Anyone remember ClimateGate? A few years back hackers broke into the computers at CRU and released 61 MB of confidential files onto the internet. To make a long story short, warmist scientists may have maniuplated or suppressed evidence to support their cause. This was back in 2009:
Then came ClimateGate 2 in 2011. The next episode in the Climategate scandal revealed fraud on a massive scope. A second batch of about 5000 more emails were obtained that clearly indicates top IPCC scientists conciously misrepresented and actively withheld important info, then attempted to prevent discovery:
It's going to be a race of turnout. Romney isn't looking good, but turnout. I'm totally unsure of what will happen but with the race this close, and with a few percent of undecideds still left its probably all going to be turnout. I wonder how many people they have on the ground in these battleground states. Obama campaign was at UCSD today (just staffers and such) trying to get donations.
The trend downward is probably accurate but theres no way the number is which is good news for Obama because it means that last months number probably wasnt just an overcalculationt hat would be redirected upwards.
On November 02 2012 05:42 Zaqwert wrote: Man made climate change is a joke and anyone who believes in it is a fool, it's nothing more than a fake crisis designed for governments to increase regulation, taxes, and power, that's why left wingers and socialists scream so much about it.
Feel free to post whatever wikipedia articles and little charts and graphs you want. In 50 years when you are an old man and the earth hasn't turned into a toxic wasteland try to remember this thread.
And your proof that this is all fake is?
I don't have to prove it's fake, you never have to prove a negative. Global warming cultists are making a HUGE f'ing claim, not only that human activity is causing dramatic change to the earth's envionment and climate, but that those changes are going to be catostrophic in nature, to the point we need to drastically alter every aspet of our lives to combat them.
To say the jury is still out on that is being generous. There have been some data points indicating rising global temperatures, but connecting that to CO2 emissions is still iffy, and in fact the earth's tempature has begun going back down slightly, yet CO2 emissions are higher than ever.
The government needs scare tactics to gain power typically, be it the "terrorists" or global warming or some other imaginary threat.
How the hell does anyone assume that when it comes to influencing the public through media, scientists would be able to outdo the oil industry, to pull off such a "conspiracy" against the world's most wealthiest industry?
I mean, that is impressive.
The fact that climate change is becoming more accepted is a victory of our intellectual honesty over the business of media. Despite all the often-paid-for "contrary" opinions on the subject, people are accepting that science has been so successful over the years because they're in the business of openly, publicly scrutinizing themselves better than anyone in the media can. They know what facts are, and they know how to work with them. The way you post, on the other hand, suggests the opposite.
Those scientists rolling around in their Bentleys just want more funding from the government so they can pay for their next yacht and support their lavish lifestyles. Its fairly obvious that all of the hundreds of climate scientists are just making shit up to suck the government teat and impose their socialisms on the land of the free. I mean, scientists can't even tell us if eggs cause cancer or not, why should we trust them. I dare say, its impossible for people to do anything to the environment, mother nature is just so much bigger than us, its just common sense.
I agree with ZeaL. People don't want to think for themselves in my opinion, thus they read the media and suddenly think scientists are all saints and big corporate hard working men are the devils and the demons. Scientists are nothing more, nothing less than humans with desires themselves. I don't see scientists working hard to prevent disasters like hurricane Sandy, so just forget about it. My common sense tell me I should not trust people that make up BS about the weather and us destroying the planet, when sometimes it's clearly the opposite.
In context of JDub answer to Zeal. (and the succeeding posts) and the home country of Mondieu it's becoming a serious challenge to decide whether this is sarcasm or not.
@ElMeanYo: You probably should read this instead of random online stuff about climate gate.
On November 02 2012 08:10 ElMeanYo wrote: Anyone remember ClimateGate? A few years back hackers broke into the computers at CRU and released 61 MB of confidential files onto the internet. To make a long story short, warmist scientists may have maniuplated or suppressed evidence to support their cause. This was back in 2009:
Then came ClimateGate 2 in 2011. The next episode in the Climategate scandal revealed fraud on a massive scope. A second batch of about 5000 more emails were obtained that clearly indicates top IPCC scientists conciously misrepresented and actively withheld important info, then attempted to prevent discovery:
Lots more articles about it out there, just google.
The underlying information is indisputably in favour of climate change. What the issue is is the deliberate manipulation of which points of the underlying information were presented, resulting in a larger perceived change than was supported by the data.
Edit:: the wiki link above explains it in much better detail.
On November 02 2012 05:42 Zaqwert wrote: Man made climate change is a joke and anyone who believes in it is a fool, it's nothing more than a fake crisis designed for governments to increase regulation, taxes, and power, that's why left wingers and socialists scream so much about it.
Feel free to post whatever wikipedia articles and little charts and graphs you want. In 50 years when you are an old man and the earth hasn't turned into a toxic wasteland try to remember this thread.
And your proof that this is all fake is?
I don't have to prove it's fake, you never have to prove a negative. Global warming cultists are making a HUGE f'ing claim, not only that human activity is causing dramatic change to the earth's envionment and climate, but that those changes are going to be catostrophic in nature, to the point we need to drastically alter every aspet of our lives to combat them.
To say the jury is still out on that is being generous. There have been some data points indicating rising global temperatures, but connecting that to CO2 emissions is still iffy, and in fact the earth's tempature has begun going back down slightly, yet CO2 emissions are higher than ever.
The government needs scare tactics to gain power typically, be it the "terrorists" or global warming or some other imaginary threat.
How the hell does anyone assume that when it comes to influencing the public through media, scientists would be able to outdo the oil industry, to pull off such a "conspiracy" against the world's most wealthiest industry?
I mean, that is impressive.
The fact that climate change is becoming more accepted is a victory of our intellectual honesty over the business of media. Despite all the often-paid-for "contrary" opinions on the subject, people are accepting that science has been so successful over the years because they're in the business of openly, publicly scrutinizing themselves better than anyone in the media can. They know what facts are, and they know how to work with them. The way you post, on the other hand, suggests the opposite.
Those scientists rolling around in their Bentleys just want more funding from the government so they can pay for their next yacht and support their lavish lifestyles. Its fairly obvious that all of the hundreds of climate scientists are just making shit up to suck the government teat and impose their socialisms on the land of the free. I mean, scientists can't even tell us if eggs cause cancer or not, why should we trust them. I dare say, its impossible for people to do anything to the environment, mother nature is just so much bigger than us, its just common sense.
I agree with ZeaL. People don't want to think for themselves in my opinion, thus they read the media and suddenly think scientists are all saints and big corporate hard working men are the devils and the demons. Scientists are nothing more, nothing less than humans with desires themselves. I don't see scientists working hard to prevent disasters like hurricane Sandy, so just forget about it. My common sense tell me I should not trust people that make up BS about the weather and us destroying the planet, when sometimes it's clearly the opposite.
On November 02 2012 05:42 Zaqwert wrote: Man made climate change is a joke and anyone who believes in it is a fool, it's nothing more than a fake crisis designed for governments to increase regulation, taxes, and power, that's why left wingers and socialists scream so much about it.
Feel free to post whatever wikipedia articles and little charts and graphs you want. In 50 years when you are an old man and the earth hasn't turned into a toxic wasteland try to remember this thread.
And your proof that this is all fake is?
I don't have to prove it's fake, you never have to prove a negative. Global warming cultists are making a HUGE f'ing claim, not only that human activity is causing dramatic change to the earth's envionment and climate, but that those changes are going to be catostrophic in nature, to the point we need to drastically alter every aspet of our lives to combat them.
To say the jury is still out on that is being generous. There have been some data points indicating rising global temperatures, but connecting that to CO2 emissions is still iffy, and in fact the earth's tempature has begun going back down slightly, yet CO2 emissions are higher than ever.
The government needs scare tactics to gain power typically, be it the "terrorists" or global warming or some other imaginary threat.
How the hell does anyone assume that when it comes to influencing the public through media, scientists would be able to outdo the oil industry, to pull off such a "conspiracy" against the world's most wealthiest industry?
I mean, that is impressive.
The fact that climate change is becoming more accepted is a victory of our intellectual honesty over the business of media. Despite all the often-paid-for "contrary" opinions on the subject, people are accepting that science has been so successful over the years because they're in the business of openly, publicly scrutinizing themselves better than anyone in the media can. They know what facts are, and they know how to work with them. The way you post, on the other hand, suggests the opposite.
Those scientists rolling around in their Bentleys just want more funding from the government so they can pay for their next yacht and support their lavish lifestyles. Its fairly obvious that all of the hundreds of climate scientists are just making shit up to suck the government teat and impose their socialisms on the land of the free. I mean, scientists can't even tell us if eggs cause cancer or not, why should we trust them. I dare say, its impossible for people to do anything to the environment, mother nature is just so much bigger than us, its just common sense.
I agree with ZeaL. People don't want to think for themselves in my opinion, thus they read the media and suddenly think scientists are all saints and big corporate hard working men are the devils and the demons. Scientists are nothing more, nothing less than humans with desires themselves. I don't see scientists working hard to prevent disasters like hurricane Sandy, so just forget about it. My common sense tell me I should not trust people that make up BS about the weather and us destroying the planet, when sometimes it's clearly the opposite.
On November 02 2012 06:58 oneofthem wrote: but with those tax cuts they can create more jobs. i mean clearly corporate profits isn't high enough.
seriously people vastly underestimate the shift in management culture on corporate behavior. the way to get rich as a corporate manager is directly tied to your production on the financial market, both in terms of stock prices, and also in the valuation of the company to a potential acquisition. when you have employees with good pay and benefit packages, that's a huge burden not to the company but to its liquid value in the market. you ain't going to hire jack shit unless the demand is such that you need to expand your operations.
I'm not sure about that. Growth is generally valued at a premium so if managers are deliberately holding back expansion they're only doing themselves and their shareholders a disservice (not impossible).
in cases where expansion is directly related to filling orders or showing a proof of concept kind of thing, then sure, not expanding would be silly. but, there is a distinct drive to keep hiring flexible, avoid tied down costs, and all in all make sure that the company is attractive to liquid capital.
i mean, looking for new growth opportunities is hard. cutting costs is much easier and fits with the prevailing ideology of slimming down.
This is an odd way of saying what I've tried to say for so long, but is essentially correct.
The will to hire new employees comes pretty far down the list when considering expansionary investment. New equipment and increased efficiency are much more sought after than expanding your workforce.
On November 02 2012 05:42 Zaqwert wrote: Man made climate change is a joke and anyone who believes in it is a fool, it's nothing more than a fake crisis designed for governments to increase regulation, taxes, and power, that's why left wingers and socialists scream so much about it.
Feel free to post whatever wikipedia articles and little charts and graphs you want. In 50 years when you are an old man and the earth hasn't turned into a toxic wasteland try to remember this thread.
And your proof that this is all fake is?
I don't have to prove it's fake, you never have to prove a negative. Global warming cultists are making a HUGE f'ing claim, not only that human activity is causing dramatic change to the earth's envionment and climate, but that those changes are going to be catostrophic in nature, to the point we need to drastically alter every aspet of our lives to combat them.
To say the jury is still out on that is being generous. There have been some data points indicating rising global temperatures, but connecting that to CO2 emissions is still iffy, and in fact the earth's tempature has begun going back down slightly, yet CO2 emissions are higher than ever.
The government needs scare tactics to gain power typically, be it the "terrorists" or global warming or some other imaginary threat.
How the hell does anyone assume that when it comes to influencing the public through media, scientists would be able to outdo the oil industry, to pull off such a "conspiracy" against the world's most wealthiest industry?
I mean, that is impressive.
The fact that climate change is becoming more accepted is a victory of our intellectual honesty over the business of media. Despite all the often-paid-for "contrary" opinions on the subject, people are accepting that science has been so successful over the years because they're in the business of openly, publicly scrutinizing themselves better than anyone in the media can. They know what facts are, and they know how to work with them. The way you post, on the other hand, suggests the opposite.
Those scientists rolling around in their Bentleys just want more funding from the government so they can pay for their next yacht and support their lavish lifestyles. Its fairly obvious that all of the hundreds of climate scientists are just making shit up to suck the government teat and impose their socialisms on the land of the free. I mean, scientists can't even tell us if eggs cause cancer or not, why should we trust them. I dare say, its impossible for people to do anything to the environment, mother nature is just so much bigger than us, its just common sense.
I agree with ZeaL. People don't want to think for themselves in my opinion, thus they read the media and suddenly think scientists are all saints and big corporate hard working men are the devils and the demons. Scientists are nothing more, nothing less than humans with desires themselves. I don't see scientists working hard to prevent disasters like hurricane Sandy, so just forget about it. My common sense tell me I should not trust people that make up BS about the weather and us destroying the planet, when sometimes it's clearly the opposite.
ZeaL mocked your opinion in a sarcastic way that was intended to be humorous through purposely and obliviously idiotic comments.
Aaaaaaand you agree with him.
Good thing our policies aren't based on your common sense.
Seasonally adjusted (what BLS reports) is 7.4% for Gallup.
They probably won't be the same number in any case, but it's a decline from what Gallup had last month, so we might expect the BLS number to decline as well.
On November 02 2012 08:10 ElMeanYo wrote: Anyone remember ClimateGate? A few years back hackers broke into the computers at CRU and released 61 MB of confidential files onto the internet. To make a long story short, warmist scientists may have maniuplated or suppressed evidence to support their cause. This was back in 2009:
Then came ClimateGate 2 in 2011. The next episode in the Climategate scandal revealed fraud on a massive scope. A second batch of about 5000 more emails were obtained that clearly indicates top IPCC scientists conciously misrepresented and actively withheld important info, then attempted to prevent discovery:
Lots more articles about it out there, just google.
The underlying information is indisputably in favour of climate change. What the issue is is the deliberate manipulation of which points of the underlying information were presented, resulting in a larger perceived change than was supported by the data.
Edit:: the wiki link above explains it in much better detail.
Right, scientists are doing themselves no favors trying to manipulate data to give a faster doomsday or bigger notoriety amongst the press. They're better off admitting the bad apples amongst them and stepping off their high horses for a bit. In my opinion, it's in their best interest to do this to persuade swaths of the public quizzical after Climategate 1&2, IPCC activist bull, and the media's interplay (where they exaggerate current events being able to be traced back to culprit "Global Warming).
The last one is largely out of their control, it sucks. IPCC reports have been criticized as more the work of a body of scientists influenced by political activists and green activists. It may well be that is does great research and does not deserve the sullied reputation it has achieved. That road back will be a tricky one, it isn't easy to undo all the alarmism over extreme weather events being tied to global warming. It isn't easy with guys like Gore in the wings ready to double any dire prediction a scientist brings up.
I've heard both candidates agree that the world's getting warmer, and part of the blame is from humans. I can only trust Romney to keep research propelled by current energy sources going without horrible cap and trade programs or excise taxes. Don't turn out the lights before nuclear is widespread or some other explanation for the warming / easy solution for it is found.
On November 02 2012 06:58 oneofthem wrote: but with those tax cuts they can create more jobs. i mean clearly corporate profits isn't high enough.
seriously people vastly underestimate the shift in management culture on corporate behavior. the way to get rich as a corporate manager is directly tied to your production on the financial market, both in terms of stock prices, and also in the valuation of the company to a potential acquisition. when you have employees with good pay and benefit packages, that's a huge burden not to the company but to its liquid value in the market. you ain't going to hire jack shit unless the demand is such that you need to expand your operations.
I'm not sure about that. Growth is generally valued at a premium so if managers are deliberately holding back expansion they're only doing themselves and their shareholders a disservice (not impossible).
in cases where expansion is directly related to filling orders or showing a proof of concept kind of thing, then sure, not expanding would be silly. but, there is a distinct drive to keep hiring flexible, avoid tied down costs, and all in all make sure that the company is attractive to liquid capital.
i mean, looking for new growth opportunities is hard. cutting costs is much easier and fits with the prevailing ideology of slimming down.
If demand falls cutting costs is generally easier, but in normal times cutting costs is often the harder of the two since most costs exist for good reason.
Keep in mind, if you hold back expansion long enough your competitors will beat you to the punch.
there are structural changes though that affect management thought as a whole. the pressure to convert more and more workers to temp contracts is an example of this movement, the games played with pension schedules and deferred pay another.
On November 02 2012 08:54 oneofthem wrote: there are structural changes though that affect management thought as a whole. the pressure to convert more and more workers to temp contracts is an example of this movement, the games played with pension schedules and deferred pay another.
this movement is because of the fact that health coverage is required for full time. this problem will only get more and more noticeable until they stop making that mandatory.
On November 02 2012 08:54 oneofthem wrote: there are structural changes though that affect management thought as a whole. the pressure to convert more and more workers to temp contracts is an example of this movement, the games played with pension schedules and deferred pay another.
True, though other trends have the opposite effect. Automating a process by replacing a worker with a machine makes the overall cost structure less flexible.
Regardless, going back to your original comment, businesses are plenty profitable by historical standards. It is strange then that they're sitting on so much cash. Your theory could be correct, though there are other theories out there as well. Hopefully those making policy decisions have the right answer, as the right medicine for the economy depends (partially) on it.
On November 02 2012 08:54 oneofthem wrote: there are structural changes though that affect management thought as a whole. the pressure to convert more and more workers to temp contracts is an example of this movement, the games played with pension schedules and deferred pay another.
True, though other trends have the opposite effect. Automating a process by replacing a worker with a machine makes the overall cost structure less flexible.
Regardless, going back to your original comment, businesses are plenty profitable by historical standards. It is strange then that they're sitting on so much cash. Your theory could be correct, though there are other theories out there as well. Hopefully those making policy decisions have the right answer, as the right medicine for the economy depends (partially) on it.
Damn you and your bipartisan, measured take on economic policy. Then again, you are a Massachusetts conservative, amirite?
Interesting to say the least. Romney's religious beliefs are perfectly fine but I really don't like how strongly he holds his position on abortion and consequently, Roe v. Wade, despite whatever he may say on air.
EPT
