So Where Are All These Unemployed People?

[Caesar Romano]

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:07:29 GMT, AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse. (Must Be Bush's Fault) wrote Re Re: So Where Are All These Unemployed People?:

Well said.

[Jon Danniken]

I wish I was more of a survivalist, but I do make sure to keep several weeks worth of dry/canned foods in the house should I get stuck here for a short length of time.

I also backpack, so the dried goods are used by me throughout the year as provisions, which is kind of nice because I know what I need and what works for nutrition.

Jon

[benick]

The Earth's climate is more complicated than a pan of water. Your model is flawed. Consider the effect of El Nino (as we are seeing this year); that's an oceanic current that moves around. If the average global temperature increases, we might well see more El Nino events than we have been.

Of course, you simply don't want to believe in global warming, so no rational persuasion will have any effect.

Cindy Hamilton

Taking a sample of rising temps over a 100 year span and trying to make a judgment is like taking a nano second of your life and drawing conclusions...The earth has been warming constantly since the last ice age and to say what if anything man is doing is simply ridicoulis....Environuts are sometimes called Watermelons...Green on the outside and RED on the inside...LOL...

[bud--]

Data goes back far more than 100 years. Scientists can go back thousands of years through Antarctic ice cores, tree rings, lake and ocean sediments. That is why there is a consensus of scientists from different fields.

Data shows warming has increased starting about the industrial age and is accelerating. To say anything else is to ignore the data.

The discredit the scientists ploy.

There is widespread consensus, based on observed data, from scientists over many disciplines that dangerous global warming is taking place. It is endorsed by many scientific organizations and many governments have been convinced. Apparently all of them are "red". Hard to remember, but isn't Bush II one of them.

[Phisherman]

Our planet is in constant change. We should be far more concerned if a comet or meteor strikes the earth--that can be 1000X the force of a Hiroshima bomb. The number of sun flares affects our environment to a great extent. Politicians will use anything to get votes. Sadly many folks are not too educated, some believe the earth is 6,000 years old because that is what the minister told them. Al Gore needs to be educated. In any event, we can not save the planet but everyone should be for recycling, reusing, and reducing energy consumption.

[Kurt Ullman]

There is some interesting stuff indicating that what you use as a baseline makes a BIG difference. Most a time when we were in a "mini ice age", with temps lower than usual so the increase is greater. Go back 100 years further and the changes aren't as much.

Well it works so well for the Climate Change group. You will note that the term of art for those who dare to suggest that Global Warming may not be man made is now "denier". The same term used to describe those who doubt the Holocaust. I don't see that as a coincidence.

At a similar point in the development of the science, the widespread consensus, based on observed data, from scientists over many disciplines was that the world was flat.

[phy]

"HeyBub" wrote in news:KYedndmppf_9oe7WnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

Weather dynamics are complicated.

Sort of:

That is why it is called Climate Change and not Global Warming.

I don't know how much of Climate Change is influenced by man, but putting less pollution in the air can only be good for us.

-phy

[Must Be Bush's Fault]

"Climate change" is the term du jour.

Yeah, they're swaying away from the "global warming" mantra, but when you argue with one of them, they still talk about rising temperatures and how those temps are the cause of "climate change."

[Kurt Ullman]

It is called Climate Change (as of the last few years) because CC means that you can now include all these little extras as part of the problem instead of evidence against it. Thus ANYTHING that happens is because of the evil carbon.

Depends on how and how much.

[bud--]

Some data, like CO2 in the atmosphere, is available for thousands of years.

Temperature data shows increase since the industrial revolution with the increase accelerating. It doesn't take a lot of degrees of change to produce some disastrous results. Those results, like melting of the Greenland ice sheet, are also apparent. Temperature increase correlates with CO2 increase.

Likely from the media, not scientists.

How devastating.

Educated people knew the earth was round before Columbus, when there was not a lot of 'science'. Aristotle knew the earth was round. Who are your 'scientists' and what were their disciplines? The general public may not have adopted the idea for a while, just like global warming.

Science is, properly, somewhat resistant to change. Global warming has been accepted by the vast majority of scientists with expertise in related fields, and has been accepted over quite a short time. That is because the results from multiple fields came to the same conclusion.

Similarly, governments have been convinced. The Koyoto Protocol has been ratified by 187 countries, including all the developed industrial nations except the US. The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen attracted 110 world leaders plus other representatives. The US military also takes climate change seriously.

Bush II said global warming is a serious problem and he wanted to reduce greenhouse gases.

People in the US are less convinced than the rest of the world that global warming is a problem. But people in the US are also far less convinced of evolution - probably a lot of the same people.

In this thread are people that

- don't understand the difference between global warming and climate

- don't understand the difference between climate and weather

- don't understand that some data is available for thousands of years

- think global warming is a 'red' plot (probably just like evolution).

I will follow the consensus of scientists who have actually studied global warming.