OT Mean while...

Page 5 of 5  
LDosser wrote:

... snip

I will grant you that, but remember, they are living *in* that stuff. You have the benefit of several thousand miles and an ocean to dilute it. The effects are going to be much more devastating that close in and concentrated.
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No argument on that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

Consult a list of the GDPs of nations and economic zones. There's one in wikipedia.
The U.S.'s GPD is listed as being about 14.2 trillion dollars, China about 4.2 trillion, pretty close to that of Japan's at 4.9 trillion. This is pretty could performance for a country that's only recently begun industrializing and really participating on the world stage economically.
Interestingly, the CIA factbook now lists the European Union as having a larger GDP than the U.S., some 18 trillion dollars.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Neill wrote:

That's because the EU is an agglomeration of multiple countries. Would be like combining all of South American countries or if the US, Canada, and Mexico combined their GDP's. The EU is not yet a full-fledged country on its own, though it is attempting to do so -- it really will depend upon whether France, Great Britain, Italy, and other large European countries are willing to surrender their sovereignty to a larger governing body.
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

The comparison is between economic blocks. As you say, the EU's common market makes it behave almost like a single entity, much as the individual U.S. states' economies comprise the U.S.'s overall economy.
If you take a close look at the U.S., you can see that the individual states have not 'surrendered' all of their autonomy either. They have their own economies and sets of laws, but bow to the Fed for certain cross-jursdictional matters. Canada is the same way with its Provinces.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Neill wrote:

It's quite a stretch to compare the EU's member nations to the equivalent of US states.

Again, there is a significant difference between the member nations of the EU vs. the states that comprise the US federal Republic. Each of the EU member nations has regions or states within each member nation as well -- Germany has Saxony, Prussia, etc. Great Britain has England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, etc. Those would be a closer analogy to the US make-up.
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Not when viewed as economic blocks with mutual goals and a shared currency.

I think your'e looking for differences that aren't germaine to the argument. You can argue similar differences between, say, Louisianna and California. They are each comprised of counties, elect their own governments, have representatives at the 'national' level, etc., They act in concert for national interests affecting the agglomeration (the U.S.A).
The point is, the EU taken as an economic block now surpasses the U.S. in GDP. This is one of the reasons why, for example, OPEC is looking to allow oil trading in Euros as well as U.S. dollars, the throughts of which horrifies the U.S. bankers. The Euro is backed by a total economy at least on a par with that of the U.S.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
phorbin wrote:

That's the famous argument put forth by Pascal to encourage belief in God. If there is no god, the cost of believing is small. If there IS a god, the rewards are immense.
In the environment case, it's just the reverse. If there IS global warming, the result of doing nothing is almost inconsequential (and may even be beneficial). If there is NO anthropogenic global warming, the cost of averting it is astronomical. The worst of both worlds is to reduce the human condition to one that is deprived, brutal, and short and STILL end up with global warming.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:47:00 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

sigh.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Actually, according to the IPCC report he's pretty close to the mark. The alarmists give this vision of coastal cities being hundreds of feet under water and radically changed coastlines and "another Venus" and the like but that's not what the IPCC Is asserting is going to happen. Instead they're saying things like it will rain more in one area and less in another (and it's _very_ questionable whether their models are accurate at that level of detail even if they do have the broad outline right, which in itself is debatable) and that sort of thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:26:02 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard

Michael Mann and the East Anglia CRU crew, or parts thereof, come to immediate mind, sir. Haven't you been following that? They're funded for their output.
Algore and crew is another handful. The Brit courts mandated that no fewer that nine of his false claims in the movie had to be stated to the viewers before the movie could be shown in there schools. Brits have a horridly liberal/political school faculty, too. Gore is starting to rake in the carbon credit bucks now.
Paul Ehrlich and a crew for each of his totally defective and disproved books comes to several more handfuls. He was funded for his research and for his books. And the POS books of his are still for sale, ruining young minds anew. <sigh>
James Hanson and computer modeling crew(s).

CRU admitted to _tossing_ raw data during the move to another building due to lack of storage space. No _real_ scientist in his right mind ever does that because it serves as a basis for your ongoing research. DUH! Now the CRU is saying that all the data can be replaced from original sources, but the collection they had which produced the data they put out will never be reassembled. I guess that's not too bad of a thing, as it will surely prove that the graphs they sent out were not created from the true data, but from a falsely created, manipulated set, nailing them to the wall.

Recommended to you by another alarmist, sir? "Updating the world on the Latest Climate Science" Science update or data update? Written by students at what Aussie school, er, University?
OK, they're claiming 2" of sea level rise over the past 15 years. Why isn't Florida under water? Why isn't everyone moving out of Hawaii, and off every other island in the world?
Executive Summary: 3.4mm/yr sea level rise. http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/download/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_ES_English.pdf
The London Royal Society calculates net sea level rise in Australia at 1 mm/yr[22] http://www.marine.csiro.au/media/03releases/21jan03.htm (dead link)
Every report from the IPCC shows -diminishing- forecasts for doom. The first expected a 4.2 degree increase in global temps by 2100. The second 3.8, the third 3.5, the fourth 3.26 degrees C. Hansen thought it would rise 4.2 in '88 and revised it to 2.8 in '08. Monckton and crew say 0.5 degrees C rise by 2100. Slide 73. <http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13460116/Lord-Christopher-Moncktons-Power-Point-Bethel-University--Global-Climate-Change-Conference-Oct-14-2009
These guys say the IPCC is underestimating everything. Hold onto your hat, Larry. They say the sky is, indeed, falling even faster than dreaded. <shudder>NOT
-- Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm). -----------
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:50:40 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

AFAIK, they're still peer-reviewed articles. So there must be a lot of people in on the conspiracy :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Even here they have to censor anyone who isn't a member of the orthodoxy. Consensus, my ass.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Yep, there were. But it was merely sufficient to suppress dissenting views. Which they did by preventing these views from being published.
Further, it is IMPOSSIBLE for "peers" to review a paper if the underlying data are unavailable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Underwater
Space Station
Black powder Storage Bunker
Gasoline Refinery
Nitroglyerin factory
Baby Nursery
Steel Walled Room
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

ROTFLMAO
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Along those lines:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1TnU0aIJiQ

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.