|
|
On October 15 2012 17:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 05:36 xDaunt wrote:On October 15 2012 05:31 Infundibulum wrote:
If you think Mitt "Russia is America's number one geopolitical foe" Romney will be good for American foreign policy you have another thing coming (and that thing is probably yet another war). So who is our number one geopolitical foe? It isn't China (yet). You can't count Al Qaeda or terrorists because they're not a nation. That doesn't leave much left. Iran? North Korea? Syria? Etc etc etc etc. Putin sucks but he is everything but a threat to America and there are much more harmful countries in economical ang geopolitical terms, such as China, much more threatening in terms of geopolitical agenda, such as Iran, much worse in terms if human rights or whatever principles, such as North Korea. But well, Mitt believes everything was better before, so i guess the kremelin is a good target for cold war nostalgics.
I was always fond of the expression "Speak softly and carry a big stick". That seems to be what Obama's doing (and swinging his bat made of drones left and right at people deemed terrorists). Romney seems to talk loud and brandish his stick, problem as I see it is, the stick is on loan, and if people decide to take it back he might be in trouble.
This is a very interesting thread, I am going to visit the US for 6 weeks come next april and I'd love to meet almost all of you for a beer when I travel. However, to me, it seems that both candidates are garbage (for different reasons but still garbage), maybe Obama less so for the rest of the world.
Then again it's probably hard for anyone to preside over such a diversified country, but it really feels like the republicans were scraping the bottom of the barrels at the primaries (Michelle Bachmann wtffffffffffffffff) and Obama has really been hampered by his lack of savvy in regards to breaking an extremely hostile congress.
|
On October 15 2012 20:28 Reivax wrote:Obama has really been hampered by his lack of savvy in regards to breaking an extremely hostile congress.
I guess that's exactly how most people see it. He is nice and honest guy in a very tough spot. Republicans are just a bunch of barefaced liars.
|
Yesterday, I made a post about Romney's healthcare lies possibly killing people.
Today, Paul Krugman has written an op-ed about Romney's healthcare policies possibly killing people.
I guess, as the cliche goes, great minds think alike.
|
On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first.
WTF.
You know like 95% or probably higher of climate scientist believe in global warming?
It's not like 50%.
|
On October 15 2012 21:41 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. WTF. You know like 95% or probably higher of climate scientist believe in global warming? It's not like 50%.
Truth there, what they cannot agree on is if we have a noticeable influence (we as in humanity) or if it is a part of natural cycles of our beautifull planet.
Personally I believe we do make an impact, but I also acknowledge that we are still living in a fairly cold period for our planet if you look at the geological history. The question is what we should do, and there no one can agree on anything, even among scientists.
|
On October 15 2012 05:11 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 15 2012 04:27 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 15 2012 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 16:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 02:55 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 02:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 02:14 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 02:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
If I'm not mistaken the graph you previously posted shows employment since the start of presidential terms - not since the start of the recessions / recoveries. So it isn't apples to apples. There was a recession at the start of both the Bush and Obama term. Or should I just replace the word "recession" with "presidency" in my above post? No, the latest recession didn't start when Obama took office. According to the NBER the economy peaked in Dec. of '07 and if you look at BLS data employment started to tank in Feb. of '08. Conversely the NBER says that the economy peaked in Mar. of '01 for Bush and employment started to tank at that time too. So, there's about a 1 year timing issue just using presidential terms. He didn't say the recession started when Obama took office, he said there was a recession when he took office. Yes, but there wasn't a recession when Bush first took office. When Bush first took office the economy was at its peak. When Obama took office the economy was far closer to its bottom than its peak. So it isn't apples to apples. When you show a graph of employment by term you show the entire downturn in the '01 recession but you do not show the entire downturn of the latest recession. Can you stop nitpicking minor details that will change nothing? You can't change the fact that there is a upward trend under Bush and a downward trend under Obama for public sector employment to anything else by fudging with the dates. In fact, looking at the start of the recession isn't even useful, because the recession started before Obama, so you can't blame Obama for what happened then. But I've done it anyway, and as I've said above, it can't possibly change anything. The conclusion is the same, public sector employment fell under Obama and rose under Bush, whereas private sector employment recovered stronger under Obama. Data is from FRED as always. You can't blame either Bush or Obama for either recession occurring. Presidents simply do not control economies to that extent. What you can be critical of a president over is how well they get the economy back on its feet. Bush was criticized at the time for job growth being sluggish - it was called a "jobless recovery". Job growth under Obama is even worse - so he should be criticized as well. Does separating private from public employment change that fact? Nope. You don't think Bush deserves any blame? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=0Trillions in war and tax cuts probably had something to do with it. Blame for the recession? Very little. The wars and tax cuts really had little to do with why the recession and financial crisis happened (overbuilding of houses, high commodity prices and mortgage fraud). Obama is still blaming Bush for the economy even though he himself said that if he doesn't turn things around it is going to be a one term Presidency. He refuses to take responsibility for his own reckless spending, the stimulus NOT doing enough and his incompetence especially showed in his debate with Romney.
People who accuse Obama of reckless spending need to answer questions of the following sort: Given that Obama inherited a $11.9 trillion debt in 2009, which is projected to be $16.4 trillion in 2012, what reckless spending did Obama embark on to increase the debt by $4.5 trillion over his term?
The stimulus? That's only $0.8 trillion, which is only 18% of that increase. Where did the other 82% of the increase come from?
Obamacare? The CBO says that will reduce, not increase the deficit, but even if you don't believe that, Obamacare doesn't come into effect until 2014, so it can't possibly be responsible for any of the increase.
So where's the increase in the debt coming from? What's Obama recklessly spending all that money on?
Maybe, just maybe, Obama didn't recklessly increase spending, and the increase in the debt mainly comes from the GFC and past policies such as the Bush tax cuts.
|
On October 15 2012 21:45 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 21:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. WTF. You know like 95% or probably higher of climate scientist believe in global warming? It's not like 50%. Truth there, what they cannot agree on is if we have a noticeable influence (we as in humanity) or if it is a part of natural cycles of our beautifull planet. Personally I believe we do make an impact, but I also acknowledge that we are still living in a fairly cold period for our planet if you look at the geological history. The question is what we should do, and there no one can agree on anything, even among scientists.
No.
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Maybe you don't believe that humans are causing climate change. But to claim that scientists don't believe it either is wrong.
|
On October 14 2012 22:51 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 21:22 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 19:57 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 16:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 03:13 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 02:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 14 2012 01:01 kmillz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +New RNC Ad highlights how ridiculous Joe Biden's laughter was..it gave me a good laugh even though I don't find the current administrations actions very funny. I think this is going to be a really effective add. watching the debate, I didn't even realize that it was that bad; it's pretty clear that either 1) Biden is laughing at everything incredulously so as to create the image of Ryan being too ridiculous even to argue with, or 2) he seriously thinks all that stuff is funny. I'm gonna channel Paul Ryan here real quick: "The problem, Mr. Vice-President, is that the American people don't find lackluster job growth and dishonesty to be all that funny." I agree, I think people will be very shocked at how hilarious all of this seems to Biden. On October 14 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:
He's laughing at Ryan and his lies, not laughing at the issues.
I also don't recall you complaining about his laughing during the debate. Because Biden only tells the truth? "We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya. BULL SHIT. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/11/fact-checking-vice-presidential-debate-between-joe/http://factcheck.org/2012/10/veep-debate-violations/When we were accusing Romney and Ryan of lying in the debates, you guys didn't seem to want to talk about the truth back then, only the optics. Oh, so you suddenly want to talk about the truth now? Before the debates, I haven't seen team Republican in this thread arguing that Romney won't give tax cuts to rich people or that Romney is going to cover preexisting conditions. Since then, I've seen some of you guys parroting these new campaign lies as if they always were. For example, the latter is disgraceful. Romney's plan doesn't cover preexisting conditions. It's only if you have continuous coverage, which is the same as the law before Obamacare, it's not what is meant and understood by "covering preexisting conditions", the way Obamacare does. So people could die and be denied medical treatment, if they voted for Romney believing his plan covers preexisting conditions. People could die because of this Romney lie. That's how shameful and shocking this lie is. Do you honestly and seriously believe that Biden is laughing at the issues as that ad alleges? Also, there's no evidence that requests for extra security at the Libyan embassy made it to Biden's or Obama's desk. Is it even standard protocol that the president needs to approve requests for extra embassy security? There doesn't need to be evidence that the extra security at the Libyan embassy made it to Biden's or Obama's desk. If it isn't standard protocol for the president needing to approve those requests, why would he even say "we never knew about that"? That sounds like a pretty irrelevant thing to say if it isn't standard protocol. "We didn't know about those things that don't come to the execute desk." No fucking shit? Your administration still knows asshole. "It's possible that Biden and Obama were unaware of that request. Still, it was made in the State Department, which is part of the Obama administration. Even if it didn't make its way up through the bureaucracy, a request was made." Biden said: "We weren't told they wanted more security there." The state department was told, as documented in the recent hearing. But there's nothing to suggest Biden and Obama were told, or that it is normal procedure that they should be told. Why didn't he say "Our State Department officials were told, but it never reached us"? Why didn't he say "that kind of information doesn't reach the President or myself normally"? Simply saying "we didn't know" is the most dishonest and disgusting answer for a failed foreign policy.
On October 15 2012 00:07 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 23:32 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 22:51 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 21:22 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 19:57 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 16:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 03:13 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 02:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 14 2012 01:01 kmillz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +New RNC Ad highlights how ridiculous Joe Biden's laughter was..it gave me a good laugh even though I don't find the current administrations actions very funny. I think this is going to be a really effective add. watching the debate, I didn't even realize that it was that bad; it's pretty clear that either 1) Biden is laughing at everything incredulously so as to create the image of Ryan being too ridiculous even to argue with, or 2) he seriously thinks all that stuff is funny. I'm gonna channel Paul Ryan here real quick: "The problem, Mr. Vice-President, is that the American people don't find lackluster job growth and dishonesty to be all that funny." I agree, I think people will be very shocked at how hilarious all of this seems to Biden. On October 14 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:
He's laughing at Ryan and his lies, not laughing at the issues.
I also don't recall you complaining about his laughing during the debate. Because Biden only tells the truth? "We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya. BULL SHIT. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/11/fact-checking-vice-presidential-debate-between-joe/http://factcheck.org/2012/10/veep-debate-violations/When we were accusing Romney and Ryan of lying in the debates, you guys didn't seem to want to talk about the truth back then, only the optics. Oh, so you suddenly want to talk about the truth now? Before the debates, I haven't seen team Republican in this thread arguing that Romney won't give tax cuts to rich people or that Romney is going to cover preexisting conditions. Since then, I've seen some of you guys parroting these new campaign lies as if they always were. For example, the latter is disgraceful. Romney's plan doesn't cover preexisting conditions. It's only if you have continuous coverage, which is the same as the law before Obamacare, it's not what is meant and understood by "covering preexisting conditions", the way Obamacare does. So people could die and be denied medical treatment, if they voted for Romney believing his plan covers preexisting conditions. People could die because of this Romney lie. That's how shameful and shocking this lie is. Do you honestly and seriously believe that Biden is laughing at the issues as that ad alleges? Also, there's no evidence that requests for extra security at the Libyan embassy made it to Biden's or Obama's desk. Is it even standard protocol that the president needs to approve requests for extra embassy security? There doesn't need to be evidence that the extra security at the Libyan embassy made it to Biden's or Obama's desk. If it isn't standard protocol for the president needing to approve those requests, why would he even say "we never knew about that"? That sounds like a pretty irrelevant thing to say if it isn't standard protocol. "We didn't know about those things that don't come to the execute desk." No fucking shit? Your administration still knows asshole. "It's possible that Biden and Obama were unaware of that request. Still, it was made in the State Department, which is part of the Obama administration. Even if it didn't make its way up through the bureaucracy, a request was made." Biden said: "We weren't told they wanted more security there." The state department was told, as documented in the recent hearing. But there's nothing to suggest Biden and Obama were told, or that it is normal procedure that they should be told. Why didn't he say "Our State Department officials were told, but it never reached us"? Why didn't he say "that kind of information doesn't reach the President or myself normally"? Simply saying "we didn't know" is the most dishonest and disgusting answer for a failed foreign policy. First of all, you don't even know if requests were made specifically about the Bengazi facility (it's very possible, but nobody so far in this thread seems to have posted evidence that this was the case). From the politifact article: "the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site". Second, Republicans are directly blaming Obama and Biden for decisions made by low-level Department of State employees who probably would be doing the exact same job if McCain and Sarah Palin were in office. I therefore find it perfectly normal for Biden to reply in the name of the White House, which the Republicans are blaming for the requests being denied. Finally, regarding what you call "a failed foreign policy", you have simply no idea what you're talking about. I call a foreign policy that involves covering up terrorist attacks by blaming it on an anti-islamic video a failed one Show nested quote +Sept. 11: Despite anti-video demonstrations in Cairo, Benghazi is tranquil. According to U.S. diplomats, “everything is calm. There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside. No protests all day.”
At 9:40 p.m. local time, however, gunfire and explosions rock the consulate.
Sept. 12: As these homicides become clear, Obama says, “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence. None.” Obama then skips his daily intelligence briefing and jets to a Las Vegas fundraiser.
Sept. 13: “The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declares. “We absolutely reject its content and message.”
Sept. 14: “The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive,” White House press secretary Jay Carney announces.
That day, as the murdered Americans’ remains reach Andrews Air Force Base, Clinton says: “We have seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”
Sept. 16: United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice calls the violence “a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.”
Sept. 18: Obama tells comedian David Letterman that he rejects the “extremely offensive video directed at Muhammad and Islam.” Obama adds that “extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.”
Sept. 19: Team Obama abruptly changes tunes. National Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen informs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, “I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.”
Why would Team Obama essentially accuse a video of these murders, even as Lt. Col. Andrew Wood — leader of a 16-man, dedicated military unit withdrawn from Libya in August — called the hit “instantly recognizable” as terrorism? http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/burlington_county_times_news/opinion/guest/about-benghazi-obama-lied/article_cc4c3c85-21f9-52d4-aec2-0ea2f8b95a9a.html
There is no evidence of wrongdoing or lying from Obama in either case.
There is no evidence to contradict the claim that Obama wasn't told about requests for extra security or that he was told that the attack was not caused by the film.
I admit that it looks sus, but there's no evidence.
|
On October 15 2012 20:39 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 20:28 Reivax wrote:Obama has really been hampered by his lack of savvy in regards to breaking an extremely hostile congress. I guess that's exactly how most people see it. He is nice and honest guy in a very tough spot. Republicans are just a bunch of barefaced liars.
Not to be a dick, but what did he get accomplisehd besides Obamacare in his first 2 years in office when both houses of Congress were controlled by democrats?
|
On October 15 2012 21:41 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. WTF. You know like 95% or probably higher of climate scientist believe in global warming? It's not like 50%.
Not trying to turn this into a global warming debate but it sounds pretty silly to say that 95% of scientists believe in global warming. Science should be about proof.
|
On October 15 2012 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 16:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 02:55 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 02:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 02:14 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 02:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 01:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 00:46 coverpunch wrote:On October 13 2012 17:55 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
What's amazing?
That government employment ever since 1950 has never decreased with only 2 exceptions: the 80s recession and under Obama (spikes due to census hiring are ignored).
The private sector is recovering strongly, stronger than under Bush in the 2000 recession, whereas government employment is falling due to state and local government austerity. Wait a second. You need to clarify a couple points in this post. For one, government employment has only decreased in two instances, but that's not by choice. Obama didn't say "I'm making sacrifices of public jobs for the greater good", just like Reagan didn't say that. Government employment decreased by necessity because tax revenues have dried up so much that the government has no choice but to trim jobs to salvage the budget. It's not a praiseworthy event, it's a measure of just how bad the recession was and how slow the recovery has been that tax revenue has not returned to pre-crisis levels. And on that note, by what measure has the private sector recovered more strongly than Bush in the 2001 recession? Because the government should be measuring it by tax revenue, since the rest of the presidential discussion is moot unless it can get the taxes to pay for any of it. On the first point, yes. There wasn't enough stimulus money given to state and local governments to retain public sector workers. But look at the other recessions (grey shaded areas). Every other recession, except the 80's one, didn't see a fall in public sector employment. On the second point, the measure is employment. See previous post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=781#15613 If I'm not mistaken the graph you previously posted shows employment since the start of presidential terms - not since the start of the recessions / recoveries. So it isn't apples to apples. There was a recession at the start of both the Bush and Obama term. Or should I just replace the word "recession" with "presidency" in my above post? No, the latest recession didn't start when Obama took office. According to the NBER the economy peaked in Dec. of '07 and if you look at BLS data employment started to tank in Feb. of '08. Conversely the NBER says that the economy peaked in Mar. of '01 for Bush and employment started to tank at that time too. So, there's about a 1 year timing issue just using presidential terms. He didn't say the recession started when Obama took office, he said there was a recession when he took office. Yes, but there wasn't a recession when Bush first took office. When Bush first took office the economy was at its peak. When Obama took office the economy was far closer to its bottom than its peak. So it isn't apples to apples. When you show a graph of employment by term you show the entire downturn in the '01 recession but you do not show the entire downturn of the latest recession. Can you stop nitpicking minor details that will change nothing? You can't change the fact that there is a upward trend under Bush and a downward trend under Obama for public sector employment to anything else by fudging with the dates. In fact, looking at the start of the recession isn't even useful, because the recession started before Obama, so you can't blame Obama for what happened then. But I've done it anyway, and as I've said above, it can't possibly change anything. The conclusion is the same, public sector employment fell under Obama and rose under Bush, whereas private sector employment recovered stronger under Obama. Data is from FRED as always. You can't blame either Bush or Obama for either recession occurring. Presidents simply do not control economies to that extent. What you can be critical of a president over is how well they get the economy back on its feet. Bush was criticized at the time for job growth being sluggish - it was called a "jobless recovery". Job growth under Obama is even worse - so he should be criticized as well. Does separating private from public employment change that fact? Nope.
Except it's not worse if you look at the private sector. It's a lot better.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x8qba.png)
Yes, it's worthwhile separating private from public, because private is mostly entirely driven by the state of the economy. Public is determined by constraints such as state governments being required to run balanced budgets and not enough stimulus aid or revenue.
So private employment is a reflection of the state of the economy, public employment is a reflection of government budget constraints.
|
On October 15 2012 22:11 Poltergeist- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 21:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. WTF. You know like 95% or probably higher of climate scientist believe in global warming? It's not like 50%. Not trying to turn this into a global warming debate but it sounds pretty silly to say that 95% of scientists believe in global warming. Science should be about proof.
95% (or whatever the exact number is) of climate scientists, you know, the people who are most qualified and have the technical skills required to judge climate science, have looked at the evidence and determined that human made climate change is real.
|
On October 15 2012 22:19 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 22:11 Poltergeist- wrote:On October 15 2012 21:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. WTF. You know like 95% or probably higher of climate scientist believe in global warming? It's not like 50%. Not trying to turn this into a global warming debate but it sounds pretty silly to say that 95% of scientists believe in global warming. Science should be about proof. 95% (or whatever the exact number is) of climate scientists, you know, the people who are most qualified and have the technical skills required to judge climate science, have looked at the evidence and determined that human made climate change is real.
Back in the day 95% of smart people thought the earth was flat. Obviously I'm exaggerating a bit here but just saying that until it's proven, I will be skeptical. On the other hand, there isn't any reason why we as humans can't do our part and keep earth clean.
|
On October 15 2012 21:41 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Center and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. WTF. You know like 95% or probably higher of climate scientist believe in global warming? It's not like 50%.
try 99.9%
On October 15 2012 22:24 Poltergeist- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 22:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 22:11 Poltergeist- wrote:On October 15 2012 21:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. WTF. You know like 95% or probably higher of climate scientist believe in global warming? It's not like 50%. Not trying to turn this into a global warming debate but it sounds pretty silly to say that 95% of scientists believe in global warming. Science should be about proof. 95% (or whatever the exact number is) of climate scientists, you know, the people who are most qualified and have the technical skills required to judge climate science, have looked at the evidence and determined that human made climate change is real. Back in the day 95% of smart people thought the earth was flat. Obviously I'm exaggerating a bit here but just saying that until it's proven, I will be skeptical. On the other hand, there isn't any reason why we as humans can't do our part and keep earth clean.
urban legend. we've known the earth was round for over 2000 years. the people demanding the earth be at the centre were the religious leaders.
On October 15 2012 22:11 Poltergeist- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 21:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. WTF. You know like 95% or probably higher of climate scientist believe in global warming? It's not like 50%. Not trying to turn this into a global warming debate but it sounds pretty silly to say that 95% of scientists believe in global warming. Science should be about proof.
everyone who has completed a study that has held up to peer review, and every peer who has done the reviewing agree that the probability of the climate not changing is very small, the probability of long term global increases in temperature is overwhelming.
there, that better?
On October 15 2012 21:45 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 21:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. WTF. You know like 95% or probably higher of climate scientist believe in global warming? It's not like 50%. Truth there, what they cannot agree on is if we have a noticeable influence (we as in humanity) or if it is a part of natural cycles of our beautifull planet. Personally I believe we do make an impact, but I also acknowledge that we are still living in a fairly cold period for our planet if you look at the geological history. The question is what we should do, and there no one can agree on anything, even among scientists.
this is another mistruth. we know exactly why planets get hotter, and you can just look out your window at any car and see it produces those gases. that is not up for debate. even if you want to try and push the idea that its not entirely our fault, a part us, part nature, theory which would take some serious hard work to prove, its an irrelevent point. the planet is getting hotter, this puts millions if not billions of lives at risk - a blame game wont fix that. the rights insistence on finding someone to blame first is just another smokescreen from the real issue, people are already dying because of global weather change who cares why? we should be working on the how to fix it problem.
|
|
|
On October 15 2012 04:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 17:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 05:16 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On October 14 2012 05:06 sam!zdat wrote:
Can we give up this idea that there is a meaningful correlation between who's president and the "state of the economy" (expressed, of course, as a one-dimensional value)? There have been 21 major recession in the US. The first 18 happened in the first 150 years, and all of them ended in under 4 years from their peaks without any government help. When the stock market crashed in the 20's, unemployment spiked to 9.8%, and then 6 months later, it was down to 6%. Then the government passed a 20% tariff on all imports, and unemployed shot up to double digits, and didn't leave for the next decade. Then we had the Reagan recession, in which unemployment went back to relatively normal levels 4 years after its peak. So we have 19 recessions that all had unemployment coming down from its peak in 4 or less years, often with double digit unemployment. We have a 20th where unemployment came down in 6 months, and then skyrocketed when the government decided to do something. And now we have today's unemployment. Given the history of recessions in this country, who do you think is to blame, and what "should" the unemployment rate be? The answer is Bush, and every single republican and democrat that voted with him, and Obama, and every republican and democrat that voted with him. Also note that presidents and other politicians aren't really empowered enough to create unemployment, but they can extended by about 15-20 years if you look at FDR. (not that any of this is directed at you, just yours seems to be the latest post on this subject). Recession caused by financial crisses are different: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=717#14332And the Great Depression was getting better until FDR pivoted to austerity in 1937, which turned a recovering economy into a double-dip recession. It was ended by the biggest fiscal stimulus ever -- WW2. Last I checked, that's exactly Romney wants going to do. If I'm not mistaken both Obama and Romney want to cut the deficit. WW2 is the best example of the folly of fiscal stimulus that I can think of.
But Obama wants to increase spending in the short term. For example his Jobs Act will create 1.9 to 2.6 million jobs, reports linked here: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/07/812251/republicans-blocked-jobs-act-one-year/
And I take his talk about increasing investments in education, manufacturing, research, or whatever, as stimulus, without using that dirty word, of course.
In contrast, Romney supports a balanced budget amendment. But, I wish him good luck balancing the budget with his massive increase to defense spending and a $5 tax cut.
|
On October 15 2012 22:24 Poltergeist- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 22:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 22:11 Poltergeist- wrote:On October 15 2012 21:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. WTF. You know like 95% or probably higher of climate scientist believe in global warming? It's not like 50%. Not trying to turn this into a global warming debate but it sounds pretty silly to say that 95% of scientists believe in global warming. Science should be about proof. 95% (or whatever the exact number is) of climate scientists, you know, the people who are most qualified and have the technical skills required to judge climate science, have looked at the evidence and determined that human made climate change is real. Back in the day 95% of smart people thought the earth was flat. Obviously I'm exaggerating a bit here but just saying that until it's proven, I will be skeptical. On the other hand, there isn't any reason why we as humans can't do our part and keep earth clean.
By that logic there's no reason to believe in evolution, modern medicine, or even that the earth revolves around the Sun.
|
On October 15 2012 22:26 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 21:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. WTF. You know like 95% or probably higher of climate scientist believe in global warming? It's not like 50%. try 99.9% Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 22:24 Poltergeist- wrote:On October 15 2012 22:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 22:11 Poltergeist- wrote:On October 15 2012 21:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. WTF. You know like 95% or probably higher of climate scientist believe in global warming? It's not like 50%. Not trying to turn this into a global warming debate but it sounds pretty silly to say that 95% of scientists believe in global warming. Science should be about proof. 95% (or whatever the exact number is) of climate scientists, you know, the people who are most qualified and have the technical skills required to judge climate science, have looked at the evidence and determined that human made climate change is real. Back in the day 95% of smart people thought the earth was flat. Obviously I'm exaggerating a bit here but just saying that until it's proven, I will be skeptical. On the other hand, there isn't any reason why we as humans can't do our part and keep earth clean. urban legend. we've known the earth was round for over 2000 years. the people demanding the earth be at the centre were the religious leaders. Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 22:11 Poltergeist- wrote:On October 15 2012 21:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. WTF. You know like 95% or probably higher of climate scientist believe in global warming? It's not like 50%. Not trying to turn this into a global warming debate but it sounds pretty silly to say that 95% of scientists believe in global warming. Science should be about proof. everyone who has completed a study that has held up to peer review, and every peer who has done the reviewing agree that the probability of the climate not changing is very small, the probability of long term global increases in temperature is overwhelming. there, that better?
Well, I dunno where you get that information from but that isn't really important in this case. I guess the issue I have is the scientists claiming that we as humans are causing this global warming. As far as I know, there isn't any solid evidence saying that we are causing it.
When I read the comments before me again, I see that it wasn't stated that the 95% of scientists that agree on global warming also agree on the cause(s).
|
Whatever you guys do, PLEASE watch the debates, and be sure to fact-check them.
I missed the first Presidential debate and just finished watching / reading the transcript from the VP debate last night.
From what I heard, Obama got demolished at the first Presidential debate. In my opinion, Biden started the VP debate very strong, but didn't keep pace and ended up falling behind after the first 30 minutes or so. Ryan won that debate, but by a closer margin than Romney allegedly won the first Presidential debate. While I believe he won through actual debate, others might say it was from Biden looking childish by laughing and cutting Ryan off with mockery literally somewhere between 80 and 90 times instead of offering an actual argument.
Fun Fact: Despite VP Biden painting the Romney/Ryan ticket in a negative light with regards to abortion (which is a non issue anyway, no politician will ever actually act on it - it's political suicide), Biden voted to overturn Roe v. Wade when he served as a Senator.
|
On October 15 2012 22:39 Poltergeist- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 22:26 turdburgler wrote:On October 15 2012 21:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. WTF. You know like 95% or probably higher of climate scientist believe in global warming? It's not like 50%. try 99.9% On October 15 2012 22:24 Poltergeist- wrote:On October 15 2012 22:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 22:11 Poltergeist- wrote:On October 15 2012 21:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. WTF. You know like 95% or probably higher of climate scientist believe in global warming? It's not like 50%. Not trying to turn this into a global warming debate but it sounds pretty silly to say that 95% of scientists believe in global warming. Science should be about proof. 95% (or whatever the exact number is) of climate scientists, you know, the people who are most qualified and have the technical skills required to judge climate science, have looked at the evidence and determined that human made climate change is real. Back in the day 95% of smart people thought the earth was flat. Obviously I'm exaggerating a bit here but just saying that until it's proven, I will be skeptical. On the other hand, there isn't any reason why we as humans can't do our part and keep earth clean. urban legend. we've known the earth was round for over 2000 years. the people demanding the earth be at the centre were the religious leaders. On October 15 2012 22:11 Poltergeist- wrote:On October 15 2012 21:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. WTF. You know like 95% or probably higher of climate scientist believe in global warming? It's not like 50%. Not trying to turn this into a global warming debate but it sounds pretty silly to say that 95% of scientists believe in global warming. Science should be about proof. everyone who has completed a study that has held up to peer review, and every peer who has done the reviewing agree that the probability of the climate not changing is very small, the probability of long term global increases in temperature is overwhelming. there, that better? Well, I dunno where you get that information from but that isn't really important in this case. I guess the issue I have is the scientists claiming that we as humans are causing this global warming. As far as I know, there isn't any solid evidence saying that we are causing it. When I read the comments before me again, I see that it wasn't stated that the 95% of scientists that agree on global warming also agree on the cause(s).
we know, for a fact, that methane, carbon dioxide, etc etc cause global warming, and we know that industrialized processes release these gases. we cause global warming. its as simple as that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
