Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Check your email for a verification code and enter it below.Don't close this box or you must fill out this form again.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Dark Dungeons - Full Trailer
With music like that, it can only be a parody. I hope….
Kid Gives Game Ball To Pretty Lady...Or Does He?
Is the sift acting up? Because this video already sifted, and had other comments, but they seem to be all gone now?
Tailgating is bad, okay!
And in the end, caused a 3 car accident and was blamed. Smooth.
Guy was tailgating, the Pugeot got tired of it and stopped in protest.
Two Cats in a Love-Hate Relationship
Domestic abuse!
John Deere Drag Tractor vs Steam Tractor
John Deer got ran over by a Steampunk.
Trebek Debuts Great Jeopardy Category
How do you not know what that is???? It's the only one I knew!
Trolling People Who Park In Handicap Spots Illegally
Should say something about the attitudes of said big people.
They could have observed the people parking. Then they'd know they aren't handicapped and also that they won't be back any time soon. Some of those people looked... big, I wouldn't wanna risk getting caught in the act
Truck Smashes Into Overpass
Oops. I didn't see the white sign . . . after the yellow sign. After the other sign that said 13' 3". You know, I can kinda see how the drive isn't at fault. He clears one bridge, but then the next one is shorter and there's no way off.
lActually, the bridge that he hit was 10'5". No possibility of making that.
Truck Smashes Into Overpass
13' 3" you dumbass. Even I could read the sign.
Bear Break-In!
Staring out the door is exactly how horror movies begin.
Robbery Fail
The most un-epic fail ever. lol
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Climate Change Debate
I grow my own plants, well, as many as I can in an apartment. I bike everywhere I can. I eat some meat, but it consists very little of my diet. I produce a grocery bag of trash a week and most of that is organic waste.
Oh, you mean I should stop living in a first world country and go back to the stone-age! I get it now. You mean, I should completely and utterly give up everything because it may cause some pollution? Very illogical of you. I believe that is another one of those fallacies people are chiding you for.
By acknowledging the climate change is man-made, we can make better strides to actually bring about meaningful changes. One person reducing their carbon footprint isn't going to make much of a difference, but 350,000,000 people will.
Or, if politicians like Marco Rubio, who I shutter to think belongs to my state, would stop denying climate change we could actually have a dialogue about actual changes we can make, not ad reductionist claims like some people here on the sift are making. (I.E., you.)
Um, as for the state getting out of the way . . . The reason we have any clean air is because of their standards. For instance, it took a government mandate to eliminate lead from gasoline. Lead, which is highly toxic and one of the leading causes of anti-social behavior in convicted felons of violent crimes. I'm sure the free-market would have solved that issue on it own, however, in a much shorter period of time. *Thinks about that for a while.*
So you want to move away from the AGW and just say the climate is changing?
Basic premise flaw: if we humans aren't creating it, then there's nothing we can do. I give you, case in point, climate change deniers. Such as our Marco Rubio. Humans aren't causing it, therefore, we shouldn't impose any regulations on oil and gas. (I believe they did something similar back in the leaded gasoline days. May what short memories we have.)
By the way, saying since California has environmentalists that having the worst air pollution thus makes environmentalism a mute point would be called Fallacy of Composition. Because, let's not forget basic math: California population is greater than oh, I think 49 other states and contains the counties largest ports (major source of air pollution), the majority of the countries cars, the majority of semi trucks and trains originate here, they house dozens of oil refineries and there's this little itty bitty nascent issue of these Rocky Mountain things people keep talking about. Or, this "valley" people make fun of. I hear it's right next to these mountains.
So, really, the logical argument would be, because of the increasingly dire air pollution in California, more and more people are become environmentally aware and are slowly changing their habits to reduce future smog, but without increasing government intervention, larger corporations will continue their practice so long as it returns a profit. So, as a result, the larger corporations are spending millions lobbying politicians who have been passing favorable laws much to the angst of the growing environmental movement.
And no, that doesn't require overthrowing the government and going to an all berries diet. Nor me writing a book about my efforts.
Yadda yadda see above.
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Climate Change Debate
Then I point you to somewhere which requires reading:
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/now-just-001-percent-of-climate-scientists-reject-global-warming
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/
http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/only-1-of-9136-recent-peer-reviewed-authors-rejects-global-warming,6094
I could go all day. But, of course, this study isn't without it's detractors, who honestly do have a claim, if substantiated. (I've read the math on it, and the 97% is indeed an accurate sum, however, it is misleading in the sense that it only accounts for papers that state a stance and don't outright deny climate change is solely anthropogenic.)
Perhaps you found your info on Forbes.com, a decidedly unbiased site whose solely interested in getting to the bottom of the facts, regardless of political ideology. (sarcasm)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/22/after-oklahoma-city-tragedy-shameless-politicians-unsheath-global-warming-card/
Or we could try a different route and try a group dedicated to statistics:
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
"Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure."
Now, we should work on your use of the word "some".
"some
səm/Submit
determiner
1.
an unspecified amount or number of.
"I made some money running errands"
2.
used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.
"she married some newspaper magnate twice her age"
pronoun
1.
an unspecified number or amount of people or things.
"here are some of our suggestions"
2.
at least a small amount or number of people or things.
"surely some have noticed"
adverbNORTH AMERICANinformal
1.
to some extent; somewhat.
"when you get to the majors, the rules change some""
Don't worry, none of those came from a .gov link.
Are you a climate scientist? If not, then I'll continue to give more credence to the information provided by actual climate scientists, some of whom are in favor of the notion of "human-caused climate change" while many also skeptical.
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Climate Change Debate
The problem with arguing with deniers is simple: they deny any and all evidence presented.
That, and they're constantly surprised it gets cold in winter.
Every Man should be Grapefruited (wait for it)
How is a blind fold freaky?