upvote for the comment at the end. My sentiments exactly.

This is what i hate about the USA media and politics, and they're doing this on this BBC show as well. EVERYTHING, i mean EVERYTHING becomes into a two way debate, everything is open to debate. I mean they could just as well have people up there arguing that 2+2 is 4 vs someone who says it's 5. I hate the state of the USA where everybody gets a voice, even if they're making retarded claims. And there's no doubt, someone (who is wrong) will be able to deny something, while make a random allegation and leave the viewer thinking this topic is open to debate.

This reminds me of Ann Coulter's "Canada sent troop to vietnam" type thing, where the canadian reporter said, " no we didn't sent throops". She then replied, "No, I'm sure, they did". I mean, what do you do when truth can be denied point blank.

I hate this, I wish the USA went back to its basics, one nation under god. A fear of god when you talk, not making random shit up just so you get your policy. I HATE how truth has become a casualty.

I'm bothered that the debate on climate change seems to be moving into political punditry at a rapid pace now because of these hacked emails. Scientific facts seem to be increasingly dwarfed more into the framework (as osama1234 seemed to be saying above) of a random pundit's opinion being equivocated with an expert on the subject. Anyway, Canada's top pundit weighed in on climate change this week...

>> ^osama1234:
This reminds me of Ann Coulter's "Canada sent troop to vietnam" type thing, where the canadian reporter said, " no we didn't sent throops". She then replied, "No, I'm sure, they did".


...and they did.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Canada_send_troops_to_Vietnam

Quite a few in fact, it sounds.
Canada awarded medals to 1,550 of these troops for their service between August 7, 1954 and January 28, 1973.

>> ^osama1234:
This is what i hate about the USA media and politics, and they're doing this on this BBC show as well. EVERYTHING, i mean EVERYTHING becomes into a two way debate, everything is open to debate. I mean they could just as well have people up there arguing that 2+2 is 4 vs someone who says it's 5. I hate the state of the USA where everybody gets a voice, even if they're making retarded claims. And there's no doubt, someone (who is wrong) will be able to deny something, while make a random allegation and leave the viewer thinking this topic is open to debate.
This reminds me of Ann Coulter's "Canada sent troop to vietnam" type thing, where the canadian reporter said, " no we didn't sent throops". She then replied, "No, I'm sure, they did". I mean, what do you do when truth can be denied point blank.
I hate this, I wish the USA went back to its basics, one nation under god. A fear of god when you talk, not making random shit up just so you get your policy. I HATE how truth has become a casualty.


Unfortunately, the socialists here have declared God as non-existant. So, any expression of belief is treated with ridicule and worse. And, "everything" is only open to debate if you agree with the socialist doctrine. Otherwise, again, you are ridiculed and marked as racist/politcally incorrect/wacko/tea-bagger/birther...the list goes on. Those witha third opinion get no respect/attention at all, as the last "election" clearly demonstrated.

BTW, did canada send troops to vietnam? Where was the casualty, truth or credibility?

Unfortunately, the socialists here have declared God as non-existant. So, any expression of belief is treated with ridicule and worse. And, "everything" is only open to debate if you agree with the socialist doctrine. Otherwise, again, you are ridiculed and marked as racist/politcally incorrect/wacko/tea-bagger/birther...the list goes on. Those witha third opinion get no respect/attention at all, as the last "election" clearly demonstrated.


*cough*
Religion was never supposed to be part of the government. Those "socialists" want to "get back to the basics" of the constitution. It's better for everyone if religion is not involved, religious or not. Secular government gives people the ability to worship or not worship as they please.

Marc Maron is a cunt.

So is Global Warming wrong now? Does this mean all scientific observation is wrong now? People are ok with science when it makes their food warm with microwaves or gets them GPS coordinates beamed into their car. However when it warns them about possibly something negative on the horizon and we should change course to avoid it, suddenly science can't do anything right and it should be chucked out.

Is it sane to recheck the studies...sure, we can recheck one study, why don't we use the data from the hundred other studies that agree with the supposedly horrible study that was done by liars and cheats.

Whats wrong with the debate is that there are Politicians who dont understand what science is about saying you are either right or wrong because you formed a personal opinion on the subject.

Scientist and all logical people just look at research, gathered data and ask whats the conclusion from all that information and then they have an answer not an opinion.

Then you draw into the research debate of how to read the data politicians who have already formed their opinion and dont care about the data itself.

That is fundamentally wrong.

and *promote because this video shows just so clearly that US style "debate" becomes ridiculously stupid when contrasted to UK debate.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, December 6th, 2009 4:19pm PST - promote requested by Hex.

Well the problem is that TV oversimplifies things inorder to maintain its retard audience and allow its producers to have an easy job fiting in just enough compacted shit before the advert brakes.

Tv is fundamentally fucked and it has been for ages if you watch tv debates or the news you will see what I mean subjects that require a good 2-3 hour discussoin are gone over in 6-10 minute segments its a fucking joke and a diservice to the public.

the climate change thing will not be a simple case of YES EARTH IS DYING OR WE ARE HAVING NO AFECT ON ANNYTHING

the rality will be in some cases pumping gass and random shit into the enviroment will do damage in others it will be neglagable compared to enviromental factors , and in other cases it will be just a mixture of things so much so that you would not be able to scentifcly prove or study it, In the same way that we can only predict tomorrows weather with 60% certainty despite having huge super computers and established mathematical models working on it.

The important thing is that We don't let the media and generally moronic people combine all the issues into one single issue that is then debated.

Im pretty sure that regardless of what affect things have on the weather a human breathing in toxic chemicals is not good for your helth, im allso prity sure that reducing bio diversity allso reduces avalable food sources. allso polluting and abusing fresh water removes our ablity to drink and servive.

so regardless of if the earth is heating up because of us or not the fact is we need to look after things that are important to our survival.
and regardless of it being a natural or man made fenomnum it dose appear to be happening so we still need to work out ways to deal with it.

aside from the global warming debate if we actually move away from limited fuels that also happen to pollute then we will start to find sustainable fuels that not only do less damage to the environment but also don't run out reducing the need for wars.

another issue is that scientists are not used to interacting with this retarded media and other retards.

Its a shame that not all scientists have Dawkins character and media knowledge to be able to convey themselves in this retarded format.

I love how the scientist at the end says "what an asshole" lol

ether way There was hardly anny informative or reasonable discussion taking place, an epic waist of time like 99% of the shit on tv.

How is this nsfw unless you work at Fox news?

Whew, for a while I thought this was gonna be Marc Maron, comedian, currently of WTF With Marc Maron podcast. Fortunately it's not and I can continue enjoying the podcast.

Why would I watch a television show that takes a professor that's a marine and atmospheric scientist, and an expert in processes that affect atmospheric carbon dioxide and oxygen concentrations, and puts him in a debate with a political "communications director".

Rule of thumb: When one side of a debate is the consensus of knowledgeable people in the field, and the other side of the debate is... something else... it's pretty easy to decide who to trust.

Oh yeah, also, watching this video made me feel like I was watching the movie "Thank you for smoking".

>> ^Drax:
>> ^osama1234:
This reminds me of Ann Coulter's "Canada sent troop to vietnam" type thing, where the canadian reporter said, " no we didn't sent throops". She then replied, "No, I'm sure, they did".

...and they did.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Canada_send_troops_to_Vietnam
Quite a few in fact, it sounds.
Canada awarded medals to 1,550 of these troops for their service between August 7, 1954 and January 28, 1973.


Did you even read past the title?

The "wikianswer" you've linked to says the Canadian "troops" (sic) were "part of the International Control Commission for Vietnam, a neutral body meant to oversee and report on the peace deal that ended the first indochina war (French vs. Vietminh" (sic) So, if we are to take this grammatically-challenged anonymous article at it's word, there are 2 major problems with it.

1) The International Control Commission is an international body, not Canadian.
2) They were sent as peacekeepers, not military "troops".

Be more critical of what you read.

Ok, if that source is flat out wrong, Id love to hear it. I'm by no means a fan of Anne in any way shape or form, and my post wasn't in defense of her but to show how easily truth can be distorted. And to show that if you don't like a person on one side of a debate you're more prone to automatically assume that person's wrong on something (evident in how negatively you reacted to my post).

If what the source says is true, then Canada DID SEND SOLDIERS TO VIETNAM. What they did once they got there doesn't make them suddenly become something other then a soldier. I don't remember Anne arguing if they where sent to the front lines or not.