*quality

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

I have realized my own complicity in what appears to others to be a denial of human impact on the climate-

A more pressing dilemma than the human impact on the climate though would have to be the systematic programming of humans being born to grow up fucking stupid. "Stupid" because they are not taught how to arrive at conclusions through traditional methods of information gathering and dissemination....I. E. research, critical thinking, etc.
RATHER, from primary school through university, people are taught to be herded and indoctrinated with bullshit-thinking skills. When education is shit, people become idiots.

This is where the world is and will continue to remain until elections become something more than a fucking propaganda pep-rally of imbeciles who vote because it's a robotic function that means you care rather than an effectual process of healthy social evolution.

What we need to do is legalize homicide in applicable situations, beginning with a new holiday: Murder a Politician Day.

>> ^chingalera:

I have realized my own complicity in what appears to others to be a denial of human impact on the climate-
A more pressing dilemma than the human impact on the climate though would have to be the systematic programming of humans being born to grow up fucking stupid. "Stupid" because they are not taught how to arrive at conclusions through traditional methods of information gathering and dissemination....I. E. research, critical thinking, etc.
RATHER, from primary school through university, people are taught to be herded and indoctrinated with bullshit-thinking skills. When education is shit, people become idiots.
This is where the world is and will continue to remain until elections become something more than a fucking propaganda pep-rally of imbeciles who vote because it's a robotic function that means you care rather than an effectual process of healthy social evolution.
What we need to do is legalize homicide in applicable situations, beginning with a new holiday: Murder a Politician Day.


Bam! well said!
yeah we teach our kids over and over that they are unique little snowflakes. the specialness. a whole species that thinks the world revolves around them.
yeah climate change at it's heart is a mass psychology issue.

I knew about Global Warming in the 90's. It was never refuted, the theory was accompanied with a huge amount of data. I knew when Al Gore started speaking to universities and released that documentary that the whole scientific process was going to be compromised. All my friends threw drunken insults at me, calling me a contrarian. Now that the chickens have come home to roost, those same friends still refuse to acknoledge that it was a well meaning Al Gore who turned Global Warming into a political quagmire. Now special interest groups on both sides are forming their own conclusions based on half truths, and misinterpretations of weather patterns.

>> ^chingalera:

I have realized my own complicity in what appears to others to be a denial of human impact on the climate-
A more pressing dilemma than the human impact on the climate though would have to be the systematic programming of humans being born to grow up fucking stupid. "Stupid" because they are not taught how to arrive at conclusions through traditional methods of information gathering and dissemination....I. E. research, critical thinking, etc.
RATHER, from primary school through university, people are taught to be herded and indoctrinated with bullshit-thinking skills. When education is shit, people become idiots.
This is where the world is and will continue to remain until elections become something more than a fucking propaganda pep-rally of imbeciles who vote because it's a robotic function that means you care rather than an effectual process of healthy social evolution.
What we need to do is legalize homicide in applicable situations, beginning with a new holiday: Murder a Politician Day.


With NDAA and pending cyber-security legislation, I wouldn't upvote that comment with a 10-ft pole...

Shit. I guess I kinda just did.

Not sure about the conspiracy tag; we need to stop calling this downfall we're witnessing a conspiracy. As Mr. Chomsky notes, it's just incentives playing out. Calling it a conspiracy is in a way issue simplification and serves to further dis-empower the public by making it seem impossible to stop.

If we're to solve this we need to get together and see it for what it is: an incentive system that is not in the best interest of the people it claims to serve.

Superstorm Sandy is another example of society's march past the greenhouse tipping-point like the lemmings that we are. I laid it our in arguments in this video, where I was vehemently opposed by doubt-fuelled, fear monger, climate change deniers:
http://videosift.com/video/Climate-Change-Latest-science-update

We're so close to that "I told you so" moment. By that time unfortunately, the methane feedback loop will probably be well under way.

Whenever life conjures up bad news I want Chomsky to deliver it to me. He has such a relaxing manner, even when explaining how the world has gone to hell.

I don't know if we'll ever get to an "I told you so" on the anthropogenic cause, but within 10 years or so I think even the hardest of hard core Fox News watchers will have to stop denying that climate change is happening. At that point they will still deny that giant multi-billion dollar corporations and massive farming of the rain forests have anything to do with it, they'll stick to their "it is a natural" cycle, feedback loops be damned, and continue saying "follow the money" when they point to who is saying it is man made, while ignoring their own advice and following the money to who is saying it isn't man made. Even if they do believe it man made, they'll say it won't matter as a large number of the deniers are evangelicals who say Jesus is coming again soon and he'll whisk them away before it gets too bad. I know because I've heard them say this very line, they use this line to say it doesn't matter who somebody votes for as well, though they still follow Fox and vote as the Republican right tells them to vote... Anyhow I think part of the problem is a lack of basic understanding of science, not understanding what a theory is and how it comes about, and the fact it got politicized (and unfortunately for those of us who accept the scientific facts, Gore may have done more harm than good by being a bit more alarmist in some areas and mis-representing some facts for the deniers to point to and say see the whole thing is false). I used to be a skeptic, but then I followed the research trail back on both sides, saw who was saying what exactly, and it became clear that we are screwed...

TLDR: They may come to accept climate change is happening, but still won't accept that humans have much if anything to do with it.

>> ^alcom:

Superstorm Sandy is another example of society's march past the greenhouse tipping-point like the lemmings that we are. I laid it our in arguments in this video, where I was vehemently opposed by doubt-fuelled, fear monger, climate change deniers:
http://videosift.com/video/Climate-Change-Latest-science-update
We're so close to that "I told you so" moment. By that time unfortunately, the methane feedback loop will probably be well under way.

Let's take things in stride here.
1. Al Gore has the highest electricity useage in the entire country in Tennessee. That kinda tells you all you need to know about what he says and does.

2. Super Storm Sandy doesn't mean anything is necessarily happening anymore than the fact that California hasn't had any major earthquakes or storms for approximately 5 years. The south aka Katrina and such largest storms were in CA and the East got almost nothing

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0211/Behind-mid-Atlantic-snowstorms-a-rare-weather-pattern

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/index.html

Please realize there are many other articles out there that point this pattern out.

None of that means that we shouldn't be good stewards of the land and such. However, Mr. Chomsky and anyone over the age of 40 has been alive for the death by heat in the 60's, the ice age of the 70's, the Sagan predictions of over population death of us all, to the Al Gore death of climate change heat, to the newly recognized studies put out in Europe about how the temperature actually declining and the high's were 13 years ago.

The simple fact of the matter is this: We have many more safeguards in place and to say that our rivers, streams, automobiles hell, even airplanes don't burn cleaner and more efficiently is just plain not paying attention.

Not sure why you redact URLS. They prove points.

It's nothing personal. We are inundated with spammers all day long, so comments from brand new members are filtered a bit.

I've restored your URLs.

Welcome to VideoSift!

I lost a lot of respect for Chomsky while watching this. He has completely bought into the myth of consensus in the climate science community and seems to actually believe it is only those with a vested interest who do not support the climate scare.

Here are two of my pieces on the 97% of scientists agree" myth:

http://www.fcpp.org/blog/pbs-frontline-climate-change-special-cites-bogus-consensus/

http://www.fcpp.org/blog/like-doren-and-zimmerman-the-pnas-denier-black-list-paper-also-falls-flat/

Here is ICSC's open letter to the UN Sec Gen - are all these people oil-funded deniers. Norm, your statements in this regard are not only wrong, they are not credible:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon
-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/

Tom Harris
International Climate Science Coalition

replying to the last poster: IT looks like you and-or your org is more on the GW-CC denier side or , as I read in an article, think that humans s/ engage in activities that wd ADAPT to the (presumed) inevitable global warming. That it wd be folly to try to affect such inevitable processes.

This thinking is lead by the first part - the lack of belief that GW CC is occurring primarily due to man's emitting carbon into the atmosphere that last few hundred years. If this is in doubt, then indeed the best thing to do is to try to adapt, However, if this is true, then we should try to change our carbon emitting ways. But the Koch Brothers ,Exxon, the richest company on the planet, and billions of dollars have another say about this - they will not go gently into the night, even if the night is blistering hot and sweaty. Why would entities such as these just willingly change everything they do, all the success and power they have ?


the following article says that the International Climate Science Coalition recvs funding from the conservative HEartland Institute which is for the status quo.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/web-leak-shows-trail-of-climate-sceptic-funding-20120217-1tegk.html

Further, the following page says that the Coalition just mentioned is virtual only and does not occupy a place.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=147

The idea that humans should not change the ecosystem in a myriad of ways is entirely retrogressive. Chomsky proves here that he is anything but progressive in his views.

Why do these liberals worry about things that never are going to happen? They want to tax us and spend our money.

There is no man made global warming, except Al Gore’s mouth

Norm-who-Chomsky has lost it, he is very sad, why can’t he just be in an old people’s home where he does not annoy the rest of us.

I'm not even sure it's related to herding people into stupidity, so much as the ultimate complicity of not being willing to offend anybody. I certainly learned during primary school that the climate was changing, and that we as individuals had a responsibility to help reverse that as a group.

Then, during secondary school, the messages stopped-- Everything was suddenly about money, and efficiency, presumably because everyone agrees on money, and nobody wants to offend anybody of "differing opinion".

I think the main emphasis is we need to stop allowing people to present opinion as fact without discourse, mass "stupefaction" as many people call it results largely from the unwillingness of people to speak up when somebody says something that's wrong. "It's their opinion, let them have it". Wrong. If it's conclusively inaccurate fact, don't! Somebody will listen, and they will repeat the misinformation-- and that's how it spreads.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits in the lamestream media mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.” Al Gore and Henry Waxman have become masters at this. Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics. Once he ventures outside of his specialty, he’s just a run-of-the-mill leftist loon.

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”), a fact totally lost, or grossly misrepresented, by global warming religionists.

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat.

Contrary to morons such as Al Gore (who will never agree to debate the topic, so fearful is he of getting his clock cleaned), scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, temperatures have flat-lined. They are now at 14.5 degrees Celsius which is exactly where they were in 1997. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Malloy is just the latest in a long line of demagogic politicians trying to capitalize on the scare. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.”

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”).

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat. The scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, as Mr. Hart correctly points out, temperatures have flat-lined or declined. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term. Obama has already wasted billions trying to fix a non-problem.
And now he’s even orchestrating the mindless followers of a new secular religion to march on the Mall to advance this silly agenda.

Nice cut and paste job
http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/03/04/global-warming-who-cares-a-huge-international-poll-reveals/

I don't cut and paste, moron, unless they are my own words.
I leave that to idiots like you.

I note your inability to address any of the points I made. It's much easier to cast aspersions than think for yourself. BTW, Chomsky has ZERO credibility and no credentials in the field of climate science. He might take a walk across the yard at M.I.T. and consult with a real expert, like Prof. Richard Lindzen who, I am sure, is not pontificating about linguistics and expecting to be taken seriously..

Right again, Mr. Chomsky. Then after the rubes have been softened up, enter the smarmy, two-faced Barack Obama, whose plan to save us from global warming is a such a hack job that it's hardly worth the industry shills (like the ones taking up so much space commenting here) to bother with. Like his gift to the insurance industry -- America's sad excuse for "universal health care" -- Obama's environmental "program" is just another load of pretty B.S. thrown up to cover his real agenda, which in this case is to hand over the keys to America's energy industry to people like Dick Cheney, whose hands might as well be guiding the marionette strings coming out of his back. The "president" really doesn't have a choice about pushing natural gas; he sold out to the oiligarchs while still a do-nothing Senator. But that doesn't mean the few of us who are awake and aware shouldn't scream at him about it and do everything in our dwindling power to make him and the rest of the gasoholic cabal wish they'd never been born. Indeed, part of what the moribund U.S. environmental movement needs -- and in particular the fractured and chronically outclassed anti-fracking movement -- is a significantly angrier soundtrack, not bogged down with insipid musical baggage from old, hippy-dippy environmental campaigns. Pete Seeger and his sweet, smiling ilk don't cut through all the background noise any more. With that in mind, here's a new American anthem guaranteed to stir the soul of any red-blooded environmentalist, as well as lure a few emotionally sensitive people over from the dark side. Feel free to use it. Scream your anger! soundcloud.com/biff-thuringer/to-america