Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[CountVolcula]

Ask American Indians how treaties work

 

[theFallGuy]

Sure it is... Unemployment dropped significantly under Obama as well but all conservatives wanted to talk about then was how much underemployment was involved with that and how many discouraged workers were no longer being counted in the work force. Trump talked about that throughout the campaign while often insisting that the "real" percentage of unemployed workers in the U.S. was as high as 40%. Fox News would always focus on underemployment and discouraged workers when the unemployment rate went down under Obama - now they never do.

Yep it's all Fox News

US unemployed have quit looking for jobs at a 'frightening' level: Survey

What 'are so many of them doing?' 95 million not in US labor force

 

[GAVol]

Sure it is... Unemployment dropped significantly under Obama as well but all conservatives wanted to talk about then was how much underemployment was involved with that and how many discouraged workers were no longer being counted in the work force. Trump talked about that throughout the campaign while often insisting that the "real" percentage of unemployed workers in the U.S. was as high as 40%. Fox News would always focus on underemployment and discouraged workers when the unemployment rate went down under Obama - now they never do.

Well then . . . let's look at the U-6 number that takes all of that into account and see where it is. It got as high as 17% under Obama and is now at 8.4%. That's down a full point since January and is the lowest U-6 number since 2007.

 

[theFallGuy]

Well then . . . let's look at the U-6 number and see where it is. It got as high as 17% under Obama and is now at 8.4%. That's down a full point since January and is the lowest U-6 number since 2008.

Also, for the record Trump claims he "heard some economists think unemployment was as high as 40%". He didn't outright proclaim that it was, as was insinuated.

"The Fact Checker, however, traced it back to a column by David Stockman, who served as President Ronald Reagan’s budget director.

Stockman calculated that there are currently 210 million Americans between the ages of 16 and 68 -- what he calls a "plausible measure of the potential workforce." If you assume that each of those people is able to hold down a full-time job, he wrote, they would offer a total of 420 billion potential working hours. However, during 2014, Stockman noted, only 240 billion working hours were actually recorded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

If you run the numbers, "the real unemployment rate was 42.9 percent," Stockman wrote.

Economists say Stockman’s way of looking at the question -- using actual hours worked divided by a theoretical maximum that could have been worked, rather than determining whether individual people are employed or unemployed -- is provocative. But they say this raw measurement has serious flaws.

In the column, Stockman himself acknowledges that this figure is imperfect, even though his tone is flip when he does so.

"Yes, we have to allow for non-working wives, students, the disabled, early retirees and coupon clippers," he wrote. "We also have drifters, grifters, welfare cheats, bums and people between jobs, enrolled in training programs, on sabbaticals and much else."

Snark aside, economists say this caveat is crucial.

Stockman’s calculation "treats people voluntarily working part-time hours as partly unemployed, even if they have excellent reasons for wanting to hold only a part-time job, such as rearing children, attending school or college, being disabled, or transitioning into retirement," said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution. "A lot of the shortfall between full-time and part-time employment is perfectly reasonable, as is a potential worker’s decision not to work or look for paid work at all."

In other words, Trump’s faith in the accuracy of the 42 percent figure is misplaced."

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

It seems that the warming is only occurring in the costal and major metropolitan areas where large numbers of leftists are congregated. The cause and the solution are obvious.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Well then . . . let's look at the U-6 number and see where it is. It got as high as 17% under Obama and is now at 8.4%. That's down a full point since January and is the lowest U-6 number since 2008.

Wow... one whole point! :rock:

Fox News will not mention underemployment and discouraged worker numbers today but it was their main focus 5 months ago.

 

[BowlBrother85]

It seems that the warming is only occurring in the costal and major metropolitan areas where large numbers of leftists are congregated. The cause and the solution are obvious.

Congrats... This is more science than most conservatives are willing to contribute to this discussion.

 

[theFallGuy]

Wow... one whole point! :rock:

Fox News will not mention underemployment and discouraged worker numbers today but it was their main focus 5 months ago.

It's funny that you continually use half-truths and blanket statements. Don't let any facts get in the way of your ideological truths.

 

[BowlBrother85]

It's funny that you continually use half-truths and blanket statements. Don't let any facts get in the way of your ideological truths.

I'm the one on here prompting others to discuss the issue of global warming on it's scientific merits. Everyone else wants to make this an issue of political partisanship when it shouldn't be.

 

[Persian Vol]

It seems that the warming is only occurring in the costal and major metropolitan areas where large numbers of leftists are congregated. The cause and the solution are obvious.

Well this seems silly. Urban areas have more pollution because there are more people in general. The pollution among rural America may not be concentrated like it is in urban areas, but there is no reason to believe that rural people pollute the country any less than urban people. If you were the calculate the accumulative effect of car pollution for example in rural Georgia, it would be comparable if not worse than an urban area like Atlanta where walkability and public transportation are more prevalent.

 

[allvol123]

I don't see anything wrong with wanting to live there... and it's probably not even his primary residence. I would be a homebody if I lived in a place like that.

There is nothing wrong with living there.

Unless you are championing this climate scam, in that case it clearly shows you don't believe what you are preaching.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

I'm the one on here prompting others to discuss the issue of global warming on it's scientific merits. Everyone else wants to make this an issue of political partisanship when it shouldn't be.

Keep the blinders on brother

 

[FLVOL_79]

Sure it is... Unemployment dropped significantly under Obama as well but all conservatives wanted to talk about then was how much underemployment was involved with that and how many discouraged workers were no longer being counted in the work force. Trump talked about that throughout the campaign while often insisting that the "real" percentage of unemployed workers in the U.S. was as high as 40%. Fox News would always focus on underemployment and discouraged workers when the unemployment rate went down under Obama - now they never do.

The employment quip was tongue in cheek but I am glad you brought up the underemployment numbers. Those numbers were important during Obama's time because obamajobs were often part time and seasonal and the labor department was trying to pass that off as a good thing. Now you're, well, not you, but people are, getting full time employment and a lot of it is not in the service industry where hard working democrats often end up after a liberal arts education.

Also people were tossing in retired and elderly in those numbers which was a brazen attempt to discredit the already meager wins of Obama. Thats not needed now because, well, Trump.

 

[BowlBrother85]

The employment quip was tongue in cheek but I am glad you brought up the underemployment numbers. Those numbers were important during Obama's time because obamajobs were often part time and seasonal and the labor department was trying to pass that off as a good thing. Now you're, well, not you, but people are, getting full time employment and a lot of it is not in the service industry where hard working democrats often end up after a liberal arts education.

Also people were tossing in retired and elderly in those numbers which was a brazen attempt to discredit the already meager wins of Obama. Thats not needed now because, well, Trump.

Yeah, okay! LOL. ...and for what it's worth, I've been fully employed at First Tennessee Bank (formerly at the main office on 800 S Gay St and now at Downtown West) since 2001 - which does include all of Obama's 8 years as President.

Now, you obviously fancy yourself an educated person. That must mean you can argue against global warming on it's scientific merits, right?

 

[Septic]

In other news -----> Geraldo is absolutely appalled by Trumps climate deal exit.

Here's another loony rich lawyer who has mashed potatoes for brains.

A week ago this guy was spitting conservative bullet points like Rabbit at the end of Eight Mile and was being applauded.

Now he's got MP fer brains.

:unsure:

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Maybe I can spell this out for you.

2,864,974 MORE American's voted for Clinton than they did Trump. A VAST, VAST number by any rational measure - she was unquestionably seen as a more favorable candidate over Trump by a VAST number of Americans.

Therefore, one could argue that she was VASTLY more popular that Trump.

Imma go grab me some lunch while you split more hairs and/or go into a diatribe about the electoral college.

Duuuude! A voting block about 3/4 of the population of Los Angeles (over 4,000,000 in 2017) IS NOT vast.

No it isn't.








NO!

 

[FLVOL_79]

I'm the one on here prompting others to discuss the issue of global warming on it's scientific merits. Everyone else wants to make this an issue of political partisanship when it shouldn't be.

Ok.

A single volcanic eruption can produce more atmospheric pollution than 250 years of humans.

https://intlpollution.commons.gc.cuny.edu/volcanic-pollution/

Lets say that humans severely impacting the earth's environment (atmospheric/water/land) began during the industrial revolution. For simplicity lets say that is 1800 (give or take a decade). Air pollution makes up most of the pollution given the fuel sources for the steam powered equipment for about 100+ years. So technically the human impact on the environment in regards to temperature and air pollution would equal one large volcanic eruption by 2050. How many large eruptions have occurred in the last 250 years? We've had 20 in just this century. That potentially did more damage then 5000 years of human green house gas pollution at modern levels..

With that being said what data, tangible proven data, do climate scientists have to justify their gloom and doom scenarios and how many years of it do they have? I'm guessing that they have less than 200 years of legitimate data that could muster up enough scientific evidence to support a theory or hypothesis. So they are most likely relying on evidence from 0.000005% of the earths actual existence to pander their mass climate hysteria agenda. If you do the math for some scientific sampling your confidence numbers would get you laughed out of a for profit school.

Now is pollution bad? Yes. Should people do their fair share to combat it? Yes. Should corporations and governments accept some social responsibility and tackle it? Yes. Is pulling out of a nonbinding worthless treaty that held no one accountable for doing the right thing going to end the world via climatic disaster? Absolutely not.

Climate change has been happening for 5 billion years and NOTHING humans do will stop it. Modern climate change concerns are driven by money. Gin up enough fear, get your department funded by the school who gets more funds from the government and you stay employed. And if you don't think its about money, or riding the new wave of social concern on a board called climate change, just look at the most outspoken people and see how they are doing their part to help/not help climate change..the loudest mouth champions of this BS concern pollute more than most of our families put together in a lifetime. If that kind of hypocrisy doesn't sound an alarm then..get back in line with the sheeple.

 

[Carl Pickens]

I have to cut my grass today..... damn global warming

 

[GAVol]

Wow... one whole point! :rock:

Fox News will not mention underemployment and discouraged worker numbers today but it was their main focus 5 months ago.

Yeah...a point. As in, the largest 3-4 month drop in the U6 rate in 17 years.

You're not helping yourself here.

 

[tumscalcium]

I have to cut my grass today..... damn global warming

Probably with a carbon emitting mower.




Monster.

 

[FLVOL_79]

I have to cut my grass today..... damn global warming

It finally started raining here in Florida..my 3 times of fertilizing my yard this spring is coming back to haunt me right now..

 

[BowlBrother85]

Ok.

A single volcanic eruption can produce more atmospheric pollution than 250 years of humans.

https://intlpollution.commons.gc.cuny.edu/volcanic-pollution/

Lets say that humans severely impacting the earth's environment (atmospheric/water/land) began during the industrial revolution. For simplicity lets say that is 1800 (give or take a decade). Air pollution makes up most of the pollution given the fuel sources for the steam powered equipment for about 100+ years. So technically the human impact on the environment in regards to temperature and air pollution would equal one large volcanic eruption by 2050. How many large eruptions have occurred in the last 250 years? We've had 20 in just this century. That potentially did more damage then 5000 years of human green house gas pollution at modern levels..

With that being said what data, tangible proven data, do climate scientists have to justify their gloom and doom scenarios and how many years of it do they have? I'm guessing that they have less than 200 years of legitimate data that could muster up enough scientific evidence to support a theory or hypothesis. So they are most likely relying on evidence from 0.000005% of the earths actual existence to pander their mass climate hysteria agenda. If you do the math for some scientific sampling your confidence numbers would get you laughed out of a for profit school.

Now is pollution bad? Yes. Should people do their fair share to combat it? Yes. Should corporations and governments accept some social responsibility and tackle it? Yes. Is pulling out of a nonbinding worthless treaty that held no one accountable for doing the right thing going to end the world via climatic disaster? Absolutely not.

Climate change has been happening for 5 billion years and NOTHING humans do will stop it. Modern climate change concerns are driven by money. Gin up enough fear, get your department funded by the school who gets more funds from the government and you stay employed. And if you don't think its about money, or riding the new wave of social concern on a board called climate change, just look at the most outspoken people and see how they are doing their part to help/not help climate change..the loudest mouth champions of this BS concern pollute more than most of our families put together in a lifetime. If that kind of hypocrisy doesn't sound an alarm then..get back in line with the sheeple.

This is good (I gave you a like)... It's what I've been asking for and I enjoy a good scientific debate on this. I just don't often get one from conservatives. I will need time to look it over when I get home - but be prepared for a strong rebuttal later. :wink2:

 

[McDad]

This is good (I gave you a like)... It's what I've been asking for and I enjoy a good scientific debate on this. I just don't often get one from conservatives. I will need time to look it over when I get home - but be prepared for a strong rebuttal later. :wink2:

Ooooo...a STRONG rebuttal. Gird your loins, naves, thou whilst be subjected to a strong rebuttal from, BB85.

 

[ShowSomePride]

Ok.

A single volcanic eruption can produce more atmospheric pollution than 250 years of humans.

https://intlpollution.commons.gc.cuny.edu/volcanic-pollution/

Lets say that humans severely impacting the earth's environment (atmospheric/water/land) began during the industrial revolution. For simplicity lets say that is 1800 (give or take a decade). Air pollution makes up most of the pollution given the fuel sources for the steam powered equipment for about 100+ years. So technically the human impact on the environment in regards to temperature and air pollution would equal one large volcanic eruption by 2050. How many large eruptions have occurred in the last 250 years? We've had 20 in just this century. That potentially did more damage then 5000 years of human green house gas pollution at modern levels..

With that being said what data, tangible proven data, do climate scientists have to justify their gloom and doom scenarios and how many years of it do they have? I'm guessing that they have less than 200 years of legitimate data that could muster up enough scientific evidence to support a theory or hypothesis. So they are most likely relying on evidence from 0.000005% of the earths actual existence to pander their mass climate hysteria agenda. If you do the math for some scientific sampling your confidence numbers would get you laughed out of a for profit school.

Now is pollution bad? Yes. Should people do their fair share to combat it? Yes. Should corporations and governments accept some social responsibility and tackle it? Yes. Is pulling out of a nonbinding worthless treaty that held no one accountable for doing the right thing going to end the world via climatic disaster? Absolutely not.

Climate change has been happening for 5 billion years and NOTHING humans do will stop it. Modern climate change concerns are driven by money. Gin up enough fear, get your department funded by the school who gets more funds from the government and you stay employed. And if you don't think its about money, or riding the new wave of social concern on a board called climate change, just look at the most outspoken people and see how they are doing their part to help/not help climate change..the loudest mouth champions of this BS concern pollute more than most of our families put together in a lifetime. If that kind of hypocrisy doesn't sound an alarm then..get back in line with the sheeple.

Did you actually read the source you quoted?

"Due to the fact that on average only between 50 and 60 volcanoes erupt each year, there is not nearly an adequate amount of volcanic activity to equal or to surpass the amount of anthropogenic sourced pollution (USGS, 2009). Even supervolcanoes, that have had only 8 eruptions within the span of millions of years, do not have enough frequency to equalize with anthropogenic source pollution (USGS, 2014)"

 

[Septic]

Duuuude! A voting block about 3/4 of the population of Los Angeles (over 4,000,000 in 2017) IS NOT vast.

No it isn't.








NO!

Hang on, lemme check.

vast

/vast

adjective

1. of very great extent or quantity; immense.
Usage: "There was a vast difference between the number of votes of Trump and Clinton"

synonyms: huge, extensive, expansive, broad, wide, sweeping, boundless, immeasurable, limitless, infinite; More

noun archaic
1. an immense space.



Yep, vast was the term I was looking for.