.

That you think climate science is a science that is even known well by humankind and thus can be easily proven, proves alone that you dont have a clue... Oh and btw, we are experiencing a cooling now it and will last until about 2020 to 2040. Lets see what new "scientific facts" will pop up to support your religious opinion until then.

Climate science is not a science that is known well be humankind, but it is apparently known well by coolhund-kind. Please tell us how you came up with this forecast, and why you think it is more reliable than the forecasts of, you know, actual experts.

The IPCC is an organization, that has no need to exist, if there is no AGW.

True, but irrelevant, since there is AGW.

You want to keep your job, or you want to get a better paid job... you just have to get rid of a few minor ideologies and then you have a good life for the rest of your life.

OK, so the thousands of climate scientists who claim to believe in AGW are lying to keep their jobs. Confusingly, a number of global warming skeptics are able to keep their jobs without pretending to believe in AGW. Someone needs to figure out how they managed to beat the corrupt system. Maybe they have compromising pictures of Al Gore?

Oh and btw, I think America is very easy to fool with things like this. Take the biofuel for example. It is nowhere near being actual "biofuel". It actually harms our eco-system. Palm oil, clearing of the rain forest to make space for more plantations, high food prices, waste of water, etc come to mind. Other countries like Germany are more skeptical about things like this and have proven once again, that they are right, even though your country (and many other who benefit from it) are still claiming there is also a "consensus" on this matter. How ironic.

What a pointless digression. America is not the only country in the world where scientists believe in AGW. The national science academy in Germany, your paragon for a skeptical country, has also endorsed the IPCC report. So whether or not Americans are easy to fool is completely irrelevant here. Incidentally, 59% of German people believe that global warming is due to human activity. Only 49% of Americans believe this. So maybe you're right -- Americans are easy to fool. You're just wrong about who's fooling them.

A recent survey of the opinions of climate science researchers:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

From the abstract (ACC stands for Anthropogenic Climate Change):

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

>> ^BoneRemake:

I wonder if that actually works over there. I think I can assume not a lot may read or write, so you can not put it down. You either have a great memory or you stop for directions an awful lot.


She's from Jamaica, not sub-Saharan Africa, so your assumption of mass illiteracy would be incorrect.

CUTE! Feed him bleach next. I bet it will be adorable!!

>> ^Ariane:

Pilkington is right. It would never happen. Lets just reduce this whole idea to mathematics. The complete works of Shakespeare can be translated to a number, by converting every character to ASCII, and ASCII to binary, so you end up with a really large binary number, which you can convert to decimal if you are so inclined.
So we have one number representing the complete works of Shakespeare. Then instead on Monkeys with typewriters, we have a random number generator, that can spit out any number from 1 to infinity. What are the odds that the random number generator would spit out the Shakespeare number? About 1 in infinity. Or for you calculus geeks, the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity = 0.
So what happens if you ran the number generator an infinite number of times. Turns out infinity x infinity = infinity. Or again to be more exact aleph-naught times aleph-naught equals aleph-naught. So we are still at 0. What if we had an infinite number of number generators. That would be aleph-naught cubed, which is still equal to aleph-naught. Therefore, the odds are still zero.


You're using the wrong probability distribution. If we do what you suggest and convert each possible string of characters into a binary number, then the monkey experiment will not give us a uniform distribution over the binary numbers. It won't be like a random number generator. The monkey experiment gives us a uniform distribution over individual characters, and this does not translate into a uniform distribution over strings. As an example, consider the string "ee" vs. the string corresponding to Tolstoy's "War and Peace". Each of these corresponds to a single binary number, and if your random number generator analogy is right, then they should be equally likely. But obviously a monkey is far more likely to type "ee" than "War and Peace".

>> ^Phreezdryd:

With the "OnKneesforJesus" in the corner of the video, I'm assuming they thought this video exposed Dawkins in some way, or maybe it showed O'Reilly had nailed him.
Ass handing is in the eye of the beholder.


If you look at the other videos on the OnKneesforJesus youtube channel, it's obvious that the poster is no friend of organized religion. I suspect the name of the channel is sarcastic.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Sotto_Voce:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
To those on this site that like to throw around 'fag' and 'gay' in a derogatory manner, maybe it's time to grow up a little. Even if you don't mean any harm, you still contribute to the kind of ignorant American culture that causes things like this to happen. Stop it.

Louis CK on the word Faggot.
Top comment on the video.
"Dude, I'm gay, I don't give a shit. It's a word. Get over it, faggots."


Better Louis CK bit on the word "faggot".
"You might wanna know that every gay man in America has probably had that word shouted at them while they’re being beaten up, sometimes many times, sometimes by a lot of people all at once. So, when you say it, it kind of brings that all back up. But, you know, by all means, use it. Get your laughs. But, you know, now you know what it means."

Really? Where was I when EVERY GAY MAN IN AMERICA was being beaten up while "FAGGOT" was being shouted at them? Sorry but this just isn't fucking true. Yes some gay people are beaten and while they are beaten some are called faggots. Don't try to use emotional blackmail to win your argument though, I didn't beat anyone. I correctly called someone who's being a "faggot," who may or may not be gay, a "faggot."
And why...because Louis CK is Funnier than you...and so am I and that makes us right.


Um... that is a quote from the clip I posted. A quote written by Louis CK. I recognize that not every gay man in America is beaten. I'm sure Louis recognizes that too. Sometimes hyperbole is used for effect, and most sensible people realize its not meant to be taken literally.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
To those on this site that like to throw around 'fag' and 'gay' in a derogatory manner, maybe it's time to grow up a little. Even if you don't mean any harm, you still contribute to the kind of ignorant American culture that causes things like this to happen. Stop it.

Louis CK on the word Faggot.
Top comment on the video.
"Dude, I'm gay, I don't give a shit. It's a word. Get over it, faggots."


Better Louis CK bit on the word "faggot".

"You might wanna know that every gay man in America has probably had that word shouted at them while they’re being beaten up, sometimes many times, sometimes by a lot of people all at once. So, when you say it, it kind of brings that all back up. But, you know, by all means, use it. Get your laughs. But, you know, now you know what it means."

Um... He most definitely is a magician. A damn good one. He's been performing for over 60 years.
>> ^jmd:

Some how I don't think the trick is as complex as you guys make it out to be, he isn't a magician, this isn't a show. Its prolly something stupidly simple, and yes it may be because he knows the person.