Jon Stewart, Climate Protests, Retarded Republicans, Bad Science

[RidonKs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgZfhnCAdI


How long will it take for the sea level to rise two feet? I mean think about it, if your ice cube melts in your glass it doesn't overflow, it's displacement. I mean some of the things they're talking about mathematically and scientifically don't make sense.

[SunsN07BookIt]

In other news, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, this week concluded that the warming of the ocean waters along Pacific coastline have been caused by naturally occurring winds, and not man-made climate change. Looks like Al Gore needs to make another movie about drowning polar bears and melting glaciers, except this time with Mother Nature as the culprit.

Silly climate change disciples, don't you know if you want to keep the scientists on your side, DO NOT short their funding. They can be very vindictive.

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-pacific-warming-20140923-story.html

[gigantes]

just saw that clip yesterday... it was both hilarious and informative. apparently stewart is america's most trusted news source, and this is a great example of why.

i'm tempted to say these guys sold out somewhere along the line, but in that case they'd obviously have much more slickly disingenuous arguments at their disposal. their weak-ass anti-science drivel isn't even ISH grade, and they're on this house science committee...?

we're f-cking toast.

[gigantes]

In other news, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, this week concluded that the warming of the ocean waters along Pacific coastline have been caused by naturally occurring winds, and not man-made climate change. Looks like Al Gore needs to make another movie about drowning polar bears and melting glaciers, except this time with Mother Nature as the culprit.

Silly climate change disciples, don't you know if you want to keep the scientists on your side, DO NOT short their funding. They can be very vindictive.

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-pacific-warming-20140923-story.html
ah, cherry-picking... the last resort of the me-first-i-don't-give-a-shit generation.

[DeuceWallaces]

In other news, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, this week concluded that the warming of the ocean waters along Pacific coastline have been caused by naturally occurring winds, and not man-made climate change. Looks like Al Gore needs to make another movie about drowning polar bears and melting glaciers, except this time with Mother Nature as the culprit.

Silly climate change disciples, don't you know if you want to keep the scientists on your side, DO NOT short their funding. They can be very vindictive.

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-pacific-warming-20140923-story.html

:lol

Try to be less of a moron.

[SunsN07BookIt]

ah, cherry-picking... the last resort of the me-first-i-don't-give-a-shit generation.

It's the NAOO and it was announced yesterday. Cherry picking? :oldlol:

[SunsN07BookIt]

:lol

Try to be less of a moron.


Says the albino with the Santa hat...

[NumberSix]

Sooooo......

Jon Stewart is super mad that the water that is on the land will flow into the ocean causing the ocean to overflow water onto the land?

[RidonKs]

Sooooo......

Jon Stewart is super mad that the water that is on the land will flow into the ocean causing the ocean to overflow water onto the land?
let me guess... you decided not to watch the video?

sooooo..... no point discussing it with you i guess?

[NumberSix]

let me guess... you decided not to watch the video?

sooooo..... no point discussing it with you i guess?DISCLAIMER!!!

Intended for humorous purposes. Do not actually takes joke as being literal, or even worse.... Serious bizniss.

[DeuceWallaces]

It's the NAOO and it was announced yesterday. Cherry picking? :oldlol:

It's one study about one small area, and to top it off it still recognizes man made impacts, but only claims that shifting winds account for most of the changes in the zone; not all.

[RidonKs]

http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/3/36429/2658335-2320884931-Inter.jpg

[gigantes]

It's one study about one small area, and to top it off it still recognizes man made impacts, but only claims that shifting winds account for most of the changes in the zone; not all.
meanwhile, i recall a significant study coming out last month that found that the atlantic ocean was -very much- impacted by GCC in the form deep-sequestered CO2... responsible for us temporarily being in less of a clusterf-ck situation than we would otherwise be.

[DeuceWallaces]

meanwhile, i recall a significant study coming out last month that found that the atlantic ocean was -very much- impacted by GCC in the form deep-sequestered CO2... responsible for us temporarily being in less of a clusterf-ck situation than we would otherwise be.

Ocean acidification is a problem.

[SunsN07BookIt]

It's one study about one small area, and to top it off it still recognizes man made impacts, but only claims that shifting winds account for most of the changes in the zone; not all.


If 8000 miles of coastline, extending as far out as Hawaii is considered small.

Obama has cut the NAOO funding in recent years. This info may not have needed to see daylight, if he had kept them happy.

[NumberSix]

I just realized that "DeuceWallaces" is a fcuking cool name.

[DeuceWallaces]

If 8000 miles of coastline, extending as far out as Hawaii is considered small.

Obama has cut the NAOO funding in recent years. This info may not have needed to see daylight, if he had kept them happy.

1) Globally it's not a large area.

2) That's not how research works.

[BasedTom]

just saw that clip yesterday... it was both hilarious and informative. apparently stewart is america's most trusted news source, and this is a great example of why.

i'm tempted to say these guys sold out somewhere along the line, but in that case they'd obviously have much more slickly disingenuous arguments at their disposal. their weak-ass anti-science drivel isn't even ISH grade, and they're on this house science committee...?

we're f-cking toast.
It's not much of an accomplishment anyway, but I sincerely hope that you're joking with that statement.

[gigantes]

Ocean acidification is a problem.
coral reefs are getting hammered all over the world, which are apparently very important home grounds for many fish that are either food-grade or important to the food chain as a whole.



It's not much of an accomplishment anyway, but I sincerely hope that you're joking with that statement.
it was based on a national poll from what i understand, and i don't see the problem. so he brings a lot of humor and amusement to the situation-- so what? he still tackles all the big stuff, and does it with a lot of accuracy and underlying integrity from what i've seen.

[DeuceWallaces]

It's not much of an accomplishment anyway, but I sincerely hope that you're joking with that statement.

Lol you've never heard that? It's been reported in multiple polls.

[Norcaliblunt]

You want immediate impact you have to go Nuclear. Oh wait that's the other boogieman.

[Dresta]

Says all that needs to be said about the American populace on average when most of them get the bulk of their political information off of entertainment shows, and think this actually makes them informed enough to engage properly in the democratic process.

If you actually want to learn something or inform yourself, watching Jon Stewart is an utter waste of time - the man is an entertainer, and the flunkies who back him are carnival acts and little else. Splicing several hours of recording footage to make people look idiotic isn't news or at all informative imo.

I remember agreeing quite a lot with this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/10/cheap-laughs/307650/2/


Stewart, too, has something of a fat-target problem, and seems partly unaware of this problem’s source in his own need to please an audience that has a limited range of reference. In Naked Pictures of Famous People, when he decides to lampoon Larry King—who in any context is a barn-door-size target—he still manages to make the attack too broad. There’s no slight nudge, but a huge dig in the ribs. It needs to be “Adolf Hitler: The Larry King Interview.” And Hitler has to be a guest who has been helped by therapy to become more of a people person. Here’s his opening reply to King’s welcome to the show.

HITLER: (biting into a bagel) First of all, Larry, I don’t know what I was so afraid of. These are delicious!!!

At whose expense, I wonder, are those three (count them!) exclamation marks? Who is afraid that who will miss what point? A few of King’s characteristic interjections are well-enough parodied (“Lovely man, Bud Friedman, very funny”), but Rob Long of National Review does King to the very life three or four times a year with much less reliance on an overdone fantasy guest. Except how can anyone at National Review be funny? Weren’t they for Bush, the very mention of whose brain or IQ is enough to ignite peals of mirth from those in Stewart’s studio crowd who just know that they are smarter than he?

[gigantes]

Says all that needs to be said about the American populace on average when most of them get the bulk of their political information off of entertainment shows, and think this actually makes them informed enough to engage properly in the democratic process.

If you actually want to learn something or inform yourself, watching Jon Stewart is an utter waste of time - the man is an entertainer, and the flunkies who back him are carnival acts and little else. Splicing several hours of recording footage to make people look idiotic isn't news or at all informative imo.

I remember agreeing quite a lot with this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/10/cheap-laughs/307650/2/
now who sounds like a flunky talking, eh?

and the article sounds like it's written by some wingnut who in addition to being a wingnut never realised that a show can be a hybrid show running on different principals than he might be conditioned to. ie, legit news combined with waggish humor.

[gigantes]

when stewart adds humor and opinion to the mix, he also invites debate to the viewer. the point which is being hammered home so easily might also be a gag. the viewer might have to decide for himself.

unlike for example an olbermann-viewer or dittohead etc who are strongly encouraged to take the opinion for gospel. because moral outrage can be very motivating and energising... hence an addiction.

[Dresta]

What's a wingnut? I wouldn't know because i don't need to invent idiotic terms to describe people i don't agree with, to demean and insult them simply because i don't share or understand their opinions. Nor can someone as interesting as Christopher Hitchens possibly be classified under such an idiotic and arbitrary category. I would guess you did not actually read the whole article, as, considering you think the Daily Show informative and interesting, reading something that long is likely to be a trifle off-putting.

Do you know what this kind of thing is? Having to use derogatory terms to describe groups of people that you can't relate to? Only laughing when a joke is made about the 'other' side? It's tribal instinct, and it's rather pathetic to have to see grown adults who vaunt their ability to reason and think critically so often engage in such petty and counterproductive name-calling. Hitchens is completely right in that Jon Stewart has such a narrow range of references he can call on because his audience is often so poorly informed that a wider range and a more interesting show would be wasted - hence the 5+ years of Bush iz dumb jokes, Bush being an ink well for comedy writers who want to be successful but can't be arsed to think up anything a bit more original.

I also don't understand how this turns the flunkey thing on to me? That doesn't make any sense to me.

[gigantes]

What's a wingnut? I wouldn't know because i don't need to invent idiotic terms to describe people i don't agree with, to demean and insult them simply because i don't share or understand their opinions. Nor can someone as interesting as Christopher Hitchens possibly be classified under such an idiotic and arbitrary category. I would guess you did not actually read the whole article, as, considering you think the Daily Show informative and interesting, reading something that long is likely to be a trifle off-putting.

Do you know what this kind of thing is? Having to use derogatory terms to describe groups of people that you can't relate to? Only laughing when a joke is made about the 'other' side? It's tribal instinct, and it's rather pathetic to have to see grown adults who vaunt their ability to reason and think critically so often engage in such petty and counterproductive name-calling. Hitchens is completely right in that Jon Stewart has such a narrow range of references he can call on because his audience is often so poorly informed that a wider range and a more interesting show would be wasted - hence the 5+ years of Bush iz dumb jokes, Bush being an ink well for comedy writers who want to be successful but can't be arsed to think up anything a bit more original.

I also don't understand how this turns the flunkey thing on to me? That doesn't make any sense to me.
if i remember you correctly, this is something like #2 or #3 from your small repertoire of responses.

i'll think about you next time i get a form letter with my name pasted in badly.

[Dresta]

if i remember you correctly, this is something like #2 or #3 from your small repertoire of responses.

i'll think about you next time i get a form letter with my name pasted in badly.
ah, i see Jon Stewart has taught you well in the art of avoiding any actual discussion relating to the topic at hand, and instead resorting to a response of snarky sarcasm and thinking this adequate.

:applause:

[gigantes]

ah, i see Jon Stewart has taught you well in the art of avoiding any actual discussion relating to the topic at hand, and instead resorting to a response of snarky sarcasm and thinking this adequate.

:applause:
in addition to the fact that i'm not much a stewart watcher, most of your drivel is similarly off-base or just whipping boy arguments that you like to impose. you sound like some old creak from the very first pompous paragraph of your first post pompous and mock-offended post.

crawl back in to your underground lair, because you won't wheedle another post from me this time.

[Cactus-Sack]

When did Gigantes turn into such a cvnt?

[Dresta]

in addition to the fact that i'm not much a stewart watcher, most of your drivel is similarly off-base or just whipping boy arguments that you like to impose. you sound like some old creak from the very first pompous paragraph of your first post pompous and mock-offended post.

crawl back in to your underground lair, because you won't wheedle another post from me this time.
No, of course not, as drawing words of explanation out of you is like trying to draw blood out of stone. And of course, attempting to justify the things one says using words is 'pompous' - whereas just sneering and ridiculing with an argument composed entirely of insults and unjustifiable assumptions is a-ok.

'old creak'
'pompous'
'crawl back'
'underground lair'
'wingnut'

etc.

Still you have not provided a remotely adequate response as to just why exactly it's a good thing that so many Americans get their political opinions, news and information from a comic showman. At least to me this shows a remarkable undermining of the democratic process, as democracy cannot function adequately or without ubiquitous corruption without a properly informed electorate. People don't bother to form their own opinions any longer: they're too busy, too focused on their ipod or iphone or whatever, so they like them pre-packaged in humour shows so they can be told what and who to laugh at, as well as kept well-informed and up-to-date in just half an hour a day! No wonder he is so popular: he makes the world more digestible and easier to understand, pick sides, find meaning, feel superior and 'in the know' etc.

No wonder the Senate has been ruined since the passing of the 17th amendment (perhaps i should mention that the guys who pushed for this were religious fanatics as i know taking the side of religious fanatics would be abhorrent to you).

[Blue&Orange]

It's the NAOO and it was announced yesterday. Cherry picking? :oldlol:
This was in the link you gave...


This does not call into question the concept of global warming.
- Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research


How retard can one person be, seriously, HOW RETARDED CAN ONE PERSON BE, to call scientist sell outs while politicians are the holders of the truth.


You should be glad human evolution outgrowned natural selection

[NumberSix]

Anyone who denies climate change is an idiot. It's easily verifiable. There's no ambiguity about it.

The most key factor to earth's climate is the amount and balance of gasses in the atmosphere. If you honestly believe that massive amounts of a particular gas being put into the atmosphere does not contribute to the changing of the climate, you simply don't have any understanding of science.

[DeuceWallaces]

No, of course not, as drawing words of explanation out of you is like trying to draw blood out of stone. And of course, attempting to justify the things one says using words is 'pompous' - whereas just sneering and ridiculing with an argument composed entirely of insults and unjustifiable assumptions is a-ok.

'old creak'
'pompous'
'crawl back'
'underground lair'
'wingnut'

etc.

Still you have not provided a remotely adequate response as to just why exactly it's a good thing that so many Americans get their political opinions, news and information from a comic showman. At least to me this shows a remarkable undermining of the democratic process, as democracy cannot function adequately or without ubiquitous corruption without a properly informed electorate. People don't bother to form their own opinions any longer: they're too busy, too focused on their ipod or iphone or whatever, so they like them pre-packaged in humour shows so they can be told what and who to laugh at, as well as kept well-informed and up-to-date in just half an hour a day! No wonder he is so popular: he makes the world more digestible and easier to understand, pick sides, find meaning, feel superior and 'in the know' etc.

No wonder the Senate has been ruined since the passing of the 17th amendment (perhaps i should mention that the guys who pushed for this were religious fanatics as i know taking the side of religious fanatics would be abhorrent to you).

:oldlol: What the hell are you talking about?

[fpliii]

NumberSix knows what's up. I used to get a bit irritated with some of his posts on the NBA board, but the guy is hilarious, and knows his shit when he's being serious.

Quality poster IMO. :applause:

[Cactus-Sack]

This was in the link you gave...




How retard can one person be, seriously, HOW RETARDED CAN ONE PERSON BE, to call scientist sell outs while politicians are the holders of the truth.


You should be glad human evolution outgrowned natural selection



:applause: :applause: :applause:

[RidonKs]

Still you have not provided a remotely adequate response as to just why exactly it's a good thing that so many Americans get their political opinions, news and information from a comic showman.
it isn't a good thing many americans get their news from comedy central. i dunno what gigantes said about that but i'd be willing to bet he understands that receiving your news from a sketch comedy can be not such a good thing.

here's where he gets it and you don't. he understands that while say 10% of americans get a substantial portion of their news from jon stewart, a far higher percentage of people -- i'd say at least half at a guess -- get their information from one of the half dozen 24 hours news networks. now those networks are clearly more comprehensive than the daily show since they get 168 hours in a week and stewart gets about an hour and a half. but if you really want to discuss the undermining of democracy, the major news networks and to a lesser extent the major newspapers of your country have a far greater effect on confusing the american people than jon stewart and stephen colbert could ever possibly dream of. and not just as a product of their larger audiences but more importantly the very message and framework of understanding that they promote.

[RidonKs]

bump for dresta

funny how virtually no one has commented on the reason i posted this which is to showcase the idiocy of the republican party with regard to climate science on a congressional committee about space science and technology. this is truly shameful and i wouldn't mind a few advocates of the right wing to comment on the crude argumentation employed by these your (not my) national leaders. it's pretty mind boggling.

[gigantes]

i'll kill all of you and harvest your organs for zombie meat.

just sayin, bro

[RidonKs]

is there are zombie literature on that? like in the midst of the apocalypse some savvy entrepreneur decides to take advantage of the whole situation by providing factory farmed grade a homo sapiens to zombie land/overlords? because that could make for a good story.

[gigantes]

sweeny todd
eating raoul
etc

[RidonKs]

never seen sweeny todd tho my roommate just told me a should if i want to learn anything about different ways to make a musical... which i do

[gigantes]

for an easy laugh, tell your roommate to go f-ck himself

[RidonKs]

for an easy laugh, tell your roommate to go f-ck himself
maybe that will be the name of our musical.... "go f*ck yourself"