Galileo? *wtf ????

Adding video to channels (Wtf) - requested by shuac.

The enviro-Statist alarmists failed to ensnare public opinion, proving once again the people are smarter than kenyan kings.

QM, you are insane.

every scientist that views climate change as FACT is an "enviro-Statist alarmist"? that's the MAJORITY of the scientific community btw.

i so wish people understood the concept of the scientific method and peer review
if they did, you'd see as a whole, the scientific community and alarmist don't really sit together that well

even more depressing, is most climate change deniers i know, believe this to be some sort economic conspiracy by liberals... y'know those pesky conspirators who are only separated by nation, geography, language, politics, and economics to name a few

while a few "scientists" who deny climate change, a MUCH smaller total number, with a LARGER representation in corporate interests are the bearers of truth... because they, spread out over fewer demagraphics, are obviously much less prone to influence of money/greed

it's the conspiracy of the unaffiliated majority vs the affiliated minority... and some people can't see the irony in their argument

sort of like FOX news talking about how video games are promoting a liberal, anti-corporate agenda through the despicable use of fear

quite literally, there are people out there who would believe the sky isn't blue, if it comes from the RIGHT people

toss them the Kool-Aid flavored religious zealotry... you know they want it

Huntsman at least agrees with scientist, even if his reasons are not appealing, he knows that denial of facts like evolution and climate change make Republicans look like funghi that exist in multiple modes of being at the same time.

FTFY

>> ^DerHasisttot:

Huntsman at least agrees with scientist, even if his reasons are not appealing, he knows that denial of facts like evolution and climate change make Republicans look like funghi that exist in multiple modes of being at the same time. (no offence to funghi)

so crazy.

I find it interesting that many of the same constituency (Conservative Christians) who play the "what if it isn't true" card in climate change arguments and are in general what I would describe as science skeptics, make frequent use of the "what if it is true" card (Pascal's Wager) in debates with non-believers.

*promote for science bias at the dais.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, September 8th, 2011 11:14am PDT - promote requested by shuac.

This video made me fume.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. Keep it going for the band!

wash your mouth before you speak of Galileo, you piece of shit Perry.

How does the scientific fact that people are contributing to climate change have to do with wrecking the American economy? What we do about it at the policy level has nothing to do with the science. They are two separate issues. Also since climate change is a global thing, not just an American thing, shouldn't we think about the global impact and not just be self centered ass holes concerned only about a few American multi-billion dollar companies? WTF is wrong with these people? I mean these idiots believe in God, who said to be a good steward of the Earth. If I left somebody in charge of something and came back and it was all messed up because they were more concerned about making money than taking care of what I told them to take care of, I would be pissed... perhaps, like Denethor, they confused stewardship with lordship and think they can do what the heck they want... of course that is perhaps one of the parts of the Bible they picked to ignore, like the parts that say the Earth doesn't move, because if they came out and said that the sun goes around the Earth because the science isn't settled on that, then they would lose all respect (at least one would hope)...

@RFlagg Don't forget that it's a flat disc supported by four pillars

>> ^hpqp:

@RFlagg Don't forget that it's a flat disc supported by four pillars


Wrong, heretic! The earth rests upon the shell of a giant turtle. And it's turtles all the way down.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson for President!

Or anybody that has any background in Science really. Anti-intellectual buffoons. Even when they've dragged us all back to the dark ages they'll find a way to blame it on the gays.

Assuming for a moment that man-made global warming is demonstrably proven.

1) The socialist scientitians claim they know the precise temperature (range) that the earth is supposed to be over the next 100 years and

2) they can set this desired temperature through taxation and regulation of industry.


And I'm the one who's insane? Insanely entertaining, yes. Willing to wreck the global economy further than these Keynesian retards already have? Nope.



>> ^Kofi:

QM, you are insane.

Aaaaand this is why Huntsman will not win the GOP nomination. He's an idiot who accepts the false premise that "99%" of all scientists agree that human CO2 is the cause of all climate change, and that tax & cap schemes have any prayer of doing anything about it. The real 'anti-science' camp here is not the GOP. They GOP loves science. They just hate BAD science, which is what all the AGW Flavor-Aid drinkers have on thier side.

There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what an actual scientist is talking about. "Climate change" is a generic term that only means the climate is changing. I'd say 100% of "all scientists" agree with this simple statement. The debate is NOT about whether or not Earth's climate has cycles.

But when the Warmies talk about "Climate change" they are not talking about the generic term. They pack so many other things into those two words that it becomes almost impossible to have an intelligent, reasonable, fact-based discussion with them. But you can boil their intent down.

"100% of all scientists agree that 100% of all climate change is caused by human CO2. Also, 100% of all scientists agree that the way to address climate change is by massive taxation and other big government solutions. Earth will experience catastrophic world-wide destruction which would wipe out all humanity unless we ACT NOW!"

But this is not true. Not all scientists agree that CO2 is what is driving climate change. Not even a majority agree with that position. There is no solid evidence of it. There are only theories and projections - many of which have been proven to be based on bad data and falsehoods. To say "all science" agrees with the AGW theory is total bollocks.

So it is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of "bad" science, while accepting the ACTUAL "100%" agreement in regards to overall climate changes. Climate changes. DUR. The argument is over whether (A) human CO2 has anything to do with it and (B) even IF (!!IF!!) human CO2 has anything to do with it, whether or not these massive cap & tax schemes would have any impact of value.

The GOP is not "anti-science". That is just a typical left-wing neolib pile of bologna. If anything, the GOP is more "pro-science" than any liberal is because they are less blinkered by bias and accept a variety of arguments as opposed to this lockstep groupthink neolibs try to use to shut down real analysis in the climate debate.

But this is not true. Not all scientists agree that CO2 is what is driving climate change. Not even a majority agree with that position


That's just wrong - see wikipedia here for a long list of surveys, studies, and statements. "All scientists" don't likely agree on very many things, but a majority believe in anthropogenic global warming due to substances including CO2. If you don't, that's fine. If you don't want to say there's a consensus, OK. But don't pretend there isn't at least a majority. And don't pretend they're talking about something else - read the survey questions and read the statements and they're talking about exactly this (at least for many of the items on that page, some are indeed more vague).

As to "what do we do about it", I think (and I assume you'd agree) many current approaches are ridiculous. I've heard people claim, say, cardboard recycling is a good way to fight global warming. I think, in general, reduction in energy use is not going to help significantly. With population and energy use rising around the world, aiming for even an 80% reduction wouldn't solve things - and it would maul the economy, slowing any real solution. I think many environmentalists have a religious commitment to conservation and reduction that blinds them to realistic solutions.

My thoughts? America should invest heavily in new energy - probably nuclear. Reducing dependence on foreign, exhaustible energy sources is awesome. Having more energy is great, boosts the economy, improves standard of living for everyone. Reducing pollution is great (I don't think many people dispute that burning oil makes smoke and breathing smoke sucks). America becoming a leader on a technology everyone will want is great (I'm not American, but it's still a win for them).

Seems like a win all around - and if it also prevents environmental catastrophe then who's going to complain? And if it fails, it still acts as an economic stimulus creating desirable jobs in science, technology, and manufacturing.

You keep saying 'human CO2' as though its a different variety than 'natural' CO2. CO2 is CO2, it doesn't matter if its belched out of a volcano, out of the tail pipe of a car or the tail pipe of a cow.

When we burn carbon traps like trees, oil, and coal, we release the carbon into the air in the form of CO2. While the proportion people release is smaller than that which is naturally released, it is enough to exceed what can naturally be absorbed in combination with what is naturally released. Thus we see an increase in overall atmospheric CO2.

What do you think happens to the excess CO2? Do you think because its 'human CO2' it some how doesn't contribute to overall atmospheric CO2?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Aaaaand this is why Huntsman will not win the GOP nomination. He's an idiot who accepts the false premise that "99%" of all scientists agree that human CO2 is the cause of all climate change, and that tax & cap schemes have any prayer of doing anything about it. The real 'anti-science' camp here is not the GOP. They GOP loves science. They just hate BAD science, which is what all the AGW Flavor-Aid drinkers have on thier side.
There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what an actual scientist is talking about. "Climate change" is a generic term that only means the climate is changing. I'd say 100% of "all scientists" agree with this simple statement. The debate is NOT about whether or not Earth's climate has cycles.
But when the Warmies talk about "Climate change" they are not talking about the generic term. They pack so many other things into those two words that it becomes almost impossible to have an intelligent, reasonable, fact-based discussion with them. But you can boil their intent down.
"100% of all scientists agree that 100% of all climate change is caused by human CO2. Also, 100% of all scientists agree that the way to address climate change is by massive taxation and other big government solutions. Earth will experience catastrophic world-wide destruction which would wipe out all humanity unless we ACT NOW!"
But this is not true. Not all scientists agree that CO2 is what is driving climate change. Not even a majority agree with that position. There is no solid evidence of it. There are only theories and projections - many of which have been proven to be based on bad data and falsehoods. To say "all science" agrees with the AGW theory is total bollocks.
So it is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of "bad" science, while accepting the ACTUAL "100%" agreement in regards to overall climate changes. Climate changes. DUR. The argument is over whether (A) human CO2 has anything to do with it and (B) even IF (!!IF!!) human CO2 has anything to do with it, whether or not these massive cap & tax schemes would have any impact of value.
The GOP is not "anti-science". That is just a typical left-wing neolib pile of bologna. If anything, the GOP is more "pro-science" than any liberal is because they are less blinkered by bias and accept a variety of arguments as opposed to this lockstep groupthink neolibs try to use to shut down real analysis in the climate debate.

Geez, at least Jon Huntsman answered the question. Rick Perry & Michelle Bachmann just skirted around the actual question and went on an irrelevant tangent. Kinda annoying.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Assuming for a moment that man-made global warming is demonstrably proven.
1) The socialist scientitians claim they know the precise temperature (range) that the earth is supposed to be over the next 100 years and
2) they can set this desired temperature through taxation and regulation of industry.

And I'm the one who's insane? Insanely entertaining, yes. Willing to wreck the global economy further than these Keynesian retards already have? Nope.

>> ^Kofi:
QM, you are insane.



You don't understand it because you're uneducated. We get that, we're saying don't wear that with pride.

All I ever get out of these debates is that one side is fighting to pollute and destroy in the name of profit. It's their right to do so, says god and liberty, and capitalism, etc.

Anybody who disagrees is a big government, nanny state, socialist hippy, tree hugging devil worshipper.
I think if Jesus came back and made a fuss about murdering off chunks of the natural world for cash, he'd be disappeared like Jimmy Hoffa.

Alarmist? Socialist? Communist? Intellectual? Elite? Community organizer? Professor at a podium?

Sharing is bad, and smart people are evil, and this planet is disposable, amen.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The enviro-Statist alarmists failed to ensnare public opinion, proving once again the people are smarter than kenyan kings.


Why do you talk like this? If you're really voicing your opinions, you're only hurting your case by filling every comment with rambling about Kenyans and Statists and Keynesians. Let me help you out.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Assuming for a moment that man-made global warming is demonstrably proven.
1) The socialist scientitians claim they know the precise temperature (range) that the earth is supposed to be over the next 100 years and
Scientists believe that they can determine roughly the temperature that the Earth would tend to be at, absent human influence, and that there is an ideal temperature range for the way human civilization is presently organized and

2) they can set this desired temperature through taxation and regulation of industry.

that regulations and taxes on emissions and other things can provide an economic incentive for industries to develop systems that have less of an environmental impact.

And I'm the one who's insane? Insanely entertaining, yes. Willing to wreck the global economy further than these Keynesian retards already have? Nope.

I believe that regulations intended to prevent global warming will hurt economies and industries worse than doing nothing. An impartial group should study the potential effects of both before we make sweeping decisions.

well at least their not saying the climate isn't changing, like the last election. Republican learning curve....

A for Effort @direpickle

>> ^direpickle:

Why do you talk like this?

Because he's more interested in getting people riled up than he is in having a discussion.

Every once in while, though at an overall declining rate, QM will actually participate in reasonable discussion without loaded questions/statements, weasel words and veiled insults. I have to say, on those increasingly rare occasions, it's actually pretty awesome. Not because QM is a master of debate or because I agree with him or anything like that, but because it's nice to have different views well-represented in the discussion.

Unfortunately, the trend on videosift is that more and more people are behaving like QM; looking to rile people up instead of engage in conversation. They're just not as noticeable because they're of the majority opinion.

>> ^garmachi:

Neil DeGrasse Tyson for President!


Made me think of http://videosift.com/video/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-Who-s-More-Pro-Science-Repubs-or-Dems

>> ^petpeeved:

I find it interesting that many of the same constituency (Conservative Christians) who play the "what if it isn't true" card in climate change arguments and are in general what I would describe as science skeptics, make frequent use of the "what if it is true" card (Pascal's Wager) in debates with non-believers.


I really appreciate this comment, 10 upvotes if I could. The hypocrisy and general disservice denialists do to future generations is astounding, appalling and makes me (in cases where the denialist is a christian,) disgusted and ashamed that I used to call myself christian.

Here's a great site for any questions, or nagging "what ifs" people might have.

To answer your assumption that green regulations will hurt economies, well-spoken QM, I present Germany! Working economy, job growth and sinking emissions. 20% of Germany's electricity is green: wind, biomass, solar. It's a growing field of industry here and in the USA. How did Germany do it? Regulations and Incentives.
In reply to this comment by direpickle:


>> ^quantumushroom:

Assuming for a moment that man-made global warming is demonstrably proven.
1) The socialist scientitians claim they know the precise temperature (range) that the earth is supposed to be over the next 100 years and
Scientists believe that they can determine roughly the temperature that the Earth would tend to be at, absent human influence, and that there is an ideal temperature range for the way human civilization is presently organized and

2) they can set this desired temperature through taxation and regulation of industry.

that regulations and taxes on emissions and other things can provide an economic incentive for industries to develop systems that have less of an environmental impact.

And I'm the one who's insane? Insanely entertaining, yes. Willing to wreck the global economy further than these Keynesian retards already have? Nope.

I believe that regulations intended to prevent global warming will hurt economies and industries worse than doing nothing. An impartial group should study the potential effects of both before we make sweeping decisions.