What was the sift? If it was John Stossel...

I know.
In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
That's pretty much what all "reporting" is nowadays. Heaven forbid someone gets to say their thoughts.

Grimm, do you think that interview with Micheal Moore was shown in it's entirety? I don't think it is possible for Moore to say that little.

My point is that John Stossel(and you can throw Micheal Moore in there, too), and people like him, represent a problem with American media and the American discourse. Instead of attempting a fair and equal handed debate people scream at the top of their lungs, or cherry pick facts and present them as the truth.

That annoys me. Hence, John Stossel is a Douche Bag.

BTW...if your still pissed at him you can watch this...
http://www.videosift.com/video/John-Stossel-Slapped-by-Wrestler-Language-NSFW

I hate it when democrats do it and I hate it when republicans do it. Being a Douche Bag, on the order of John Stossel, requires effort and crosses political affiliations.

Trudeau needs to open-hand bitch slap Stossel.
WHAT? You think my advice is fake!?? <slap!> re:
http://www.videosift.com/video/John-Stossel-Slapped-by-Wrestler-Language-NSFW

In reply to this comment by twiddles:
I did mention one specific problem, namely species extinction. At least one species (golden toad) is considered a casualty of a warming planet. Would it have happened anyway? Perhaps. Whether CO₂ released by man is the main cause is certainly in question, but it is known that CO₂ does cause a warming effect, so what is wrong with talking about ways of reducing our output of this gas? This would be in addition to not instead of debate on how to reduce our dependence on a limited resource or eliminating toxins released into the environment. It's too bad about your video. There are a lot of very different opinions here and most people are not shy about debating their position. I hope you won't be either.


Twiddles, never fear that I will be shy. :-D In any case, since I only get one video at a time right now I went ahead and put a new one up that I think better illustrates my personal views. Check it out in the unsifted (http://www.videosift.com/video/Another-good-days-fishing) and let me know what you think.

About the CO2, you again start from the assumption that CO2 causes global warming and state it as a fact "but it is known that CO2 does cause a warming effect." CO2 is correlated with warming, but is not proven to be causitive. The John Stossel video actually points out that CO2 level rises and dips historically tend to lag behind rises and dips in temperature rather than the reverse. Correlated does not necessarily mean causitive. I am not questioning your personal convictions here. I am simply pointing out that your calls to action inherently assume that CO2 causes global warming. For those who do not agree with your assumptions, your call to action falls upon deaf ears. I advocate addressing problems where we use undeniable facts (as in the video mentioned above, global populations of fish are dwindling and adults are getting smaller at maturity) with realistic solutions (Marine Protected Areas to allow safe havens for breeding fish).

As to species extinction, I think that is an issue which needs discussing. Personally, I haven't seen any species that its extinction has been linked to climate change but I have seen reports of hundreds which have been directly caused by mankind. I just did a quick search on the golden toad and while I found suggestions that its extinction might have been due to global climate change, I also found other suggestions that seem just as plausible. It does seem that other than climate change, some of the other most likely possibilities are clearly anthropogenic. Does man have a role in the disappearance of the golden toad? Most likely. Are we steadily poisoning our groundwater with industrial chemicals? Absolutely. I say fix the one we know for sure we are causing and is a problem first.

I did mention one specific problem, namely species extinction. At least one species (golden toad) is considered a casualty of a warming planet. Would it have happened anyway? Perhaps. Whether CO₂ released by man is the main cause is certainly in question, but it is known that CO₂ does cause a warming effect, so what is wrong with talking about ways of reducing our output of this gas? This would be in addition to not instead of debate on how to reduce our dependence on a limited resource or eliminating toxins released into the environment. It's too bad about your video. There are a lot of very different opinions here and most people are not shy about debating their position. I hope you won't be either.


In reply to this comment by rugar:
Twiddles, I simply ask that you list specific problems so that we may deal with them. Let me say in advance that "Man-made / released CO2 is making the planet hotter" is not a specific problem to which there is conclusive evidence. That is too much in debate at this point in time. I could not support any program meant to eliminate what is at this time a non-problem. If however, you were to say "Development of alternative energy sources will reduce our dependance on a limited resource" I can absolutely support that. Or I could enthusiastically support this statement: "Release of un-treated sewage is causing the introduction of synthetic estrogens into our water and food supply."

In a nutshell, simply saying "If you don't accept the truth of global climate change and that man is causing it you are part of the problem" presumes facts not in evidence. On the other hand, identifying a specific problem (ie: the hormone example above) to which there is conclusive evidence and a measurable impact that can be alleviated through a change in mankinds actions changes the argument. Instead of arguing "Is this true?", we can then argue "How do we fix this?"

The debate is over whether or not the globe is warming. John Stossel neglected to report that despite winning that prize for his paper with Spencer, John Christy's analysis was called into question and a subsequent article was published by a different group which came to the opposite conclusion.

Now, onto the consensus.

In a paper in Science recently, almost a 1000 papers were looked at for the last 15 years, absolutely none contradicted the thesis that the globe was warming. And 75% supported the claim that the cause was anthropagenic.

These four scientist are very well known for their opinion, because they are probably the only four who have it.

John Stossel, conservative, mustachioed, baboon.

I hate you John Stossel

dupe: http://www.videosift.com/video/John-Stossel-Slapped-by-Wrestler-Language-NSFW

*discard

John Stossel rules. That guy just got put on the spot to defend his 'profession,' back in the day when people still thought "pro wrestling" was real. Why do you think he freaks out and gets all pissed off?

Of course it's fake. That's why those guys don't all make real money on Ultimate Fighter or whatever- they just bulk up and learn to put on a show.

I can't watch John Stossel getting smacked enough times.

Funny - he rails against trial lawyers now, but they helped him get a nice settlement against this guy, back in the day.

fuck you john stossel. phony.