*promote
remember,they dont have to actually WIN the argument,they just have to make you say "well..maybe".

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, August 10th, 2011 9:38am PDT - promote requested by enoch.

Help reduce the influence of the Koch brothers by boycotting these brands:

http://www.chailife.com/2011/02/boycott-koch-industries-avoid-these-brands/

Rupert Murdoch's empire can't collapse soon enough.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, August 10th, 2011 9:46am PDT - promote requested by marinara.

>> ^marinara:

because science is based on who says something, and how many people say it, and anyone who says different is crazy.


No, but we can make arguments in the form of:

X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.

I REALLY don't like dismissing these guys as 'crazies'. That almost gives it the impression that it isn't an organized and HIGHLY deliberate plan to mislead the public.

The producer of this video might add more weight to his argument if he could've been more consistent with the clip selections. Presenting one argument, then showing footage of a different argument holds no coherent point. But the false arguments will fool most of you partisan clowns anyway and isn't that really the point?

>> ^Januari:

I REALLY don't like dismissing these guys as 'crazies'. That almost gives it the impression that it isn't an organized and HIGHLY deliberate plan to mislead the public.


Too bad you don't apply that logic to the other half of the false dichotomy.

Yeah nothing says 'convincing argument' like name calling... you tell'em marbles

And i'm sorry if you don't accept the science for what it is... than i'm not going to even try to convince... your false dichotomy is a figment of your imagination.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Januari:
I REALLY don't like dismissing these guys as 'crazies'. That almost gives it the impression that it isn't an organized and HIGHLY deliberate plan to mislead the public.

Too bad you don't apply that logic to the other half of the false dichotomy.


>> ^marbles:

The producer of this video might add more weight to his argument if he could've been more consistent with the clip selections. Presenting one argument, then showing footage of a different argument holds no coherent point. But the false arguments will fool most of you partisan clowns anyway and isn't that really the point?

>> ^Januari:
Yeah nothing says 'convincing argument' like name calling... you tell'em marbles
And i'm sorry if you don't accept the science for what it is... than i'm not going to even try to convince... your false dichotomy is a figment of your imagination.

Yeah, and nothing says 'convincing rebuttal' like affirming my point.

My problem with this video is "Many conservatives and republicans for one reason or another..." why can't we find the reason why they're trying to cast doubt on climate science? Why are they lying...I want you to please find that out...chop chop.

>> ^Yogi:

My problem with this video is "Many conservatives and republicans for one reason or another..." why can't we find the reason why they're trying to cast doubt on climate science? Why are they lying...I want you to please find that out...chop chop.


Uh, sorry all I heard was "derp derp," perhaps, the koch brothers owning Exxon, and Exxon being an oil company, and oil being a fossil fuel answers your retarded question.

Furthermore, the answer to videosift's ongoing spats - http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900289-2

>> ^Peroxide:

>> ^Yogi:
My problem with this video is "Many conservatives and republicans for one reason or another..." why can't we find the reason why they're trying to cast doubt on climate science? Why are they lying...I want you to please find that out...chop chop.

Uh, sorry all I heard was "derp derp," perhaps, the koch brothers owning Exxon, and Exxon being an oil company, and oil being a fossil fuel answers your retarded question.
Furthermore, the answer to videosift's ongoing spats - http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900289-2


I'm commenting on the video...which didn't point any concrete connections such as that out. Wasn't it clear when I said "My problem with this video..."?

Maybe you wanna try again?

Sorry, I was rude, I meant,

perhaps, the koch brothers owning Exxon, and Exxon being an oil company, and oil being a fossil fuel answers your question.

>> ^Peroxide:

Sorry, I was rude, I meant,
perhaps, the koch brothers owning Exxon, and Exxon being an oil company, and oil being a fossil fuel answers your question.


Fuck You! Sorry I meant to be rude. Yeah it helps answer the question...I'd like a LOT more specifics though. Perhaps some tortured confessions.

I think I have a total ADD, eight minute crush on this girl from Media Matters. COME TO ME my sweet earth loving, child!

Would not an increase in worldwide volcanic activity w/ an increase in solar irradiance play some formidable role? Mars' carbon dioxide ice caps are melting, too; Does Mars' population emit greenhouse gas?

Try watching the video again. 7:23 where they mention the connection to both Exxon and the Koch brothers as well as their motivation.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Peroxide:
>> ^Yogi:
My problem with this video is "Many conservatives and republicans for one reason or another..." why can't we find the reason why they're trying to cast doubt on climate science? Why are they lying...I want you to please find that out...chop chop.

Uh, sorry all I heard was "derp derp," perhaps, the koch brothers owning Exxon, and Exxon being an oil company, and oil being a fossil fuel answers your retarded question.
Furthermore, the answer to videosift's ongoing spats - http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900289-2

I'm commenting on the video...which didn't point any concrete connections such as that out. Wasn't it clear when I said "My problem with this video..."?
Maybe you wanna try again?

Ignoring the video - which is typical bilge - I'll move on to actual substance. Here is the crux of the current panic that is gripping the Warmies... Their empire is crumbling and they know it. Hence, they are lashing out in panic and anger. This is typical of most socialist scams when they go belly-up, as is further evidenced by the riots in Europe and elsewhere.

The Warmies have always had a particularly ugly sow’s ear they were desperately trying to turn into a silk purse. Their primary concern has never been the cliimate. Their sole objectives have always been entirely oriented around the creation of expensive programs which force human beings to accept decreased standards of living, reduced freedoms, higher taxes, less food, costly commodities, limited transportation, and onerous regulations. In exchange for all these burdens, humanity was to be provided a very nebulous ‘benefit’ (0.001% lower C02) which was by no means even guaranteed by the implementation of their draconian measures. That’s a tough bottle of snake oil to sell, even IF you have ironclad proof of your argument. And of course when it came right down do it the problem with the Warmies' argument was that they NEVER had proof of any kind beyond fabrications, exaggerations, and fevered imagination.

One of the main problems with all you Warmies is that you can't put forward a position. You talk about 'scientific proof' of 'climate change'. Pht. You don't need the rigor of scientific method to tell anyone that the climage changes. Dur dur dur. Everyone accepts the premise that Earth's climate is not static. Wow - what a keen observation.

Where the Warmies have lost the argument is thier plaintive, inaccurate, unproven position that HUMAN C02 emmissions are (A) what changes the climate and (B) the climate can be changed by reducing human C02. There was never any evidence of that position. But Warmies love to muddle terminology and pretend that just because 'scientists' agree that climate is changing (again - not much of an accomplishment) that also all those scientists agree that human activity is responsible for it (which they most decidedly do NOT).

Add on top of that the fundamental reality that many of the cornerstones of the APG Warmie movement have been proven to be complete bunk. Just this week the Polar Bear guy was proven by a federal probe to be completely full of crap. He had no data that bears were dying because of human activity as he claiimed. The hockey stick chart - falsified. East Anglia university data - the numbers are cooked. The IPCC panels - all thier data is bad and the majority of thier claims have all been debunked and failed. Time and time again when you put the Warmies under the microscope of REAL SCIENCE, the argument completely falls apart.

The video has it completely backwards. It is not FOX & conservatives who are faking thier way. The entire climate change movement and all its acolytes are the ones who are lying to accomplish a biased, incorrect, inaccurate, anti-science objective entirely for political purposes.

Winston, you're just plain stupid. Admit it.

Like William F. Buckley, who used his "intelligence" and gift of gab to make his horrendous positions seem almost sane (like involuntarily tattooing the ass of every AIDS victim on the planet) your words, no matter how many 10cent phrases you use, are utterly hollow.

Just like what this video is about, you try to change the subject, or just bore the shit out of other readers with how unbelievably verbose you are, so people just drop the debate/argument altogether. It's a cunning ploy, but seeing as you've now been on VS for three years now and HAVE YET to post a single fucking video, we all see that you're just here to spread your bullshit, as opposed to actually contributing anything of any value to the Sift community.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you, the white Herman Cain (meaning, complete fucking idiot)

Attacks don't bother me. I silently applaud them, as it tells me the other guy has exhausted any valid argument and can only toss peanuts from the gallery. Bravo. (golf clap)

Regardless... I have link after link to articles proving the central tenants of "Anthropogenic Global Warming" to be based on faulty data, bad models, or otherwise completely falsifications. Day after day the 'science' that served as the foundation of the Warmies argument is repeatedly falling into disrepute. It isn't settled science, as the Warmies try to make it out to be. It gives REAL scientists a bad name, to be frank, to be associated with such poor research.

This week's shining example? (There are new ones all the time, so this is hardly unusual...)

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45447

All the reports on dying polar bears from global warming? Completely faked. This bozo (who got millions in federal grants BTW) 'peer reviewed' his so-called research with his WIFE. His data (ha) was 4 polar bear corpses he saw while flying around. He never examined the bodies. Now he is in total CYA mode, as the harsh glare of scrutiny comes to bear (no pun intended). Like most arguments that Warmies make, it falls apart when even BASIC, simple questions about methodology come up. The Warmie movement is a house of cards built on shoddy data, bad proceedures, and alarmist rhetoric. Like most scams of this sort, the perpetrators have very little recourse except to attack those who are trying to keep them honest. If everything is so cock-certain as the Warmies claim - then surely you have naught to fear from honest criticism of the data when it is well-founded?

God... I love this ignore feature.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker Your enlarged right amygdala is showing.

Even so, I agree that the discussion is often "is it occuring?" rather than "are humans affecting climate?", which is a problem.

Also, it would be cool if you didn't saturate your posts with ad hominem attacks. If you have a good point to make, you don't need to add the equivalent of "warmies", "bozo", etc. to every post you ever make. As for people calling you an idiot being the same thing...well...at least they're attacking you personally rather than some nebulous group you've labeled "warmies".

>> ^mgittle:

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker Your enlarged right amygdala isyou've labeled "warmies".


look at what volumptous said. This is really the pot that called out the kettle.

@marinara Yes...you didn't read the part where i said "as for people calling you an idiot being the same thing"

I was addressing volumptuous' similarly stupid remarks. As I said, there's a difference between labeling groups of people and attacking someone personally. They're both silly, but one is definitely more useless.