Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, June 1st, 2014 9:16pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter Trancecoach.

Why is this man talking to climate deniers? Talk about conspiracy nuts.

I don't get it- does he or does he not believe in climate change? Very unclear.

I appreciate Samsom taking the time to candidly speak to the protesters.
This video is an example of why more politicians don't.

Missing a bigger picture here are we?

Not at all. Just noting the corporate spokesperson is talking to corporate shills.

Some people love their rulers. That's why they submit to them with such enthusiasm. But then we have the growing number of those who don't like the current situation very much. And, at a different level, you have the Samsoms and the Thiels...

It's not surprising, then, to see how Samsom pretty much lies (or, is at least being evasive to the point of being misleading) about the fact that the Dutch monarchy being merely "symbolic." Far from it!

"but the ice caps have been increasing in size actually"....true, if you only count late fall and early winter in your calculations.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, June 1st, 2014 9:18pm PDT - promote requested by JiggaJonson.

What you seem to overlook is that Samsom is basically a PR guy. As far as the Bilderberg attendees go, he ranks rather low on the totem pole, way below monarchs, American military brass, defense contractors, oil barons, and the many others with more real power.

Cosmos last night says this isn't true either. I trust NDT over anyone.

"Justifications" for the state include: defense (and the Bilderberg event is rife with military brass); regulating banks (and the conference is full of -- central and other -- bankers); and (now) issues surrounding climate change (and the conference is conspicuous for the absence of any climate scientists -- although captains of (polluting) industries abound).

WHAT?!? I certainly didn't hear him say that ice no longer forms in the cold months at the poles, which is what I said, and I did watch (and I also trust NDT's simple explanations). It simply doesn't form as fast in the cold months as it melts in the hot months, so as a whole it's melting.
Weather VS climate...keep your eye on the man, not the dog.

This is just a distraction. Obviously the attendees at Bilderberg are not doing anything about "climate change" one way or the other.

(The Roman Republic also had Tribunes of "the People" who could veto laws. It made no difference at all to the lifestyle and activities of the Patricians, Senators, and military men of the Republic. If you -- who clearly has no influence over what the state does or doesn't do -- think that you "are the government," then I have little interest in trying to "cure" you of that delusion (unless you're a paying client of mine). And, by some definitions -- that ultimately make no practical difference -- you "are" the government, then I have every confidence that you can and will "deal with these issues" yourself to your satisfaction. And I wish you the best of luck!)

I think that dude meant increasing totally, not just in those seasons.

Um...yes, that's what SHE likely meant, (didn't the woman say that?) but not what I said, which you must have misread since you claimed NDT contradicted it.
I said their claim only made sense if you ONLY take late fall and winter into account and discount the rest of the year, when the ice caps are shrinking.

Everything isn't about you, I'm talking to someone else right now, I'll get back to you later.

It would be a just a distraction if so many politicians/powerful people didn't believe (or pretend to believe) this obvious BS along with the under-educated voters. Sadly, the incorrect views of this misled portion of the population is all too well represented. It may not be a main concern of Bilderberg, but that was not my point.
Allowing obviously completely wrong statements about vital processes to be stated as fact without at least attempting to correct them is not in my makeup. One more character flaw.

?
Of course everything isn't about me, but when you quote me in your comment, then reply to what I said, it's a little about me...or at least about my point. Would you not concede that?
Unsure what you mean by this, it seemed completely unnecessary and slightly insulting (as it implies I think everything IS about me, which I don't).

JESUS CHRIST QUIT FUCKING REPLYING TO ME YOU DUMB MOTHER FUCKER!!!

My respect for Samson has risen greatly since seeing this. The patience and calm of the man and willingness to answer even the most absurd of questions is amazing. This video says more about his questioners then it does about him or Bilderberg.

So, I take it that you didn't click the link in my comment. If you had, you'd have seen the graph that shows an increase in the ice caps from May to October. (Psst: That's not wintertime, last I checked.)

Quoting: "“This modeled Antarctic sea ice decrease in the last three decades is at odds with observations, which show a small yet statistically significant increase in sea ice extent,” says the study, led by Colorado State University atmospheric scientist Elizabeth Barnes."

It measured an overall increase in the size of the icecaps over the last three decades. So while there may have been a decrease in the computer models, the ice caps have actually increased in size in reality.

Quoting again: "Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean underwent a sharp recovery this year from the record-low levels of 2012, with 50 percent more ice surviving the summer melt season, scientists said Friday. It is the largest one-year increase in Arctic ice since satellite tracking began in 1978."

I personally don't know if it is increasing or decreasing. But, suffice it to say, the science suggests that this is certainly not "obvious BS" as you seem to think it is...

But regardless, I needn't have to say it again: The folks at Bilderberg (or anywhere else) will do nothing to "stop" "climate change" one way or another. (And neither will you... And neither will the politicians.) For some, this "debate" is just a convenient way to justify the state's control over its citizens. Mr. Samsom was an employee of Greenpeace. Later, the CEO of a "green energy" company. Given his background and corporate connections, it is in his best interests (both politically and financially) to align himself within the "OMG! Climate Changed the weather!" camp. He probably ran for office on that platform, highlighting his "environmentalist" credentials. But he's a politician. Only politicians and videosifters seem to know what's "really going on." If there is any climate consensus at all, it is that most climate scientists have no opinion about it.

In fact, no more than 4% have come out with an opinion about what causes "global warming" or whether it is a "problem or not." And even this 4% has not been calling skepticism "BS" with the certainty that the online "pundits/scientists" like you seem to muster.

But I realize that this isn't really about "climate change." It's not even about Bilderberg. It's about "validation". Nothing more, nothing less. And so, for that, I wish you the best of luck in your attempts to "correct" those politicians (and/or "educating" those who "believe" or "pretend to believe" whatever you disagree with). Such is the condition of living in a "democracy" so you're going to need all the luck you can get!

It is in the southern hemisphere, genius.

Ya know, the one where the SOUTH POLE is.

The only climate change "debate" going on is between those who are not capable of understanding the science.

People have come to respect television and talking heads way too much. If you want a scientific opinion, why don't people ask a scientist? If you asked one at random you're 99.5% sure to get a "yup, the evidence says it's true." -- that's the approximate ratio of scientific opinion.

Formulaic programming for one's entire life forcing nominally capable peeps to stomach the deliberately obtuse ramblings of spokesfucks for criminal machines renders an otherwise capable mind into farina.

A TV show is not science (regardless of what Neil deGrasse Tyson would have you believe).

"Cosmos" is not a scientific study or proof of anything (nor is The Daily Show). Now, Tyson or Stewart can, if they care to, write papers on climate change and show their proofs of whatever claims they want, but their papers would be subjected to peer review if they're to have any scientific validity whatsoever.

Alas, television is strictly entertainment for the serfs. (Next, you're going to tell me that Michael Moore has "proven" how great the Cuban health care system is... Oh, that happened already. Issue settled.)

It is the winter, true. My mistake. But the overall increase is not taking place in just those months, is it? Because if in the summer it melted more than it increased, then you'd have an overall decrease and not an increase, even if you are comparing one winter to the next winter.

If every winter, the ice increases compared to previous winters, then the ice is increasing each year.

Yes, if you want scientific opinion, you should ask a scientist! Very true!

But, you will not get a 99.5% "yup, the evidence says it's true" from any scientist at random that you ask.. But, hey, that's what science is for! Go give it a try and see for yourself!

But what "evidence" specifically, are we talking about? The evidence that climate change is mostly caused by humans? I don't think any scientist says that. The debate is about whether 1% of that change is caused by humans or not and whether that 1% is a catastrophic thing or not. The debate is not about whether the climate goes through changes or not. On that, everyone agrees. Climate changes.

And the political debate is mostly about whether the proposed regulations will make any major difference or not. These are not the same "debates."

(One thing not in dispute by most climate scientists is that cattle is the primary cause of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.)

(And what there is 99.99% scientific consensus on is that climate change debates on social media are a waste of time and completely irrelevant to climate change.)

You are correct, I did not go to your link. In the past they have consistently been un-scientific right wing propaganda sites masquerading as science or news, so I don't bother anymore.
As has been pointed out, May to October IS winter in the south. What's ignored is that the reason the ice MAY have not melted as fast last summer in the North is that the heat that normally sits on the pole moved south and cause our heat waves all summer (well, yours, it stayed 70deg here). What was ignored was that it also didn't freeze as fast this winter because the cold that normally sits there was also moved south, causing our harsh winter. If you counted the entire year, it shrank....again....like it has for the last 20+ years.
One tiny incomplete data set is not climate. One season in one place is not a full data set. In the last decade, the trend has been for polar ice to melt FAR faster than it re-freezes, to the point of allowing a North West Passage and a lack of pack ice that's eroding the northern tundra.
It's way easier to have a significant increase AFTER there was a larger significant decrease in ice. It's no where near normal levels, even if your link is correct that this one season it increased (and I think it's likely either wrong or you misinterpreted it).
Science has said for decades that the polar ice will melt, and it is doing so. Your contention that it's increasing it asinine in my view, and flies in the face of over 100 articles I've read that said the exact opposite.
I did the most important thing a person can do to slow the rate of increase of climate change, I didn't have children. (you are correct, your ilk has denied the issue long enough that no one can stop climate change, it's happening now and will get worse for the next 100+ years even if we stopped adding CO2 today) That means as long as the food lasts another 40 years, I'm good and screw the rest of you. I also see the futility of petitioning the government or populace to get off their ass and stop screwing up the planet, that time came and went in the 70-80's, it's FAR too late to fix the problem, and some like you still sit back and say 'there's no issue to fix'. I only hope you have children that will blame you when they can't eat or drink anymore because of lack of food and water.

For some, everything is a 'debate' about 'state control' because that's all they think about.
You are wrong, most climate scientists are clearly in the 'climate change is happening and it's man made' camp, I've never met one that wasn't, and I know hundreds of scientists. The right wing has you by the brain banana and you would rather believe your party than science, because science wont' just tell you what you want to hear. To me that's sad and dangerous.
4%! Whoever told you that was a bold faced liar.

Surely, one of the best sources of news in the US if not the world.

Robert Downey Jr. has some of the best strategy advice, for libertarians and everyone else: (to paraphrase) "Agree, smile, and do whatever the fuck you were going to do anyway."

And don't be a hater man... I don't have any children (unlike all the other people contributing to "overpopulation," or whatever your idea is about people with children).
In any case, I spoke to most climate scientists. They disagree with your points.
And the only party I have is the one you are not invited to. But there's a good number of scientist invited though.
The 4% statistic is in the report that Obama cited.

Maybe what I say is asinine in your view, but who really cares what you think?

And what exactly are you doing to fix the problem? I don't know, but there's a good chance I have less of a carbon footprint than you do. Unless of course you walk to work, eat vegetarian, have no children, drive electric, etc. have solar panels at home. You know, the basics.
Take deep slow breaths.
Don't buy plastic.
Or smoke.
Grow my own fruit in the yard.
But let's not jump to conclusions. What do you do (besides attacking people's views online)?

Blaming me for the destruction of the planet or whatever else seems... looney, at best.

"I've never met one that wasn't, and I know hundreds of scientists."

Send me (privately) the names and numbers of these hundreds of climate scientists and I'll conduct a survey. Or perhaps you should spend your days debating every single person online... Y'know.. for fun.

The authors of this article (both of them meteorology professors) have better climate science credentials than you do. One even served within the climate group that shared the Nobel prize with Al Gore for climate change advocacy.

(you may have to search for it online if this link does not let you read the full article)


If you really care about climate change, these are the folks you should be debating.. Not me... And not random people on videosift.

Good luck!

"Messrs. McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Al Gore."

Raise up to a higher level

I'm not trying to be a hater, but I do want people to get what they deserve...and in this instance I believe those that ignore and deny that AGW is real and in part their fault (and every thing I read and all actual scientists I talk to agree that nearly ALL scientists agree that AGW is real and happening now, contrary to your claim that only 4% agree) deserve to have their offspring eat them alive when the food runs out due to their denial based actions.
Really, you claim you personally spoke to "most climate scientists"?!? So now I know for certain that YOU are just a bold faced liar, because that's an impossibility. ;-)
But I already did my hair and put my party dress on, I'm crashing your party! I'll hide among the other scientists and you'll never notice me until the lampshade hat goes on and I climb onto the bar to dance badly to Bolero.
I am 100% certain that either you or Obama has made a mistake here...4% is an exaggeration of the number of scientists that DON'T theorize that AGW is real, not the other way around. Someone got the wires crossed.
It's a poor argument, when presented with facts that are contrary to your theory, to reply with 'who cares what you think'...but perhaps the best argument against my statements that you have?
I do walk to work, in my own yard. I have a vegi garden and an orchard. I do eat mostly just my own vegis, but not completely, there's also chicken and pork that I don't raise myself (but source locally). My beef intake is miniscule. I drive minimally, well under 5K per year (still adding to the problem, agreed, but far less than average), I don't have children (the best and most useful thing one can do for the massively overpopulated planet IMO) and try at every opportunity to convince others to not have them either, I do have solar panels AND hot water tubes, I do grow >90% of my (and my wife's) food. Most of those things I do because they save me money, because as I said, I have no personal incentive to "save the planet" for more than 40+- years, and I also don't think it's possible at this point. I can try to not add to the problem as much as possible, but at the same time I don't let my methods rule or ruin my life. It's my opinion that the time to minimize AGW was in the 80's, when it was completely ignored, and that now it's far too late to minimize things, the system reacts slowly and the last century of CO2 (and others) will continue to effect the system long after we stop adding more...and I think we're already to the point where that unavoidable rise in temp will melt methalhydrates, giving us boiling oceans on fire and at least another 5 deg of near instant temperature rise (likely far more). The tipping point was back when we could avoid that, and I have been convinced by data that that time came and went long ago and now we're hosed.
I will concede that the ONN is a GREAT place for 'news'.

I blame people for the current situations, are you not a person? I'm also complicit simply by existing.
Why would I need to expose my friends and past colleagues to a random internet denier ...firstly, subjecting them to you would likely end my friendship with many of them, secondly, you said clearly that you had already asked them ALL, so what gives? Were you just lying? (I know the answer to that, but I'm not sure if you'll admit it or not) If so, why should anyone believe anything you say?
I don't debate EVERY single person, only those I think are claiming things I see as incorrect. Debate at least informs each other of the others point of view, if not fostering re-analysis and possible changing of minds.
So, you would rather accept a few weatherman's opinions instead of most climate scientists when it comes to climate. Meteorology is the study of weather, not climate...or the dog, not the man....SQUIRREL! It doesn't mean they know nothing, but it does mean they aren't professionals in the climate and that others are far more specialized in the field and should be deferred to when discussing their field of expertise.
As I said clearly, I think the 'debate' is moot, as the process is too far along to do much about as I see it, and the few 'folks' that might make a difference (but not enough of one) don't listen to random people from the internet.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

Parseltongue

That article is terrible. For a start, they have the whole flat earth thing completely backwards. It was a scientific consensus that eventually convinced the ruling (religion based) culture that the earth was round, because of the evidence.

Exactly what is happening now with climate change.

But I'll grant that they certainly have better climate change credentials than anyone here. That doesn't make them right. What would make them right would be publishing a peer reviewed paper with new models and predictions and falsifiable results.

Anyway, a few seconds googling sees them pretty much torn to shreds.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/02/20/mcnider-and-christy-defend-inertia/

Im' starting think that climate deniers genuinely don't understand the scientific method. It's simple; if there wasn't significant evidence that AGW was happening then it would be torn apart by other scientists. That's what peer review is for.

So that article agrees with both of you. It says there is warming and agrees that it is human made. The discussion is about that they say most of the models predict too much warming. We have come a long way from people deniying there was any warming at all, to people denying that it was human caused to now disputing how fast it will go.

Whether they are right or not seems a little mute at this point. Can we afford the luxury to do little about it? Even now that most say we are too late to stop warming from going higher then our initial set targets, do we understand enough to know what happens when we go over those targets (no more than 2 degrees rise) whenever that happens to stop doing something about it?

It seems both of you do do something about it, and you have both clearly strong feelings towards the subject, meaning you care. Why not try to find a middle path?