Early this morning, nearly a million New Yorkers were stunned by the appearance of a "special edition" New York Post blaring headlines that their city could face deadly heat waves, extreme flooding, and other lethal effects of global warming within the next few decades. The most alarming thing about it: the news came from an official City report.

Although the 32-page New York Post is a fake, everything in it is 100% true, with all facts carefully checked by a team of editors and climate change experts.

Distributed by over 2000 volunteers throughout New York City, the paper has been created by The Yes Men and a coalition of activists as a wake-up call to action on
climate change. It appears one day before a UN summit where Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon will push 100 world leaders to make serious commitments to reduce carbon
emissions in the lead-up to the Copenhagen climate conference in December. Ban has said that the world has "less than 10 years to halt (the) global rise in
greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid catastrophic consequences for people and the planet," adding that Copenhagen is a "once-in-a-generation opportunity."

"This could be, and should be, a real New York Post," said Andy Bichlbaum of the Yes Men. "Climate change is the biggest threat civilization has ever faced, and it should be in the headlines of every paper, every day until we solve the problem."

via http://vimeo.com/6676567
Online issue of this "Special Edition" New York Post.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009 4:59am PDT - promote requested by fissionchips.

*quality. Made me smile to see him compare the two and call the red-face-guy more news-worthy.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by demon_ix.

FEAR FEAR, PANIC! BUY BUY BUY! CONSUME GREEN PRODUCTS, BUY BUY BUY! FEAR FEAR!

The video description starts with "nearly a million New Yorkers were stunned by the appearance of a "special edition" New York Post".

I'm curious as to where they got that number, is it that they printed "nearly a million" copies? And they assumed that every copy was read, and that every reader was "stunned"?

Just pointing out what I consider the kind of lame writing skills that you would probably find in the Post. How about "thousands of New Yorkers were greeted by the appearance"?

A million people read the NYP? Yeesh, we got bigger problems than climate change.

Like they printed out a million copies of something that will be thrown away the next day...BUY BUY BUY!

*nochannel
*politics
*news
*eco
*controversy
*viral
*wtf

This video has been removed from all channels (Wtf, Worldaffairs, Humanitarian, Viral, News, Eco, Controversy) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by NetRunner. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Eco, News, Politics, Viral, Wtf) - requested by NetRunner.

The Yes Men strike again! I'm excited for their new movie.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'yes men, pranksters, huge prank, new york post, climate change, global warming' to 'yes men, pranksters, huge prank, ny post, climate change, global warming, culture jam' - edited by EndAll

100% true like the year after Katrina predicted 5 category 5 hurricanes and we didn't have one. I don't think 100% true means what they think it means.

(especially when concerning something as complex as the weather...Ian Malcolm would be talking about butterflies for sure!)

HAHAHA! LOL at "environmentalists...pfff" scoffing the man on the bike.

because all bike-riders are environmentalists...and all guys with canes (that can't ride bikes) are down-to-earth realists

And the dudes printing out 1 million news papers are environmentalists! I must of saved the world a million time over in magic cards by now!

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
100% true like the year after Katrina predicted 5 category 5 hurricanes and we didn't have one. I don't think 100% true means what they think it means.
(especially when concerning something as complex as the weather...Ian Malcolm would be talking about butterflies for sure!)


^geeeeez. After 3 4 angry comments I think everybody's got the idea that you don't "believe" in global warming - just like lots of 'jesus_freaks' don't "believe" in evolution. Oh, and speaking of irony regarding your username - in addition you've illustrated that you also managed to miss a critical part of video description:

(...)their city could face deadly heat waves, extreme flooding, and other lethal effects of global warming within the next few decades.

They could face killer bees and tidal waves too! Believe in global warming has NOTHING to do with any of my jesting here. My jesting is just about how 100% sure of everything people are now. Moreover, how consumerism is still largerly a part of environmentalism and uses the same fear tactics that people have used to go to war over the ages (fear and panic). I think warming is happening for sure, and in the past, that has been a good thing and a bad thing. They used to farm in north England back in the medieval climate optimum. Global warming isn't necessarily bad or good, it is change though, and people exploiting that change through fear-mongering just like bush did with "terrorists, are everywhere gonna get you in your sleep!"

Your slanderous generalizations aside, perhaps I was a little crass about it, but I just find it all so hysterical, and not in a good way.


(wth, evolution? What what what? Who was even talking about that..red herring alert! Someone call animal control!)

Lol, " Global warming isn't necessarily bad or good."

Your info is woefully outdated. See:

http://www.videosift.com/video/TED-Talks-Time-lapse-proof-of-extreme-ice-loss

Go to 7:15.

Look at that chart, and think how irrelevant talking about farming in medieval England is.

YES!

Science, fuck you.

Science, is when you go to a glacier and set up timelapse cameras and see that the ice is actually melting.

If I can drink one soda in the after noon, and then feel the effects of the soda on my body when I lace up my gloves, the earth can sure as shit feel the effects of a "little" bit of ice melting.

To bad its not just a little bit of ice.

Correct me if I am wrong but is this not a scientific paper about Polar Climate change?

What about the TED video on melting glaciers?

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html

O shit, they had climatologists in the 300,000BC! Hell, they even measured CO2 and ice levels in the dark ages, black plague don't slow those folks down for science! The chart don't lie, we are all screwed! Let us consume our way out of this problem quickly!

I hope your sarcasm detectors are ringing, I was being quite hyperbolic. Measurements from prehistorical record are always intriguing to me, people can be very smart at finding the marks of the distant past in rocks or ice. However, you have to take that evidence for what it is it is, unverifiable. You can make neat models and predictions off it and try and get a sense of scale and scope for current models; trying to balance the equations that aren't working now with a window into the past. But you are peaking into what is essentially unscientific (I mean unverifiable). There is simply no way to be certain that evidence left behind in ice or certain geological formations hasn't undergone massive change over the hundreds of thousands or even hundreds of millions of years that the evidence sample is supposed to represent empirically (or the extrapolations gained from this are accurate).

The bits of wisdom uncovered from the vast long history of this world are vital, but you always have to weight that with your rational skepticism which I feel is lacking in most summations of doomsday scenarios. To believe that no such levels of CO2 or ice melt values have EVER existed places far to much credibility on something that is essentially unverifiable (that isn't just for 100k years ago, but 500).

I think concern is wise, I think prudence is advised, I think writing a paper saying we are all fuxed and run for the hills is irresponsible. Empiricism is dead, long live manipulated staticism. (assuming a spherical cow, let us calculate its volume)

Actually, yes, the whole "Green Agenda" is based on profit!

We know the planet is warming to a degree. We don't know what's causing it. There is no proof whether man is to blame or whether it is part of a natural cycle. We only have records that date back since 1895. A very short period of time as far as history goes.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/temperature-history/

Don't get me wrong here though. Yes we all think the planet needs more respect. That's just fact. And there are a lot of people who dedicate their lives/careers to the greater good of preserving the planet.

But at the same time, What an incredible profit creating machine. Corporations and interest groups will use anything they can to generate profits. Fear has always been the best way to control a population. So it makes sense that these two should go hand in hand. See an opportunity and use it!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=profit+green&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g-m1

Even government is using it as an excuse to raise taxes. Both on goods and for big business.
http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2008/07/26/bc-carbon-tax-backlash-how-real/

So yes, cause fear and people buy in - literally - like it or not! Like I said, it feeds the machine.



>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
FEAR FEAR, PANIC! BUY BUY BUY! CONSUME GREEN PRODUCTS, BUY BUY BUY! FEAR FEAR!

^Science is a matter of consensus, not a political debate.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/US_temps_2008.JPG
Figure 1. U.S. average annual temperature history 1895-2008 (source: National Climatic Data Center
Edit: Note that there is only a change (trend) of 1.5 degrees over the last 100 years!

Quote:
Prior to 1998, there was little of note in the long-term U.S. temperature record. Temperatures fluctuated a bit from year to year, but the long-term trend was slight and driven by the cold string of years in the late 19th and early 20th century rather than by any warmth at the end of the record. In fact, from the period 1930 through 1997, the annual average temperature actually declined a hair—despite the on-going build-up of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The only suggestion that “global warming” had involved the U.S. was to be found in the post-1997 period—a period unusual in that the temperatures went up and stayed up at near-record levels year after year. It was not so much that temperatures continued to climb after 1998, but just that they never fell. This grouping of warm years nearly doubled the apparent overall warming trend in U.S. temperatures (starting in 1895) from 0.07ºF/dedade (ending in 1997) to 0.13ºF/decade (ending in 2007). And with this doubling of the warming trend came the big push for emissions restrictions.

But then, 2008 comes along and has broken this warm stranglehold. Perhaps this is an indication that the conditions responsible for the unusual string of warm years have broken down—and maybe they weren’t a sudden apparition of anthropogenic global warming after all.

Only time will tell for sure. But, at least for now, things seem like they have returned to a more “normal” state of being.
Again from: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/temperature-history/


And so, my point is, Companies will use and major fear tactic to sell us stuff - Ideas, Consumer products, Belief systems and so on...

And a lot of science is driven by interest groups whose only interest is to prove results that further their bottom line.

Prudence is advised? The prudent thing is to be prepared for the worst. Kind of like airport security. What are the odds your plane will be targeted by terrorists, but security still gets all up in your shit (I've been watching the wire ).

I like the sensationalism of the message. It grabs your attention. If it includes 32 pages of actual facts then I have no trouble supporting it either. I was disappointed to see it was a hoax to be honest. There are way too many environmental pollution issues that are out of control and there's virtually no will to address them. No one cares because it's all expensive, complicated, and the real impact of the damage is still largely conjecture and predictions. But with even minimal research it must seem clear to anyone that at the rate we are going it won't be long before 6 billion people are unsustainable. Most people can't even wrap their heads around how much human activity there is on the Earth right now. I don't think anyone can accurately predict the impact of what's going on and it seems entirely reasonable to favor the side of caution.

Parts of this video seemed entirely disingenuous by the way. That interview with the supposed employee of the New York Post really looked staged to me. His reaction was ridiculous and it reeked of a set up reaction shot, in spite of him walking towards the their office building at the end... Maybe he was someone who at least worked inside the building but I doubt it. When you fake even a part of your work you rob yourself of any credibility.

"O shit, they had climatologists in the 300,000BC"

LOL...you've got to be fucking kidding me. Let's throw out carbon dating too. It's unverifiable! You weren't there ! And how do they know what stars are made of ? They can't verify it !

I don't get the defensiveness here. No debate corporations will use this data for profit. They will use ANYTHING for profit. And governments will always want to tax more of their citizenry. It has no import/relevance on the scientific facts being given. And if the science is bogus, then it will be disproven. PERIOD. That's just how it works. Just because you're spoiled and think the scientific community has to give you a day, a time, and detailed description of what will happen, isn't a reason to dismiss it. If you want that, go back to church.

It weirds me out that people go to great lengths to show how it is all a conspiracy to instill fear and get money; just look at the facts, and make up your own goddamn mind. And if you choose to be willfully ignorant, then do people a favor and stay out of the debate. Some of us actually want to understand what's going on.

I seem to have a problem with the people making denials on these comments , they keep blaming corporate interests for promoting global warming . Over ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial ) and over (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/27/climate-change-deniers-sceptics ) it has been shown the denial is funded by giant moneyed multinationals with huge conflicts of interest . If your not into reason that's fine, just don't claim that you are without expecting rebuttal .
Also , unless your getting paid for it why not go somewhere that your point of view would be appreciated, actual debate is always welcome, but your not debating , your just yelling.

I'll just leave this here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

^For the sake of QFT, I'll allow myself:

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion."

>> ^asynchronice:

It weirds me out that people go to great lengths to show how it is all a conspiracy to instill fear and get money; just look at the facts, and make up your own goddamn mind. And if you choose to be willfully ignorant, then do people a favor and stay out of the debate. Some of us actually want to understand what's going on.


I think for some (though I would hope it's a very small percentage of people) it rubs up against their religious belief that with god watching over us he wouldn't allow this planet to become inhospitable now that, you know, we're here.

And no, I'm not pointing to anyone in this thread specifically, but I am suspicious of how much that plays into such types.

"We don't need to worry about it, God's got our back." *high five*

Even if there was a god, Id think it would want us to act responsibly.

I was born and raised in NYC, and I live in Brooklyn Heights near Park Slope (read: hipster capital of the world). I move in well read circles with savvy and interested people who are up to the minute on a variety of issues, including climate change and great practical jokes. I have not heard a single word about this so-called city-wide prank. Close to a million people? Yeah fucking right.

I was disappointed to see it was a hoax to be honest.

This pretty perfectly describes the environmental movement. "Awww - our alarmist message was just a hoax... Sure wish it was REAL..."

Prudence is advised

Yes - and as usual with most neolib movements - the 'prudence' must take the form of massive government spending, taxes, and restrictions on personal freedom. All to address a problem that hasn't actually happened, may never happen, and that can't be solved by government spending anyway.

Lol.. JesusFreak takes on the old stick-finger-in-ears approach.

NO ONE IS STILL LIVING FROM 300,000 YEARS AGO, SO HOW CAN WE KNOW ANY OF THIS CLIMATE SCIENCE GRAPHS!!!!

What an asshole. Does he realize no one can verify that Jesus was ever on Earth. No one can prove he became a zombie after three days and escaped his grave.

Oh, someone wrote it down you say. Which is more reliable, some book written from emotional pleadings and personal accounts.. Or gas trapped in ice.

Are you saying we can't rely on tree rings? Because no one was alive 300 years ago to confirm the tree really was alive / growing back then.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
"Awww - our alarmist message was just a hoax... Sure wish it was REAL..."


The point is that the words on the page were scientific based facts.

The hoax was that a shitty sensational rag like the Post would publish something rational and founded in scientific research.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Like they printed out a million copies of something that will be thrown away the next day...BUY BUY BUY!


Newsprint is one of the easiest, and most recycled products in the US.

The actual New York Post uses recycled paper for their editions, and I'd be surprised if the Yes Men didn't do the same.

great marketing for the NYP.

The point is that the words on the page were scientific based facts.

Noooooo - the only scientific evidence is that Earth has climate cycles of warming and cooling and that the Earth is currently in a warming cycle. There is no 'scientific evidence' that human activity is causing any of that cycle to take place either positively or negatively. There is more C02 in the atmosphere, but there is no evidence that the C02 is what 'caused' the warming. There is compelling evidence that C02 is an aftereffect of the cycle, not an indicator of it. And historically, there have been periods of time in earth's history when there was far more C02 in the atmosphere. It did not cause 'harm'. The periods of more C02 and warmth have been times when the Earth was the most lush and had the greatest biodiversity. There is no evidence that human C02 emissions have caused the current warm blip. All that exists is inference, and vague correlations which any statistician would call either negligible or non-existent. The AMG movement is political - not scientific - but they need scientists to hype the masses so they pay them massive amounts of money to ignore evidence, make hasty generalizations, and sensational claims. Follow the money, man. Follow the money. This is one of the biggest scams in all of History since indulgences.

winston , no there has not been a period since we have been able to measure it , or in ANY historical sample that has carbon ppm as high as it is now . That's in 400,000 years. The only thing that is political in this movement is that studied observation may lead the way to better governance ,with much fewer fatalities , that the current system . What is amazing is that so many defend the ole system , it's the serfs defending the royals, to prey on your old analogy . The old idea of resource based wealth , which leads to power , is just fucking doomed . It's not an if , it's a when . Hopefully enough people will see this and act before it becomes too late for ANY correction that doesnt involve half the fucking human race dying.
Also what a wonderful way to respond , with no sources, no proof, while demanding scientific credulity, yea,, your a clear logical thinker .

to videosift in general, i'm done being nice about this , i'm gonna get out a big pimp hand for any of this bullshit i see.
i spent the last 10 years working in a high carbon contributing indutry , while i knew it was most likely wrong .
so i have a big fucking chip on my shoulder and too much time on my hands .
To those who expect to raise questions , good we need questions , you better bring proof though .
Try again , Try Harder

I'd love to shove that cane right down that douche bags neck. Kid fucking Republican no doubt.

winston , no there has not been a period since we have been able to measure it , or in ANY historical sample that has carbon ppm as high as it is now . That's in 400,000 years.

Go back further. This is one of the key problems with the many flawed "global warming" models that people are trying to pass off as science. Why only look 400,000 years back? If you are going to do a comprehensive analysis then you have to look at the entire record. Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic... In the past, atmosphereic C02 levels have been as high as 4,000+ PPM. TEN TIMES the current measley 380 PPM. When you look at the whole record, our current C02 levels are at a very low point.

Now - the way global warming alarmists discuss C02 you would think that at 10X the C02 levels our planet would be a wasteland of acidified oceans, baking deserts, and inhospitable wastes. Pht. Those periods of time were points where earth had far greater variety in plant and animal life and far more of earth's surface could sustain life. So why are global warming alarmists so all-fired paranoid about the relatively tiny increase from the LOW point of 280 PPM to a miniscule 390 PPM?

The only thing that is political in this movement is that studied observation may lead the way to better governance

The carbon taxes they want to impose would amount to one of the largest (if not THE largest) transfers of wealth to government in all of human history. Literally trillions of unaccountable dollars will be pouring into world governments all supposedly to 'fix' global warming. And you are trying to say that this isn't political? This is a cash grab, and they are getting useful idiots to play along by making the scientific community their little dancing monkeys in a game of modern-day patronage. When you follow the money trail, all these so-called 'climate studies' are bought and paid for by governments who winnow the results to get the scary headlines they need to spook the slow-witted and gullible into happily giving up their freedoms.

And government doesn't have to do squat except rake in the free money. They can't influence C02 levels any more than they can stop the sun, but they'll take your trillions of dollars - thanks. It is simple matter of Return on Investment. Is there ANY possibility that trillions of dollars going into government will in any way move the dial? There is no evidence that it will do a blessed thing. Therefore, why should we give up trillions to accomplish nothing except make paranoid people feel better about themselves? If you want to feel better about yourself then just go plant a tree and keep out of everyone's wallet.

WP is not only a preeminent sociologist, a brilliant political scientist, but also a climate expert.

The only reason he's never sifted any videos here is he's always too busy in his lab.

Ok WP , you still cant provide good links to peer reviewed data huh ?
This is a report ( sorry pdf ) that details paleoclimate carbon ppm measurements ,
and surprise , theorizes those high levels are the case of the high temperatures .
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/1991/04.1991.03Cerling.pdf

also
The only thing that is political in this movement is that studied observation MAY lead the way to better governance
The word is MAY , as in might , or possibly .

Have you ever heard the ultimate conspiracy theory?
It goes like this .
I don't believe in any conspiracies , because if i believed in a conspiracy , it would mean i knew something about said conspiracy , and therefore would be a danger to it , and therefore it would be a danger to me , therefore i don't believe in any conspiracies .
Circular logic is what it's called .
So what your saying is ALL the governments in the whole world except the U.S. , as they did not sign the Kyoto Accord , are working together to rip you off .
Paranoia is the easiest form of narcissism.

So lets say they win , and it's false, what do they do with all the tax money ?
How do they keep from getting whacked by a disgruntled polity?

Ok lets say they lose , and it's real .
We lose 1/3 of the worlds population , weighted more heavily among the poor , and populations near any coastline . Wasn't it well over 50% of the world population that lives within 50 miles of the coast ? We gain 40 feet , 12.19 meters , of sea level . Hence the title of this video .

Option 3 is obviously , They win and it's real .
Well they may be able to slow it down before it goes into a self-sustaining loop .
All that methane hydrate stored at the bottom of glaciers doesn't come bubbling lose . All that carbon sequestered in the permafrost stays put. Which it isn't .
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/lamontagne/lamontagne080109.html
Maybe governments have a few extra resources to deal with all the problems that will be caused by it . They still wont have enough because even their reports have been watered down .

Option 4 , They lose , and it's false .
I have a hard time addressing this one , as the odds of the latter are so low, though the odds of the former are well , a real possibility .

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

It's CO2. O as in Oxygen. It's Carbon diOxide.

WP is not only a preeminent sociologist, a brilliant political scientist, but also a climate expert.

Nope - just a statistician who has seen the data, viewed the methodologies, and concluded that if the entirety of the AWG movement's 'evidence' was manifested as water then it wouldn't be able to moisten the inside of a thimble.

Conspiracy

Who said it was a conspiracy? More like standard operating proceedure. Governments have been troweling out millions to scientists for a long time. It is only in the last 15 years or so that they started troweling it out for purposes of justifying 'global warming'. Left wing politicians want taxes to generate revenue to pay for social programs, as well as to 'engineer' society. This carbon credit scheme will be the biggest money sponge of all time. So government hands out the money like candy to any outfit that proposes they can find even the loosest, most distant connections imaginable between human C02 & 'warming'.

The message is crystal clear. Need a big fat grant for your research center? Have a few guys propose a 'global warming' study, and there you go. These outfits try as best they CAN to apply real science, but the fact remains that all of their conclusions rest on specious mathematical models that are absolute garbage (and that's being kind).

The only way taxes will drop C02 level is as a byproduct of punishing prosperity. The money will not go towards 'green' technology that will change the world as we know it. It will just go into government and get spent on the same stuff as always. They are relying on the stifling nature of onerous taxation to force human beings to scale back economic activity.

Pure insanity. Have they even considered what this is going to do economically? Slow down the economy, and you reduce GDP. Reduce GDP, and you reduce revenue. Reduce revenue & government must be REDUCED. But they aren't planning for that. They are thinking they are going to do this cap & trade scheme, and STILL have a steadily increasing GDP. I look at their plans, and can reach no other conclusion than that our leaders have gone completely insane.

I've already run the numbers, and the ONLY possible way to get the planet to return to 230 PPM atmospheric C02 is to reduce Earth's population by about 5 billion people. Anything short of that is window dressing.

Random wacko on the internet has "run the numbers" everyone! It's OK, because he's "run the numbers" and we should all believe him because he says it is so. Never-mind that he's probably "run the numbers" on post-it notes plastered all over the walls of his one-room apartment with his own feces. He's not crazy! He's a statistician!

I'm so comforted that someone has run the numbers who also has the time to post diatribes on random websites. What a load off my mind! Now that we know that there's no going back, I guess its just full steam ahead. Hell, use dirty coal to make that steam, it won't make a bit of difference!

You know why I don't believe in Jesus? Because his existence is unverifiable.

Edit: I should have finished reading the thread...

You should always do a WP check before a reply. Just scroll down real fast till you see an avatar that looks like a blurry version of this shoot by...

^
||

WP , you still haven't actually refuted the science .
With that all important peer-reviewed proof .
Are you talking above your pay grade?
You also don't seem to be able to refute the end of resources as a base of wealth . or really anything , with success .
if your gonna get on the court you better bring a better game than that.
WaitswithaPimpHand

*length=2:33

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 2:33 - length declared by ReverendTed.