It is 33 degrees as I write, 10:45 am, in sunny northern California. Have been wishing for global warming as I watch my tropical plant freeze.
Why have we not heard about this story?
Did you say," It's not politically correct"?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2 … d/3950019/
No, it is not politically correct and frankly, there is no money in believing that global warming is cyclical and natural.
Are you being a wet blanket Pop? We sure could use a wet blanket here, this is the 3 winter we haven't had any rain and nobody is saying a word about the "D" word. Curious how our media works.
My regards to Manny, oh yeah he's in S. Africa with the king.
"Antarctica records unofficial coldest temperature ever." Well now, you know that has to be caused by man. Didn't you know manmade global warming is a scientific fact so anything that occurs on planet earth is a result of manmade global warming. I mean how stupid can a person be to deny the "concensus" of the scientific community. The whole world's temperature could drop by 5 degrees over night and that would have to be a result of manmade global warming because scientists have determined that humans are causing global warming so any evidence to the contrary has to be proof of their conclusion whether it is or isn't in reality.
That is the reasoning you will find by the manmade global warming crowd. Time will tell, and is telling us as it passes that this "crowd" is nothing but a crowd of buffoons. Lunatics with agendas that have nothing to do with science, never did and never will. 50 years from now when the earth temperature hasn't changed an iota these chicken littles of the 21st century will still be screaming "the sky is falling" and it's the evil industrial capitalists causing it.
I can't stop laughing. You are wonderful Tsadjako.
(TT - the feeling is mutual) but
Oh oh, be careful 'bout heaping praise upon Tsadjako. You'll invoke the wrath of lunatics. Get ready they are on their way. 10...9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2...1...? Whoops, where are they? Oh well my timing might be off but mark my words, they are on their way here.
My forensic scientist son found it interesting that the term for the cooling of the body after death is algor mortis. We can't get away from that nut job even if we die.
The whole global warming religion reminds me of dooms day cults. Perhaps we should stop the sale of grape kool-aid until all this nonsense settles down.
The constant onslaught will last for years for three main reasons.
1 Its a way of controlling the people
2 Its a way of increasing government funds
3 Global warming scientists get paid by the government
In before retief2000 claims that YouTube videos are not evidence (despite the fact that videos can be very, very damning evidence) and/or are leftist propaganda.
As serious a consideration as the idea of global warming deserves.
Did you know that if you would just use LED lighting in your home you could probably save saber tooth cats in the future?
All saber tooth cats? Not just the vegan one?
You could also give my wife a reason to spend and extra 300 bucks!
I wonder how much pollution and green house gases it takes to make an LED bulb? I wonder how much real pollution all these global warming sillies cause with the mining and refining of lithium for batteries. Talk about a real danger, that stuff is a deadly heavy metal. There is some real science that enviro-mentals ignore. But its all good unless you are an endangered eagle getting chewed up by a worthless and polluting windmill. Where ever living things get in the way of lefties there is death.
It's pretty sad that in this day and age there are so many people that deny global warming. Global warming isn't a theory. It's a fact. That's why the ice caps are melting - fact, not theory. The only thing left to dispute is whether or not it's caused by men - and basically every credible scientist out there not only will tell you global warming obviously exists, there's substantial evidence to suggest it's man-made.
Extreme conservatives really boggle my mind. I guess they've been rejecting science for thousands of years, so this is nothing new...
(And to those confused about some "cooling" temperatures, that just demonstrates a lack of understanding about what's going on. The better term is "climate change". It is still global warming, but it affects the weather in various ways)
True statement...IF you define "credible" as anyone agreeing with you.
True statement? - she wouldn't know the truth if it bit her in the... http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor … ng-crisis/
For those who are too lazy to read the link or just want to keep their head in the sand here is an excerpt:
"Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims."
"Credible"? obviously aliasis doesn't know the meaning of the word or anything about which she is spouting including her absurd statement about conservatives. The only thing extreme here is her lack of intellect.
Ah, but the 64% that do not think it is man made are not credible, by definition. Her definition.
True, nature is THE cause of change. Active volcanoes spew out more harmful gasses and ashes than many of the most polluting industries put together.
What's pretty sad is people who spout stuff they hear only because they agree with it and really don't know what they are talking about. Global warming has occurred cyclically throughout history as has global cooling and that is the only fact - there is no conclusive evidence that anything man does can cause global warming and if you believe man made global warming is a fact you are simply putting on display your ignorance of the subject but what's worse is other uninformed people may believe the tripe you spread around.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar … g-is-here/
Life was once more widely spread and far more diverse than now. Why, you may ask, because the world was much warmer and much wetter than today. As for Global Warming, I can't think of anything that would be better for biodiversity and humanity than a warmer world.
Climate change does exist; as so cyclical changes in climate. The question is, “how much of human activity is contributing to/accelerating this change?” To devolve this discussion into politics is counterproductive and an argument one side uses against the other. My father was a brilliant environmental scientist and research biologist (also a Republican). I recall his discussions with his colleagues about climate change very well. When listening, I had the same reaction that certain commenters do, here. They sounded like alarmists out of the Twilight Zone. I was only 14 at the time. Since then, I have witnessed what these scientists were predicting decades ago now coming true. One thing Dad said that haunts me today. “They won't do anything about it until it’s too late.”
When the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that the way to control global warming is by income redistribution, we should all realize that it's just a massive scam.
But the system that you so love is already predicated on income redistribution - upwards.
Not on income redistribution but the free flow of income and property. Property flows into the hands of those who have something worth buying and out of the hands of those who see that worth. Bill Gates builds a house and millions of dollars move around. Bill Gates doesn't build a house but leaves the money invested in the stock market and millions of dollars move around. If th.e government takes Bill Gates money and use those dollars for its aims millions of dollars move but how they move now becomes the question.
When dollars flow from the hands that own them and without compulsion from the state, they will move in the direction their owner intends. Dollars used by their owner are more efficiently employed than when employed by those who do not own them. The least efficient use is by those who can take what ever they want and buyr what ever they choose - this is government
And how many $billions have moved out of the hands of those that earned them into Bill Gates hands?
You know I wrote an answer to your absurd statement John, but I deleted it because in doing so I realized nothing can be said to correct thinking like yours and it would be a waste of time and effort to try. Any discussion with you is nothing more than an exercise in
As many billions as people voluntarily traded Bill for the things he owned but was willing to trade for $$.
Completely, totally, voluntarily through Bill Gates hands and right back out to build a house, fly his jet to Africa and into his foundation and into the multitudinous investments that finance any number of other purchases, expansions, job creations, consumer loans, home loans, capital improvement loans, and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on....
Bill Gates is not the final owner or user of the capital that flows through his hands but you can bet he is still a far more efficient user that government.
that government - what?
Why does it have to be a choice between Gates and the government?
Do you believe that the people who make the money could not effectively spend it?
Actually, that makes sense.
Excessive income redistribution = falling standard of living = less energy used = less pollution = less global warming from CO2.
-Global warming is a fact. Ice caps are melting (that's kinda why, you know, sea levels are rising and polar bears are going extinct). Temperatures are warmer. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies reports that in recent decades it's gone up the fastest.
-NO major scientific body denies global warming. None of any national or international standing. I mean, as convincing as wilderness's and tsadjatko's ~science knowledge~ (lol) is, I trust NASA more. Oooh, wait, it's all a government conspiracy, right? To make us... be more environmentally responsible? So devious, Al Gore!
U.S. Global Change Research Program: "Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities."
-"Dispute" regarding global warming exists only in pop culture, not in the scientific community. The Republican party, non-scientists, invented global warming skepticism. Presumably to protect their god-given right to drive massive SUVs or whatever, because caring for the environment is such a horrible thing. Included among pop culture: Forbes business magazine (read: not a scientific publication). If you want to argue science, you may as well actually know who's on your side. Wikipedia has a list of opinions of climate change here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific … ate_change (hint... it's not in your favor)
...Dude. You have GOT to be trolling.
I mean precisely what I said. Give me global warming any day. Where is the greatest biodiversity in the world - warm and wet places - Brazil, Borneo, etc.... Where is the least? cold dry places, Antarctica, The Arctic, etc... What kind of climate is least conducive to human habitation - look at the population density of Nigeria compared to Norway. Warm is good, cold is bad. During the Medieval Warming, something your vaunted "climate change" computer models cannot account for, wine grapes and a broad range of food crops grew throughout Great Britain and Northern Europe.
When the Medieval Warming ended millions died from disease and starvation. The Black Death was symptomatic of that "climate change." You know the one that didn't take gasoline to occur.
I am very serious when I say, bring on the warming it will do great things for the world.
When governments stop taxing global warming and starts banning the so called things that are said to cause it I will be more inclined to believe what the global warming scientists are trying to sell to us.
In 1971 my science teacher told me that the rain forest was being depleted at the rate of the area of Wales (UK) every year. By his calculation that would mean the tree in my garden would be the only one left on the earth.
If the earth is being killed by humans isn't it time we started to think about population control?
Did that great teacher tell you how many trees I planted in the seventies?
Did she tell you that by 1980 deforestation was down by 80%
Did she tell you that with Global Warming -- whatever the cause, rain forests are more prolific?
And did this teacher tell you about my families 1000's of trees and that they will out live your one?
And did they really use the term "killing the earth"? Because I got some 2 billion year old rocks with fossils in them they might want to see.
Wow, did you just take a whole conversation about global warming and make it about you?
Well I have no idea how many trees you planted and neither does the teacher -- but I do know how many I planted. And I am pretty close in approximation on family property but I do not know about yours just like the teacher.
And I really have rocks that old, doubt you do or that the teacher does.
So it was not about me, but about what I know, unlike the "teacher" making such ludicrous comments not knowing what people do.
Now do you want to make comments which include in the equation knowing what I am doing when you have no idea?
This is what is so upsetting with that kind of speech. I think our PC speak global warming is a crock of crap. But I am and always have been an environmentalist whacko. Birkenstocks and bamboo anyone ;-)
I have a modest proposal for solving human caused global warming. Since those who subscribe to this paper thin notion are so passionate it should be incumbent upon them, most of all, to undertake actions to, at the least, mitigate its negative affects. As we are told, human activity, especially all those activities in technologically developed countries, causes global warming they should stop doing these things, immediately. Stop using any kind of electricity because they all generate green houses gases either directly as in the case of coal and petroleum or indirectly as in the manufacture of generating equipment like wind turbines and solar panels. They should immediately stop eating anything that either generates methane in its cultivation, harvest, processing, consumption or digestion. They should stop producing any kind of water vapor or carbon dioxide from all processes and actions in which they engage. They should make sure that they do no produce anymore human polluters. Most importantly of all, they should do this immediately and personally.
If all the subscribers to theories of human caused global warming were to do everything they could to not cause global warming, I believe the problem could be eliminated in less than a generation. This would mean that all global warming believers would have to stop using their computers, stoves, cars, lights, showers, lawnmowers, mass transit. They would have to give up every kind of eating that involved any kind of farming, organic, local, personal or otherwise. And finally, they would have to not have children and they, themselves, would have to stop breathing.
If so many people in the developed world so believe in global warming that they insist the rest of us should be forced to stop doing everything that causes global warming, I say YOU FIRST!
First big Political conference on the matter and Al Gore the sponsor showed up in a suburban.
A bunch of us hippie types showed up at a big confab at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon where new parks were designated. All the VIPs showed up in gas guzzling V8s. Of course we all took the train! And I am a right winger, go figure.
Are you suggesting heating and lighting your many mansions, with entourages idling in SUV s at the airport while you fly about the world in jets to make speeches about how others should sacrifice to resolve an issue that has not been substantiated beyond it's ability to produce an industry funded by force of taxation by folks struggling to get by, and from which you profit, is somehow the wrong approach? Next you'll be saying producing a carbon footprint annually that most couldn't hope to rival in a lifetime, while wagging your finger that others should pay more to use less and sacrifice for a dubious cause you only use as a vehicle for your personal success, is a bad thing. How dare you!
It is not I against whom you should rail, but rather, against the hypocrisy of the elitist and spoiled who believe everyone ELSE should be reduced to a state of privation. Funny how the global warming types rest in the comfort of a life manufactured and delivered through the power of OIL and ignore their own foolishness.
Tell the people who are making the most money from global warming to shut off their suburbans and change light bulbs. Its the common man making all the changes while Al Gore easily pays $35,000/ month electricity bills for his mansions and condos.
But then those who believe in man made global warming are already doing much to reduce their consumption so their demise would have little effect.
More effective if non-believers just cut back a bit.
It might be coincidence and then again it might not. Remember a few years ago and the holes in the ozone layer and how scientists thought that it was caused by CFCs and how they stopped using CFCs in aerosols and refrigerators, and remember how the holes repaired themselves? As I say, it might be coincidence, but it might not be. Do you think we should continue using CFCs until we are 100% positive, ie when there is no ozone layer left?
Do you mean the naturally and annually reoccurring hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
I remember reading a lefty theorist that proposed that the whole CFC theory was started because the major manufacturer of Freon was about to lose its patent protected monopoly. That should have caused some cognitive dissonance for the lefties but the power of the state was best advanced by the anti-CFC argument, so that one triumphed.
No, the ones directly related to human activity.
LOL That's a joke, right?
I do far more to eliminate my carbon footprint that the large majority of the warmists, and it happens purely naturally, without any intent to try.
An all electric home, in an area with large hydro plants.
The most efficient car in the US, up to a couple of years ago.
I drive less than 8,000 miles per year - tiny compared to most Americans
All energy efficient appliances
Energy efficient windows and doors
Haven't flown in decades, and then only when employer required it.
No job commute at all.
No, the vast majority of the global warming crowd have a long way to go to match my carbon footprint. Let them do that before I work on it at all.
But then we've argued this before, one exception does not prove the rule.
Or to put it in plain English, you may have a small carbon footprint (and good for you) but there are many who do not.
Oh, and BTW, I don't even have an energy efficient car.
Yes, I recognize that some are fortunate to depend on public transportation, but outside the large cities it's pretty limited in this section of the world.
And I do understand the single example thing, although I don't see it as much of an exception. What I mostly see is the warmers with truly massive footprints because they make their living from this farce and it requires much in the way of burning fossil fuels to do that.
I understand there are those that do not, and have no quibble with them. Just let the big voices telling us all to quit using energy while they burn 1,000 times as much, quit themselves. Then I'll consider lowering my own use.
Now you see John the governments did something about it, they didn't tax it (which is the latest trend) they banned it.
If they were really serious about it they wouldn't tax it or carbon trade their under subscription they would just ban the things that were causing the most problems.
Governments have spent $billions on climate research only to tax us all on the findings.
Switch off the Sun and Earth would become a very chilly place. It doesn't take a scientist to know that the sun is the major factor in the temperature of earth. I wonder why UN documents had to be leaked for us to know about a leaked report by a United Nations’ group dedicated to climate studies says that heat from the sun may play a larger role than previously thought.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/ … in-global/ and then there is this
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 … ternative/
Solution? Tax the sun? or Maybe we can ban it? Government is never the solution because any power you give it over our lives corrupts it.
Maryland, (my state), is already taxing the rain in 10 counties, (no link, but I do have a hub on this), so maybe we can set an example for the nation with a Sun tax too.
Yep, that is the "solution" the "progressives" are aiming for. They want you to believe that taxing virtually anything and everything here in the US will stem an imaginary man made global warming crisis, never mind that the rest of the whole world can make all the carbon dioxide they want. Anyone who buys into any "progressive policy" (ruse) is simply a dupe while the "progressives" are laughing all the way to the bank.
It is, of course, not a tax on rain, but on impervious surfaces. I'm not saying I support it; I don't know enough about it. I see that the anti-tax people have found a great way to frame it by calling it a "rain tax" knowing that a certain segment of the populace will not bother to find out what it really is. Nice of you to help them out by using the misleading term.
Yes, it is a tax on impervious surfaces, so is this just a battle of semantics?
Why are they taxing impervious surfaces - because they block rain water absorption and create run-off.
These surfaces also included house roofs and private driveways and the tax also included waivers/rebates/credits/reductions, (just covering the semantics issue), for the use of "rain barrels," (and other "rain" water catchment dispersion methods), to catch roof gutter downspout water, (rain), and private driveway designs that included graveled drainage segments, (like two paved wheel strips with a graveled center strip, or a graveled/grated separating segment at the down-flow end of the driveway),
It is a silly tax that is being unevenly applied, (only affects 10 Maryland counties, and some major industrial areas, like the port of Baltimore, received waivers) - so is it really so far-fetched to call it a rain tax?
Perhaps if you did know more about it you might not think the "rain" tax label was so misleading. Is it so different from calling a "carbon emissions" tax a tax on fossil fuels?
Is it a battle of semantics? You tell me. Why don't you just call it a tax on impervious surfaces, since that is what it is? No one is proposing to tax rain.
As far as the rest of your post, I knew all of that. When I say I don't know enough about it, I mean I don't know whether there is any evidence to show that such a tax will help solve the problem of surface runoff in Maryland. I don't believe selective taxation is usually the best solution to most problems.
Sadly, the pattern will repeat itself as it has for centuries. Progressive thinkers will eventually prevail over the naysayers, dragging them kicking and screaming into reality, but only after extensive damage has been done. Then 50 or 100 or 150 years later conservatives will claim they were on the forefront of the solutions for global climate change all along.
Wow, that is a position of strength? Sounds to me like you simply don't have the evidence so you have to point to a make believe future after you are dead... If you had the evidence to support your claims it would be believed - you don't have the evidence and as this thread has provided evidence that even the majority of scientists don't believe you, you have nothing to stand on...but lies. Are these the same progressives who are saying oh, Obamacare will be fine in 2017 - yeah right, anything to avoid exposing the current facts of a great debacle. Is former White House Communcation Director Annita Dunn one of those "progressive thinkers" who Praised Mao Tse Tung as Her Philisophical Idol ? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=86c_1255 … bebuLJk.99
I suppose since you go back centuries to praise "progressive thought" (mass murderer) Mao is one of the "progressive thinkers" that you worship?
Enjoy living in a world of feelings void of reason and fact because that is where you are living. You know nothing about global man made warming, the progressives history of failures and lies (their entire existence is based on lies) Progressive "thinkers" have never been "right" about anything and if you knew anything about the movement you'd know that. You just hate conservatives. In my past I have found that hatred is not rooted in anything they do so much as what they stand for which is absolutes, principles that cannot be thrown into the progressive's ideology of relativism and the end justifies the means.
A heart specialist tells you that you must have surgery or will die and presents evidence in the form of scientific data and analysis. Ten other specialists conduct their own tests and come to the same conclusion. One specialist conducts his/her own tests and says you are simply undergoing a natural growth process and no intervention is required. Will you have the surgery, or will you believe the one specialist and do nothing?
No, I didn't present any evidence here. It's out there and it is quite compelling. Obviously, you are siding with the small percentage of scientists who do not believe intervention is required.
Enjoy your inertia. The rest of us will take action and you will eventually forget that you were part of the problem instead of part of the solution.
There is nothing more convincing anyone can say to you that shows what you believe are lies than what has been shared in this thread for which you cannot provide any proof to the contrary. So the only logical conclusion is you haven't read anything offered in this thread or you are plain goofy. "It's out there? It's quite compelling?" Really? those are things people say when they don't have any credibility. A proponent of a cause should at least be able to articulate the facts...evidently you don't know what the facts are or have no interest in finding them out...that's fine if you are a wallflower but to voice an opinion that is totally uninformed is just
You have said nothing yet that would convince anybody that climate change wasn't happening.
Nobody ever said climate change isn't happening, can't you even stay on topic without spinning it and lying about what has already been said here? Really, do you even pay attention? Well we already know you don't even read the facts so thanks for confirming it for us again. What has been demonstrated in above comments is the fact that the vast majority of scientists don't believe in man made warming but that it is due to natural causes and she continues to assert that it is a view supported by science...it is not.
My, you are incredibly funny. You want me, a nonscientist, to "provide proof" of global climate change on an internet forum. Hilarious.
The science is out there. You know, facts and analysis by actual experts. A tiny minority of scientists do not believe global climate change is happening. You are choosing to believe them over the majority. Now, who is goofy?
Like I said, enjoy your inertia. Others will find and implement solutions while you carp and moan on the sidelines. We're getting used to it.
I wonder when science became a matter of miajority vote. Seems to me that most scientific theories are individual battles waged against the prevailing theory of the times. Perhaps we should ask Einstein how it felt to be the recipient of the majority vote. Even today his theories are routinely put to the test. What actual theory with experimental design or reliable predicted indicators accompany the THEORY of global warming. Climates always change, there is no static natural system. But global warming is the first scientific theory I have ever heard of being declared the winner because of a majority vote.
Again, hilarious. All one can do is examine the facts and draw reasonable inferences and act accordingly. I'm not an expert, so I'll defer to those who know what they're doing. Again, if 10 heart specialists say you will die without surgery and one says you will not, and you are not an expert yourself, would you choose the recommendation of the one over the 10 who agree on the facts?
You are right, you do not seem to grasp the science. The world is world is not dying and humanity will hardly parish from an increase in global temperature. Quite the opposite. The last time the globe was good and warm it teemed with life and lush greenery. A warm world is a better world. But you go ahead with your silly inertia, we know what to expect.
I have posed the question about the recommendation of 10 heart specialists versus the recommendation of. one to three different climate change deniers on these forums and have never received a response.
I wonder why?
By the way, of course we will not "parish" and probably won't "perish" either because some of us will move forward with solutions despite the dead weight of the deniers.
Prevent what? The vaunted scientific majority also say that there is little they can do to prevent the DOOM of global warming/climate change/comet gas/apocalypse/doomsday except drink this grape Koolade laced with cyanide. Enjoy your doomsday cult.
It has all the hallmarks of a doomsday cult.
Signs and portends -
Remember when Hurricane Katrina was the harbinger of doom and the cyclonic apocalypse awaited us all - more and more powerful storms are coming - the next year ZERO hurricanes made landfall, anywhere.
Remember just last year the drought was doom - the tornadoes, OMG TORNADOES!!!!! everything was coming apart - in 2012, 2013 has been one of the least spectacular years for weather except the record Antarctic COLD!
shifting predictions and rules -
Global Cooling - 1970s
Global Warming - 1990s
Catastrophic Weather Events - any time the weather got rough, hot, cold, windy, wet, dry, etc....
Global Climate Change - Now - now all the bases are cover, it gets hot = humanity's fault; gets cold = humanity's fault; no substantial change= humanity's fault.
So typical of a doomsday cult, so entertaining, if only you had some crazy man leading...oops Sorry Al Gore, I forgot you were standing there.
So science is cultish, now?
Still would like an answer to the question about whether you would follow the recommendation of 10 specialists who agree, or one who disagrees with the 10, if it's your own life at stake.
Deniers don't want to answer that. Odd.
No global warming cultists are hardly scientific. Of course there are cult like aspects to all belief systems, why should the pseudo-science of global warming be an exception.
Those who believe the majority of scientists are cultish? While deniers are the rational ones?
My poor little blond head is giggling hysterically at the big puffed up dinosaur, er, man.
Given that 8 of the 10 have falsified their data and the other two are selling surgical instruments, I would probably follow the 1. And you? Ignore the doctored data and pay double for the scalpels as you hire them?
Climate Change Scientist Cleared of U.S. Data Altering Inquiry
Climate Conspiracy 1: Scientists falsify data
A look back at our climate change fact checks
It is laughable how you all pretend to care so much about the facts when in reality you are being led around the nose by moneyed interests.
retief - she says "You want me, a nonscientist, to "provide proof" of global climate change on an internet forum." But then she wants us to believe she, a nonscientist understands anything about the debate ? That is really hilarious. How much ya want to bet she is a blonde?
Aw, dinosaurs are so cute. Sadly, they eventually become extinct.
I thought dinosaurs became extinct because of climate change, I don't remember if their were any humans burning fossil fuels in those days!
As for the answer to your question, 10 heart specialists told me there was something wrong, they would be able to explain eloquently the exact and specific problems and give me their diagnosis.
10 climate scientists will tell me that maybe, its possible, that probably, mostly humans are causing climate change because the figures they have compiled over the last 40 years seem to indicate that it is happening.
If you cant see the difference between to two I suggest you read a few climate reports and a few medical reports.
Again I will say, the way to stop climate change because of humans is not to tax the things that cause it but to stop them, that would include banning all forms of industrial production and limiting population.
If all the evidence points towards the end of the planet isn't it important enough for governments to drop everything else and start enforcing everything to stop it? Rather than just taxing it.
Its just another income stream for cash hungry governments.
It doesn't. The planet's gonna be just fine. It's we humans who are horrifically screwed.
The evidence is there. You're just choosing to pretend it isn't. Climate change will not destroy the planet, but it could make vast portions of it unlivable for us pesky little humans. Cockroaches will probably be fine, though.
And your credentials for making that statement are...?
His/Her credentials are at least enough to ascertain that they're not sticking their head in the ground and saying, "Nope nope nope, everything's fine, everything's cool, just keep burning those fossil fuels and give the oil companies all your money. No need for alternatives, oil will last forever."
Which makes my original point that 'global warming' is supported almost exclusively by the capitalist hating left, who are looking for an excuse to cripple capitalism by limiting the energy necessary for production. 'Global warming' serves that purpose handily by blaming fossil fuel usage for a supposed catastrophe in the future, and the cure we are told by the left, is a cessation of fossil fuel usage and massive income redistribution.
And of course, as always, those who question the left on one of their agendas are slapped with labels and ridiculed, just as we see here.
I see letters, and they seem to be forming sentences, but all they're saying is "LA LA LA NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES ARE INFINITE LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"...
And there's the ridicule. It's their only weapon.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/environmen … of-oil.htm
Do you think the Oil companies would cease to exist when all the oil runs out? Or do you think all the money they are putting into renewable sources may afford them profit in the future?
Carbon emissions will naturally decline as these corporations find ways to charge you for renewable cleaner energy sources. Then the governments will have to find something else to tax us all on, maybe a fresh air tax could be on the way in a few decades.
Fresh air tax calculator
The base line is = 17400 breaths a day, this will be taxed at the base rate of $2 a day
Those who engage in regular exercise will be deemed to be using more but will be given a rebate on the fact they will be healthier and need less medical services, the rate for those will be $1.50 a day
Politicians will invariably take more breaths than anybody else but will be able to claim expenses to cover the cost of their usage and will receive the rate of $4 a day for their efforts. (more expenses can be claimed if the politicians stay awake during debates.
The unemployed will be taxed at a rate of $2 a day but will receive a rebate of $2 a day from the taxpayers pot.
Fat people will be taxed at the rate of $2.50 a day no explanation to why is required.
People claiming a rebate for being dead must report to their local government office with the relevant paperwork from a qualified government breath assessor. The certificate for a rebate on the lack of breath for the reason of being dead will cost $1000.
The government will accept no responsibility for the quality of air and will spend all taxes collected as they see fit.
Can we assume you are not gonna grow dreadlocks, wear sandals and buy a used Greenpeace T-shirt, thereby saving the woolly mammoth, Mr Denier?
Ah, labels. Kind of like "capitalist-hating left"? Or "far-left extremists socialists who hate capitalism"? Laughable. Most of us are middle-of-the-road, ordinary people who simply want to conserve the natural beauty and livability of the planet. I know, that's SO extreme. Some of us even own businesses, capitalists that we are.
Nonetheless, almost all global warming proponents are on the left. From reading your views, I would say you are no exception.
Maybe. But does that make us "capitalist-hating" and "far-left extremist socialists"? I think not.
Chicken Little didn't do that either...but the message wasn't so good.
Saw a article recently that said the cockroaches were doing just fine even in the cold. Nothing can rid us of cockroaches.
Actually, I don't have the credentials to disagree with 97% of climate change scientists. Do you?
Scientists came up with the theory that human consumption of fossil fuels was releasing enough carbon dioxide into our vast atmospheric ocean to cause a greenhouse-effect, global warming. To prove it, they created computer models based on that theory, and predicted a global catastrophe unless we stopped using fossil fuels and started a massive transfer of wealth.
We did neither, and the left (why is it always the left?) went into a decade of hysterics because we did not yield to their vastly superior 'science'.
So called 'global warming' ceased 17 years ago, and the scientists we were all supposed to heed by giving up our way of life, have no explanation. However, that has had almost no effect on the zealots, who still demand that we all obey them and return to living in mud huts.
This has been a left wing driven, theoretical hysteria from the very beginning, designed to force all of us to accept their 'Earth first', tree-hugging socialist ways, and to kill hated capitalism.
Whenever I hear some new movement like this, I find out who's behind it, and if it's the left, I dismiss it out of hand.
Too bad you don't run the mainstream media. They are more than happy to, actually I believe some in the media look for lies to promote as long as the lies support their agenda. Once they print it the perception is it is true even if later proven to be a lie and people like PrettyPanther will just go on believing it.
Only you would consider these videos "education". I suppose you look for youtube videos that support your agenda all day long ...what does that get you a BS in youtube? Anybody can create a one sided youtube video for the literary impaired to watch and be mesmerized by - these videos are not even a good attempt at making a case by cherry picking information and ignoring the whole story with no rebuttal of what is presented, but then I know you and this is exactly what we can expect from you. Ignore all the facts presented on this thread debunking man-made global warming and pick on the one comment that you can try to cloud with left wing propaganda. That is all you ever do.
Zelkiiro is a great example.
He (she?) purports to 'educate' me with a couple of youtube videos by some sneering, snotty, unnamed, far-left jerk living in his mother's basement who claims he alone knows the truth about global warming.
As I said, Zelkiiro is a great left-wing example of whom we are supposed to heed and give up our capitalist good life.
And you just proved that you didn't watch the videos because of perceived biases (Hint: A 40-year-old professional science journalist living with his wife and two kids would hardly be sleeping in his basement), which is the very definition of ignorance.
You might want to look here, as well:
Then hopefully you'll realize how obtuse you are.
No, I don't waste my time listening to sneering, snotty jerks, especially when they are obviously far-left zealots making a self-serving video.
You are dismissed.
Dismissing something before viewing it in its entirety? The very definition of ignorance.
You must be so proud of yourself. Your ignorance levels are almost as astounding as those of Young-Earth Creationists (which I'll eat my hat if you're not among them).
Will, you couldn't be more right! (no pun intended)
I get the same thing from loony conspiracy theorists who demand that I listen to their interminable videos.
No, thank you.
Make your own points, and stop demanding that we listen to some video.
Here's a start: The story about global warming not occurring over the past 15-16 years is due to a journalist acting on his own, misinterpreting a small subset of climate data, and reporting his misguided findings to The Daily Mail, which is probably one of the most disreputable news sources in existence (right next to Fox News and CNN), prompting many brain-dead right-wingers to latch onto the story and post it everywhere. And that's how you heard of it.
On the contrary, the IPCC's own report confirms that the Earth has stopped warming:
UN's massive new climate report adds little explanation for 'pause' in warming
An enormous U.N. report on the scientific data behind global warming was made available Monday, yet it offers little concrete explanation for an earthly oddity: the planet’s climate has hit the pause button.
Since 1998, there has been no significant increase in global average surface temperature, and some areas -- notably the Northern Hemisphere -- have actually cooled. The 2,200-page new Technical Report attributes that to a combination of several factors, including natural variability, reduced heating from the sun and the ocean acting like a “heat sink” to suck up extra warmth in the atmosphere.
One problem with that conclusion, according to some climate scientists, is that the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has limited the hiatus to 10-15 years. Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, believes the pause will last much longer than that. He points to repeated periods of warming and cooling in the 20th century.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/ … s-warming/
Will what's this ? No YouTube videos? You are so uneducated.
I wish I had a dollar for every time someone insisted that I waste my time watching a video 'proving' that Bush and Cheney placed demolition charges in the World Trade Center prior to 9-11.
The facts will not be found in a YouTube video. They will be found in the IPCC's own report, admitting that they don't know why the Earth stopped warming, going on 18 years ago.
Again, just look at who's promoting global warming, and you'll see that it's the usual far-left Marxists, pushing their anti-capitalism agenda. Always look behind the curtain first to see who's pulling the strings.
If you think FOX is less reliable than other news sources, then prove it with a study. How hard could it be? (Here come the excuses!)
In any case, this was the IPCC's own report, and it was quoted by several news sources.
Contrary to saying that climate change has stopped its 2013 report says
"Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any
preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012
was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years"
Are you so sure you'll rely on Fox?
"But Fox is suddenly a reliable source? " Your words a moment ago.
So it's good enough for you to cite right after mocking it? you are so lame.
Sorry, I didn't cite Fox, I cited the IPCC report itself.
My bad, I should have made that clearer.
Generous? Yes any time you attempt to be honest I would consider it generous of your highness. Of course you didn't read the whole IPCC report but cherry picked highlights from the report issued by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) . So if you really want to be generous admit that Fox reporting facts isn't the problem but the left trying to spin the UN report by cherry picking info from it is.
#1) Isn't 1850 the accepted date for the end of the "Little Ice Age?" I would hope things have warmed quite a bit since then.
#2) The thermometer wasn't invented until the 17th Century and a standardized system for temperature wasn't established until the next century. I wonder who used what and how to take an accurate temperature in 8th Century Florence.
http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/instruments … meter.html
The Solar Energy out put of the local star has far more to do with the climate of the Earth than does how much petroleum is burned.
Aw shucks, got me there!
No wait, scientists can get accurate indications of temperature changes from tree rings -sorry to blow up your illusions.
Actual accurate temperatures cannot be measured from tree rings. Tree rings indicate tree growth rates which are, at best, analogous to the conditions surrounding the tree. This is not a measure of temperature.
Of course they can't but comparisons are relatively easy.
Dendroclimatology is too complex a subject to go into here so I suggest you research it.
What hair? You said it was impossible to consider temperatures before the invention of the thermometer, I said it wasn't and told you how it was done.
Can you find the word impossible in what has been written here? Accurate scientific measures and records there of are contingent upon the instrumentation available at the time. All else is supposition, analogy or modelling - far less reliable and far more subject to interpretation than actual, accurate, scientific measures.
I was being polite and paraphrasing you.
Can you demonstrate the accurate scientific measures that prove climate change isn't happening?
Climate change is always happening, there is nothing static in nature.
And can you prove beyond all doubt that nothing man does is affecting climate in any way whatsoever?
How many people were around during the ice age?
Probably about as well as you can prove beyond all doubt that man is the driving force behind this round of warming. Or even a significant contributor, for that matter, after cattle.
The accusation is that man is affecting the climate in a disastrous way, so it is up to you, as one of the accusers, to prove it. To date, no scientist is willing to say that anthropogenic (man made) global warming has been proved. They call it a 'consensus of opinion', but not a proven fact.
Well, to start I'm not accusing anybody. My mind is open but I think if there is a possibility that man is changing the climate we shouldn't turn our back on it but should look at our lifestyle and at those who deny emphatically that we are having absolutely any affect on the climate.
I'm sure any city dweller will tell you that on a micro level man affects the climate in the city. Volcanic eruptions have had a devastating affect on climate, why should the climate be immune to all the trash that man throws into the atmosphere?
I've already mentioned the ozone layer, somebody did state emphatically that man had no affect, but didn't offer any evidence beyond it happened naturally sometimes.
I could agree with this, while thinking that there is an enormous difference between looking at our lifestyle because of a possible connection and going back 100 years in our use of energy. Because that's what the warming crowd seem to want, except of course for themselves - they still need the giant SUV's and personal jets.
But that's mostly the politicians and celeb's.
I see no need to go back 100 years, no need to go backwards at all.
You never hear from the majority of the "warming crowd"
You're certainly right that we don't hear from the majority of the warming crowd, just as we don't hear from the majority of the nay sayers.
The large majority of people, whichever side they are on, are reasonable folks. They have doubts either way, they are willing to change their mind, and they are willing to make some changes if warranted. They just aren't willing to bury their head in the sand and they aren't willing to make major lifestyle changes because someone has been paid to say we're going to drown tomorrow when Antarctica melts.
But we are being asked to drastically alter our lives on a possibility, so the proof of that rests on those who are accusing humans of causing the planet to warm. Now that the warming stopped 17 years ago, and we are being told that it may even get cooler, I want some real proof before I give up my way of life.
Again, those of you who insist that we change our ways without definitive proof just happen to be almost exclusively far-left extremist socialists who hate capitalism and will do anything to bring it down.
One of you just admitted that banning fossil fuels is one of the goals. Banning fossil fuels just happens to also be the goal of anti-capitalists. That's not a coincidence,
Why suppose that which has never been the cause of climatic change is the cause this time?
Isn't that what we are asking scientists to do?
No, you are asking scientists to agree that it isn't happening.
No John I am asking them to give me proof that taking the temperature of something for a fraction of its existence shows that they are emphatically right.
What you fail to realize is that you are not the target audience of a scientific study. A scientist doesn't care whether or not a non-scientist like Silverspeeder believes his conclusions; he cares whether or not his conclusions hold up under the scrutiny of other scientists. Once those conclusions are scrutinized and corroborated by those who have the know-how to do so, they generally become accepted in the scientific community unless and until additional knowledge proves otherwise.
The million-dollar question is, why does Silverspeeder think he personally can demand "proof that.... shows that they are emphatically right." Have you, Silverspeeder personally read and debunked hundreds of scientific papers with tons of data? Do you personally have the background, training, and knowledge to do so? Sorry to break it to your massive ego, but the specialists don't care what you think about their study. Guess who does? Those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. And they have spent a lot of money convincing you to join them on their anti-science bandwagon.
"Tools," by definition, do not know they are being used.
These scientists are asking me and others to accept that we must give up our freedoms, our rights and our cash we must do as they say or the world will come crashing down around us, it matters not one iota to me if other scientist accept what they say or whether you believe it, uneducated people seem to believe anything scientist say because it science isn't it and these learned men are much better than me (so you say).
Whilst governments are funding these scientists and then funding their own personal political aims on the tax collected from their findings then I shall remain a little sceptical.
It seems PrettyPanther that you are a believer and it doesn't take much intelligence not to question those who spout something that you don't really understand yourself.
The real scientific experiment is being conducted by the governments who use the climate scientist as a tool to raising taxation whilst sitting back and doing very little if anything at all to turn the "evidence" into prevention policy.
In my mind man has made a negative contribution to the health of the earth, but to claim we are able to kill the earth unless we pay extra tax is just the biggest con our governments have ever perpetrated.
I have no problem with those who question policies. It is healthy to debate what we can and should do about climate change, and I don't buy into every solution that has been proposed. That is quite different from denying that climate change is real. Either you have a massive ego to believe you know better than 97% of scientists, or you have been led around by the nose by moneyed interests.
Of course climate change is real, it been happening since the earth was formed. There may even be a quickening in some areas, but taking the figures for 40 years and proclaiming we are killing the planet is playing to one of the basic human emotions, fear.
As for you 97% of scientist agree remark, scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides,
The figure rather ambiguously touted around by the IPCC comes from a AGU survey and is based on two questions, 10257 questioners were sent out, 3146 were returned, 77 of which were from active climate scientists of which 75 agreed with question 2 of the survey. However out of the 3146 who responded only 82% said yes to question 2.
The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?
Most people I know like myself would have to answer yes.
One fact that is missing is that 2833 respondents came from north America the other 313 came from 22 other countries.
The survey was weighted in favour of a response from active climate scientist, as you can see 97.4% of the 10000 asked comes down to 75 of the 77 ACS.
So can you quantify your belief that 97% of scientists agree humans are killing the planet?
Yes, as with most surveys the sample size is limited. If you understand statistics, you know this does not necessarily mean the survey is flawed. I will concede that the one you are citing might be flawed.
Regarding scientific consensus, do you question scientific consensus on the theory of gravity? Evolution? That eating trans fats causes heart disease? Of course, scientific consensus is merely the truth as far as we know at any given time. The question becomes, do we ignore scientific consensus just because it causes us discomfort to recognize it might be true?
Like I said before, I have no problem debating HOW to address the issue of climate change. Debate is good as long as it eventually leads to action. I do have a problem with stupidly ignoring scientific consensus. And I do believe that climate change deniers are generally not the maverick thinkers they like to believe they are. Quite the opposite.
What is flawed is the IPCC statement that 97% of scientists agree, the real truth is that 82% of 3000 or so agree that question 2 is right, Which seems to suggest that the IPCC and the governments that control it are pushing their own agenda, so can we trust their findings?
There is no consensus on climate change, the consensus is based on dreamt up figures by the IPCC.
What action should we take on something that we are not sure about is actually happening?
So far there have been no SVU fossils unearthed near dinosaur fossils, so it appears the proof or disproof you seek is unavailable, yet.
As, by your own admission, there is proof neither way, why do you insist that you are right and everybody who disagrees with you is wrong?
The climatic cycles of the Earth are a direct product of the energy output of the local star - Sol. When the sun is in an active cycle and producing more energy the entire solar system warms, as has been the case, time and again since the beginning of the earth. This relationship has never changed. It will not change anytime soon. Changes in the climate are the direct consequence of orbiting an irregular star. All else is the egocentric predictions of doom typical of those who must believe that we have somehow offended Pele and must sacrifice a virgin to the volcano god. It is a story as old as humanity.
Other than that, I say bring on the warming. Life thrives one a warm Earth, as has also been seen time and again since the beginning of life on the Earth.
Except even a few degrees change in temperature will wipe out a lot of indigenous species in a very short time. It will take many centuries for new species to colonise.
Why would you object, since such solar variations are the natural and totally unpreventable cycle of life on Earth?
Nonsense. It is unlikely to take even 20 years to re-populate an area that has risen 5 or even 10 degrees in temperature. There are already hundreds of species, both animal and plant, than can survive just fine in those temperatures.
If man made global temperatures keep escalating and the polar ice caps melt, some islands, that are already top-heavy could capsize. Learn More.
Islands capsizing? Aren' t most islands made from volcanoes erupting.
Then there are the ones made from erosion. Sorry couldn't load the video.
it's a video about this-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Johns … pping_over
The video is very funny. The man had to be stoned. And his office trying to explain it as "deadpan" comedy is the farthest stretch of all.
That was provably the best post on this thread yet!!!!!!
...and it is men like this that get elected to Congress - yes, Virginia, we do get what we deserve!
Thanks for the chuckle
you should try the video again - it is worth watching - this is what we have in Congress - no wonder it's a mess
It is a real shame that we cannot strip government of all power and authority and then populate it with people such as this. Society would be much safer if Congress or all government agencies and their NGO-type emulators could satisfy their need to babble, debate, argue, parade and preen for the camera without the ability to actually affect our lives. Their egos could be satisfied and our selves and our property would be safe. I suppose it is too much to build another Hollywood for dumpy old lawyers who want public office. It is as one astute observer once commented, "Politics is just Hollywood for ugly people." Egomaniacs-R-Us should be spray painted on every Welcome to Washington D.C. sign.
Ok, a meteor strike, comet fragment strike or a sufficiently powerful enough solar flare would have a far more devastating effect. Humanity, as part of nature, will have an impact on nature, as all living things do as they migrate, thrive, dwindle and become extinct. So be it. Warmer is so much better than colder. The few species that may,possibly-according to our horribly flawed models (rooted primarily in income redistribution) is a much smaller number than would bear the brunt of a new ice age. Give me the warming, my home town was under two miles of ice just a mere 13,000 years ago, I would prefer that not be repeated any time soon.
That's the problem with calling it global warming!
It is, but most people think that means they will be warmer whereas many will be colder and many will see their homes and the land they cultivate lost to the risen sea levels.
If the ice cap melts too much that could destroy the gulf stream and change the UK from a temperate country into one with a climate to match Moscow. You probably would welcome that - I wouldn't.
And what are your scientific credentials for making all those predictions? Are they as impressive as our own esteemed scientist, the great Al Gore?
Unlike you I have no scientific credentials but I can read and digest what I read.
Who's Al Gore? Sounds a bit bloody to me.
Al Gore is America's leading climate scientist/politician/charlatan/snake oil salesman. He sells carbon credits and gets around between his various mansions in a fuel-gobbling biz jet. You have to admire his nerve.
He was vice-president under Clinton and was almost our president, losing by a few hundred votes to Bush in 2000. He's a genuine loon.
He's right, presuming the "gulf stream" refers to the huge current that travels around South America and up to the arctic in both Atlantic and Pacific. That current stabilizes temperatures all over the world, and is necessary for life as we recognize it.
It is also only about 10,000 years old, so life (and mankind) did without it for the vast majority of history.
I believe the sea currents that account for the pleasant climate of the British Isles is called the North Atlantic Conveyor and is part of the Gulf Stream.
Any link to the fact that its only 10,000 years old? I can't find that.
It is so sad when people live in an irrational fear of that over which they have no control. Is it climatophobia or is that a fear of sexual ecstasy? There must be a name for it. Indianapolis was under a mile of ice 13,000 years ago, during the last (carbon foot print suv petroleum oh my god we are all gonna die), climate change that is more accurately referred to as an, ICE AGE (over which no living thing had control or any ability to cause). I do not relish the notion of my home under a mile of ice, I also don't care much for my own mortality. I am unlikely to use the power of government to force you to stop either the natural climatic changes of the Earth or the inexorable march to the grave. Why, two reasons - government force is a vile and contemptible way to treat other people and nothing can stop either, including the capricious use of force.
Have some tree based science that maintains that temperatures have been warmer.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 … 3/abstract
RESEARCHERS PUZZLED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING STANDSTILL
Date: 18/01/13 Axel Bojanowski, Spiegel Online
How dramatically is global warming really? NASA researchers have shown that the temperature rise has taken a break for 15 years. There are plenty of plausible explanations for why global warming has stalled. However, the number of guesses also shows how little the climate is understood.
Warmist Spiegel/Euro-Media Concede Global Warming Has Ended…Models Were Wrong…Scientists Are Baffled!
By P Gosselin on 19. Januar 2013
Spiegel has finally gotten around to conceding that global warming has ended, at least for the time being.
Yesterday Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski published a piece called: Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung (Climate change: scientists baffled by the stop in global warming).
We’ve been waiting for this admission a long time, and watching the media reaction is interesting to say the least. Bojanowski writes that “The word has been out for quite some time now that the climate is developing differently than predicted earlier”. He poses the question: “How many more years of stagnation are needed before scientists rethink their predictions of future warming?”
Bojanowski adds (emphasis added):
15 years without warming are now behind us. The stagnation of global near-surface average temperatures shows that the uncertainties in the climate prognoses are surprisingly large. The public is now waiting with suspense to see if the next UN IPCC report, due in September, is going to discuss the warming stop.”
Still waiting for a study showing that FOXNews is not a reliable source.
Or are we supposed to just take your heavily biased opinion as 'proof'?
So the IPCC report is now heavily biased!
It wasn't when you claimed that it said climate change had ended!
A quick Google search will unearth a veritable storm of errors Fox News has made, from passing off fake stories as real news to claiming the 2011 Muppets movie was left-wing propaganda solely because the villain was an oil tycoon.
The former link comes from a much larger page with 29 more such mistakes.
And there are many examples of more mistakes, recorded and posted onto YouTube. You can't argue against the source material:
Now you are being deliberately obtuse. You've been caught claiming FOX is unreliable when you have no evidence to back it up.
This is why I never take you seriously.
MediaMatters was created for the express purpose of attacking FOXNews, and FOX has exposed their deliberate, out-of-context extortions so many times that no one with a lick of common sense takes MediaMatters seriously any longer.
Again, if you want to claim FOX is not a reliable source, show us a qualified media study that proves it.
And the Polio vaccine was created for the express purpose of attacking Polio. What's your point?
Will you are arguing with the YouTube graduate - Youtube and wikipedia are his staples. And as usual he, they have done what they always do on a forum thread. They ignore the facts and hijack the thread to change the discussion focus of the thread. In this case we've gone from the topic of global warming to the credibility of Fox news!!
This is what they do and it is not worth even entertaining their comments except to leave a record of their misguided thoughts for future readers to see that what they say tells so much more about them than anything they comment about. Bye my friend.
Says someone who believes Fox News is anything resembling a legitimate news outlet. At least Wikipedia has moderators who require citation of sources, unlike Fox News, where the opinions of racist rednecks and business suck-offs are passed off as facts.
When I want some reliable global warming science, I'll contact Al Gore.
BTW, it's snowing in Cairo, for the first time in 100 years:
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/l … z2nMzV6vMp
"Regarding scientific consensus, do you question scientific consensus on the theory of gravity? Evolution? That eating trans fats causes heart disease?"
Yes, I question everything because that's how we learn.
"Of course, scientific consensus is merely the truth as far as we know at any given time."
And that's the very reason that we should question everything. The notion that we must blindly accept anthropogenic climate change as fact defies scientific principles. That alone should make us all suspicious.
And again, always look at who is supporting a theory that requires us all to drastically change our way of life. If it's the left, it's always more political than it is science.
BTW, the '97% consensus' claim is doctored and basically worthless:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor … us-claims/
Could there be a more radical, right wing, war mongering, capitalist, denier, minority naysayer than that evil organization that wants everyone to die?
You can take your tongue out of your cheek now.
Not really bothered about Forbes, the origin of the figures comes from an American university, someone published a paper on the study and then the figures were used to suit the IPCC political slant.
The fact that Forbes has found that the IPCC is bullshitting everybody is no surprise as they are looking for it.
Hi Genna! Great to see you!
You said: "Since then, I have witnessed what these scientists were predicting decades ago now coming true."
That's fascinating. Could you give us some examples?
Hi Will! Good to see you, too! Take your pick, my friend. :-) The rise in Co2 emissions; the causal destruction of ecosystems that are or basis life support systems; the increase in solid waste mismanagement; wastewater management; and more. Everything we see now, they warned about decades ago before it became a political football and before Al Gore decided to “weigh in.” I sometimes wonder what Dad would have thought of ”An Inconvenient Truth.” What I find curious is that people look at all of this – the question and issue of climate change, for example – as something “new.” It isn’t. Another concern was that certain huge corporations and other organizations would go after scientists with little integrity to put in their pockets. One of them – I won’t mention the name – tried to get Dad because he was so well known and respected in his field of natural resources. He was LIVID. You’d be shocked at what goes on out there, Will, and has for some time.
So Genna your dad would have known about the huge spike in Co2 125000 years ago and the fact that it wasn't manmade.
Yes we do add to the natural cycle of the climate, to stop our accumulation we would have to stop everything.
Of course the giant corporations have a vested interest as do the governments who have found a convenient way of increasing funds.
Until the scientists stop sensationalising, the governments stop taxing and the corporations stop self interest nothing will be done.
Because that's what's happening at the moment John, a sort of climate change tennis.
So what do you have your eyes closed too then John?
No, I don't run around demanding that somebody else does something. I do it.
SO what have you done then John?
I now recycle as much as possible, turn the heating off everyday, switch off all my appliances when not in use, drive a lot less, have fitted insolation to the new standards, source as much of my food from organic sources, I have also convinced my workplace to recycle more.
I am trying to find a green energy supplier, but that is proving to be a little difficult.
Unless I live in a cave and walk everywhere and eat nothing at all I cant see how I can do anymore, now what are the government doing about it except taxing everything their government funded scientist are saying is killing the earth.
Then you are making a good effort, shame more don't follow your example.
Why do you think all scientists are government funded and so lacking in integrity that they will say what the government tells them and not report what their findings actually are?
And why do you thing scientists financed by the oil companies are oozing integrity and only report their true findings?
Because I don't think all scientists lack integrity, I think if someone is paying for your life style and employment you are more likely to toe the line.
Statements like 97% of scientist agree don't help because its a politically motivated statement made to convince us to believe. Mostly to convince us that that more taxation can save the planet.
I do not deny climate change (either natural or man made) I just believe the situation has been hijacked by governments to increase their funding.
A number of people throw that one out there as an argument. :-) You are referring to the data that was discovered via the ice cores in Antarctica (800,000 years), or the study of shells in deep sea sediments (10 – 15 mil years) which would have caused the sea levels to be, perhaps, 75 to 100 feet higher than they are now. The fact remains that the rate of change in climate shifts now taking place is faster than in the past. CO2 emissions are up almost 3% from 2011, alone. This is what my father and his colleagues were referring to.
I don’t know what you mean by scientists “sensationalizing” the problem. Nor do I know how you reached your conclusion or the reasoning behind the statement, “to stop our accumulation, we would have to stop everything.”
My best wishes for a happy holiday season to everyone. Take care. :-)
My statement was in response to the fact that over the last 30 years scientist have said global warming is a result if everything we do, so it is obvious that we must stop everything we do.
To be more specific we would have to stop using fossil fuel, stop production of almost everything and stop farming animals for food. We would also have to stop reproducing as the spread of humans is ruining the natural habitat of both plants and animals.
Thank you for your best wishes.
May peace and happiness be with you always.
i never heard of a reputable scientist -- at least from the world I came from -- stating that we had to "stop everything that we do." Nor did they caution that the human race must stop reproducing. Over population was part of certain arguments, but only as it related to the growing demands on natural resources, their unintended or inadvertent destruction of ecosystems, and the burning of fossil fuels. The need for better education and awareness was always part of that equation in terms of how to help solve those problems.
Anywho, I love the fact that you recycle, Silver. Thanks for those good wishes. And with you, too. :-)
By the way Silver, as a supporter of the capitalists you must surely approve of the people being taxed to repair the predations of the corporate giants.
I am not in favour of taxing a problem to attain a more taxation.
Al the estimates for the longevity for fossil fuel usage is between 50 and 200 years, will taxing Co2 emissions result in the solutions to the energy crisis that looms large on the horizon?
You don't get it do you?
You and I are being taxed to protect the profits of the corporations.
No John, taxes are used to protect the interests of big government. Although I must agree that the line between government and corporations has become very blurred indeed.
If that were the case why not tax the corporations to recover the costs of their errors?
Why tax a few corporations when you can tax millions for using the products of the corporations?
And what is government if not the tool of the capitalists?
In the US, tool of the socialists. Those wishing to share the wealth - to forever steal from the "rich" to give to the "poor". That's what government is in the US.
No, your government steals from the poor to give to the rich.
Pretty much like governments the world over.
How can government steal from people who don't have anything? What's the point in that?
If Robin Hood had stolen from the poor, the book would have been silly.
To keep them in a position of powerlessness, of course.
That absurdity is why the left makes no sense. The poor have nothing, so what are you going to steal?
Not only can the poor vote in the US, they can attend school and better their own lot with a modicum of effort.
Heard today about a 17 year old boy. His father died about a year ago, his mother a few months ago. The school district just discovered he was homeless. We all would call him poor, but he was going to school everyday, getting good grades, and living on his own quite successfully. While his financial position may be poor, he is not poor in spirit.
Stealing the spirit is more horrible than not having the means to purchase things.
Poverty in a country in which one cannot be free is different than poverty in a country where people are sure they are free. One is a lack of material needs because one is denied them by the state, the other because one lacks the character to supply them for one's self. America, and many other places, falls into the latter category.
You missed my point.
Yes, poor means having nothing and they have nothing because it has all been stolen.
If the poor never had anything in the first place (the definition of poor), then what was stolen?
You are being absurd.
The traditional Robin Hood story revolves around the conditions that eventually lead to the signing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede. The tradesmen, artisans and craftsmen, along with the minor nobles and other freemen, were heavily taxed and bullied by the government of the time. It wasn't robbing the rich to give to the poor. It was robbing the friends and representatives of the king and returning tax money to the ones from whom it was taken. Robin Hood was a small government fanatic.
Tell that to the socialists who cite Robin Hood as their justification.
I've never heard a single socialist cite Robin Hood as justification for anything.
Neither have I - they aren't honest enough to see their confiscatory tactics as "stealing", but that's always how Robin Hood was portrayed (at least in my experience).
What confiscatory tactics? We aren't capitalist who confiscate freely you know.
Who, in general, has the higher tax rate? Who, in general, taxes more while returning less to those that pay the taxes? Who gives no choice to that confiscation except to leave the nation?
Whose "confiscation" is by agreement only? Who gives options to the "confiscation"?
Answer honestly and you will find the answer to your question buried inside.
I wouldn't ask who has the highest tax rate but who uses the taxes best to benefit the people.
You might have the lowest tax in the world but if that tax is only used to benefit the super wealthy then that tax is much higher than the tax used to benefit everybody equally.
If you accept the obvious truth that "benefit the people" does not include supporting them from cradle to grave, the answer has to be capitalistic one. On the whole, the socialistic redistribution of wealth can only do harm; while a few very specific individuals may be helped short term, the overall result is a severe degradation of humanity as people become nothing but children, or pets of some kind, needing constant supervision and support just to survive. A sad fate for the smartest animal on the planet.
The capitalist methods, on the other hand, force people to become all they can be rather than simply feeding off the efforts of others. It gives pride to people as they learn to stand on their own feet, making their own decisions and providing for themselves rather than accepting (begging for) charity their whole life.
But redistribution of wealth in either direction is a capitalist idea. it is designed to degrade and dehumanise humanity.
The socialist idea is to give work to all and not make anybody dependent on the state or any other institution.
The capitalist method prevents people from becoming all they can. It benefits then few at the expense of the many by keeping the many in debt.
Baloney. The socialist method follows (part way) down the path of communism; everything in a pile and take what you need. It also distributes wealth, often via such machinations as the artificial "minimum wage" concept. It supplies and subsidizes almost everything (such as health care and) in an effort to care for the children of the state. Unfortunately, the socialists forget that children are to be taught to grow with the inevitable result that such children remain forever dependent on the Nanny state. Very sad, but not uncommon at all.
I'm sorry, but debt is a choice, not something forced on anyone. Socialist propaganda notwithstanding, people take on debt only as they see fit to.
No, I say baloney to your ideas.
Where does the minimum wage fit into the concept "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities"?
Debt may be a choice for some but it is not for many more. When your living expenses exceed your income you have no alternative but to go into debt.
You have complained over and over and over that wages are too low to live on; that the mythical "living wage" must be met for all jobs. "To each according to their needs", then.
Of course you have other options than debt. You can sell possessions. You can take another job. You can move to a cheaper location. You can live off of the savings that you, in your wisdom, have provided. You can turn the thermostat down or save in other ways.
Debt is almost never the sole option, just the easiest for many people. Of course, most people realize that they cannot live on debt forever; there comes a time when the piper must be paid whether we like it or not. (There also comes a time when additional debt is difficult to impossible to get, for that matter).
And what happens when you have sold your possessions, can't find another job, can't afford to move to a cheaper location, used up all your savings and have long ago turned your heating right off?
If you are stupid enough to live a lifestyle beyond your ability to pay, you will starve.
Or, far more likely, go begging to government for a handout. Because at that point, there isn't anyone that will be willing to loan to you; you have no collateral and no hope of ever paying it back.
John, you can make up horrible situations all day long, but they just don't happen to any but a very small number of people unless they have voluntarily allowed it to happen through sheer stupidity and no one has any problem giving those people a helping hand out of the abyss that circumstances or luck have dealt them.
Thank YOU , WILDERNESS, couldn't have agreed with you more.
What if you need to live beyond your ability to pay? You're on a minimum wage and unable to find even another minimum wage job.
What do you do then? Go and live in a cardboard box and hope your employer doesn't find out?
That is correct. If you have put yourself into such a condition as to require more than you can earn yourself you will live off of charity or die. But that you have done that to yourself does NOT give you the innate right to demand anything at all from anyone else. Ask for help, beg, cry - all are acceptable. Theft is not.
But if you haven't?
I agree, theft is unacceptable, even by those born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
No no no, it's perfectly acceptable if you're rich. You just have "affluenza." You're not bound by the same laws as poor people.
Of course. In fact it isn't even theft if you don't need the money.
If you had facts to back that I'd be willing to listen. Laws, please, that differentiate between groups of people with or without a certain sum of money and allow the rich ones to steal.
You haven't heard? Dude, I don't keep up with the news, and even I've heard about it. It's everywhere!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza# … al_defense
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa … -1.1550043
http://www.christianpost.com/news/texas … se-111078/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/12/18 … lled-four/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/1 … 26722.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ttend.html
And so on.
'Affluenza' is the new leftist buzzword, so be prepared to hear it from here on out.
I'm sorry - I could not find either a link to a law treating the rich differently or a number I could look up in the state law books.
Can you provide something more than a series of news articles saying some kid is being sued for playing games with the legal system?
If you haven't what? Done it to yourself?
Then you beg, whether on a streetcorner with hat in hand or in a welfare office filling out paperwork. But relatively speaking, there are very few people that haven't done it to themselves. They failed to procure health insurance, preferring a big TV and a nice car. They didn't save anything for emergencies, wanting that same car and TV instead. They couldn't be bothered to improve their skills, or use birth control - it was more fun to hit the bar instead. There are very few people that simply cannot, from day one, provide for themselves and those few have full support from almost everyone in their struggle.
"If you have put yourself into such a condition "
So you're saying that all these millions who were employed but are now unemployed only have themselves to blame? They all upped and decided to give up their work at around the same time?
Amazing! I suppose it was socialism that made them choose a life of poverty.
Sorry, but if they've gone for two years without a job it is by choice. To be laid off is often not the fault of the worker; to be unable to find work in two years or more most certainly is.
We're about the same age and I too remember when jobs were out there for the taking.
Now there are people out there who have applied for hundreds of jobs over a lot more than two years without success.
*shrug* that's what happens when you refuse to take what work is available.
I simply refuse to believe that anyone really wanting a job and willing to take what is offered cannot find work somewhere in this country. You may have to move to another state, you may have to dig ditches, but you can find work.
I don't rely on what I believe, I rely on what and who I know.
Then you need to ask them:
What other training have they taken?
What jobs out of their field have they applied for? How low a wage will they accept?
How many resumes have they submitted over 200 miles away (or whatever is appropriate in the smaller country there - here nearly no one would turn down work that close.
What kinds of entrepreneurial work have they done recently - mow lawns, paint fences, walk dogs, clean houses, etc. How many hours did they spend going door to door looking for such handyman jobs?
It may be different in the socialism of England, but in the US you must find work yourself. Our employment office will help, but that help is limited and it is mostly up to you.
Why on earth is somebody going to employ somebody from 200 miles away when there are more than enough unemployed living locally?
The unemployed in the UK are expected to apply for between two and five jobs every week
in any and every field. They have to accept any job they are offered even at minimum wage.
You would get very short shrift knocking on doors of other unemployed people asking for work.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000-people have to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for their socioecnomic situation. When will PEOPLE realize this and stop playing the blame game.
Yes, that's about it. Many people whine and whine stating that there are no jobs. Well, there are jobs out there, they aren't pretty, they're glamorous, but they are jobs nonetheless. If one wants to work, he/she will take the less desirable jobs if he/she wants to feed his/her family.
If one wants to work, he/she will take a job UNTIL he/she could DO BETTER. To be unemployed w/o monies and living on unemployment and/or welfare is inexcusable when there is work. In fact, the condition of unemployment insurance is FINDING a job ASAP.
To be unemployed longer than a year is INEXCUSABLE. The only time that an unemployed person can live freely and w/o worry is if he/she has investments and lots of savings and/or he/she has very affluent parents. The rest have to WORK.
Oh grow up there are plenty out there who can not find a job in a year, even two. And that is any sort of job at any rate of pay.
I have a friend who has finally found a job at minimum pay (and 48 years old) after three years.
And yes, socialism - unemployment benefits extended beyond any reasonable term - played a part. Without incentive to work, most will not do so just as I have repeatedly pointed out.
Unemployment benefits are pure capitalism, remember under socialism if you do not work you do not eat.
John, you keep saying that but you know it isn't true. Socialism will feed starving kids just as capitalism will. Socialism will feed Mama, with too many kids to work, just as capitalism will. And when it does, it is going to be much more generous that capitalism is, and it isn't going to question too much just why Dad isn't working. Just feed them all.
Why would any children starve under socialism and why should any mother with dependent kids and no father be expected to work?
As to the question of why the father isn't working, serious questions would be asked.
Because Dad's a lazy drunk (or dead or out of the picture). Because Mom refuses to. Could be lots of reasons, just as there is under capitalism. And for the most part, the exact same reasons, for that matter.
Mom with dependent kids but no Dad needs to support her offspring. That means work.
Oh well, you've convinced me. Much better to have millions struggling under capitalism than a handful under socialism.
Absolutely. Capitalism can feed millions; socialism only a handful. In the long term, socialism will be a disaster as society slowly degrades back to middle ages conditions. (or at least turn of the century; middle ages might be a small exaggeration. )
That doesn't alter the fact that I've never heard that claim and I am a socialist.
It is a common perception in the US. Probably an adaptation of the tale to make it more understandable here.
Which also doesn't alter the fact that I have heard it.
OK, some American socialists use it, that still doesn't alter the fact that I've never heard that justification.
I mean come on, a fairy tale!
"Fairy tale". But so is the idea that wealth redistribution will result in long term gains for a society...
So is the idea that a capitalist plutocracy is a good thing and doesn't screw over 90+% of the population.
Yes, much better for all if the wealth of a country is held by a privileged few.
It's a good thing, isn't it, that capitalism would never allow such a thing? That virtually every able bodied person can accumulate a comfortable lifestyle if they choose to do so? That ordinary people, like me, can live in what would have been unbelievable luxury only 100 years ago.
What's this, then?
Sure looks like the overwhelming majority of the nation's wealth being held by a very small number of people to me!
And yet...virtually anyone that wants one can own a car. They have running water and sewage facilities. If you want a TV, computer and video game you can have one. Everyone has a refrigerator and the vast majority in the south have a cool home.
Problem is, that it doesn't seem to matter what the inequity is, it's too much. The "poor" never have enough, regardless of how it compares to their parents or other countries. Doesn't work, does it?
Exactly. The poor in America would be wealthy in many other countries. Good point.
Reminds me of the story and movie "Homeless to Harvard". It was the true story of a young girl (Elizabeth) whose parents were drug addicts and homeless. She made it through school on her own and won a full scholarship to Harvard.
Global warming is economically a potential blockbuster. This freezing weather must really annoy all the proponents. Think Al Gore!
Oh look, another precocious child who not only thinks Al Gore is somehow relevant, but also believes global warming can be disproved with an exclamation of "It's cold! Today! Where I live!".
Oh look, it's Wikipedia man, Watch out he may be armed with YouTube videos!
Better than being armed with blind ignorance.
And here we have a misguided soul who believes that the laughably-error-filled Wikipedia of 2008 bears any resemblance to the extremely-highly-moderated Wikipedia of today. Because, you know, systematic improvements and strict integration of citation requirements never happened.
Oh really so then this Wikipedia page is one you approve of ?
Even Wikipedia itself says "Wikipedia is not considered a credible source"
What planet are you from, Wiki Man?
Oh, I know your answer - that can't be right because Wikipedia isn't a credible source! HA ha ha ha ha ha ha
Read further than two sentences. It basically says that it's not the end-all-be-all for academic research and should be considered a starting point for such research. For casual use (e.g. discussions on a message board), it's more than valid. And if you doubt the article itself, guess what? THE SOURCES ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE! YOU CAN CLICK ON AND READ THOSE, TOO! HOW CONVENIENT IS THAT?!
So when you want to make a credible point to others, not for your own satisfaction, you choose to select a source that itself says it is not a credible source rather than choose another source that is unquestionably credible. That makes sense, if you're from planet Zelkiiro! Thanks WIKIMAN for your enlightenment.
I try to use simple words so that even folks like you can understand what I'm saying, but apparently I used too many words with multiple syllables. Try reading my post again. You can do it! I believe in you!
It goes to show that there are people who make excuses and use the blame game to explain their life and socioeconomic situation while there are those who are more proactive and own their life and socioeconomic situation. In other words, there are FAILURES who blame, avoid, and make excuses while the SUCCESSFUL access their situation,take charge, organize, strategize, and OWN their life and socioeconomic destiny! Which ONE are YOU or do you WISH to BE?
And there are people with their heads buried in the sand unable to accept reality.
Reality is what YOU make of it, John. I believe in being proactive and owning my life. What do YOU believe in? I OWN and DO.
If there is something negative about my life, I CHANGE it. I refuse to make excuses and whine. That is considered to be WEAKNESS, LAZINESS, and IMMATURITY. God gave us brains, we are to USE them to create a better life for ourselves and others.
Oh yes I do own my life and the many unemployed that I know would like to own their lives too.
Would you say that applying for a minimum of five jobs a week was not proactive then?
A minimum wage job is a job. It is something to tide one over until a better opportunity avails. A minimum wage job is BETTER than welfare. Take a job, any job. Any job is BETTER than none unless one has savings and investments and/or is young, a recent college graduate who has affluent parents.
Argh!! Can you not read or are you being deliberately obtuse?
A minimum wage job is better than welfare but where are they?
There are many minimum wage jobs around but people think that they're too good for them.
You changed your post while I was answering it!
You love talking to yourself and answering your own question. Psychiatrists have a word for that.
I had excellent jobs, have a good work ethic, and was NEVER unemployed. I take responsibility for my life. I never complain nor whine about my socioeconomic situation. I am successful! I have a good life with no regrets. I am contributing something noteworthy to the discussion.
You had an excellent job, why do you no longer have a job?
I am RETIRED. I also demand an apology for calling me obtuse. I am FAR from obtuse! How DARE you insult me. I do not take to this kindly! I want an APOLOGY. I am not a person to be trifled with!
No. Proactive would have been applying for those jobs before losing your own in a recession we all saw coming.
Thank you, wilderness, intelligent people know this and act accordingly.
Or not having your husband walk out on you.
True. Or not having that crash that amputated a leg.
s*** happens, but the biggest problem with the job hunters today is that they are too picky. Pockets of the US are still very hard hit, but some areas are booming now and what is left is recovering. Jobs can be had with some effort, just not usually jobs paying into the 6 figure range that some are used to.
That is true. People have to take what they can get.
Ain't so here.
graduates applying for jobs flipping burgers.
Yes, it can, people aren't trying hard enough!
Again, a job is a job is a job. Yes, some graduates are flipping burgers because they have majored in fields where there are no jobs. If a person majors in liberal arts and the humanities in this postmodern era, there is a SLIM chance that he/she will obtain a good job. He/she is lucky to have a job flipping burgers. If he/she wanted a professional job, he/she should have majored in a field that guaranteed more lucrative employment opportunities. If he/she should have participated in summer internment programs in the field. Summer internment opens job opportunities.
So doctors and scientists are lucky to have jobs!
By the way, if you take on training you are barred from claiming unemployment benefit.
Here, that is true only if it means you cannot work. So take night classes.
Night classes have been axed by our conservative and capitalist government.
Now John, you have offered myriad excuses and can'ts to explain the current socioeconomic situation. You have blamed the government, rich people, and capitalists. Now, we want to hear YOUR solution to this socioeconomic situation?
Do you believe that the government should implement full income redistribution, taking from the wealthy and giving it to the poor? Do you believe in a broadening of the welfare state and further enable people who have a dependent, rescue me mentality and ethos? You have given millions of excuses as to why people cannot find jobs and improve themselves. These are mere copouts, if people want to succeed, they CAN. Many who do not succeed, DON'T WANT TO, pure and simple!
Our government recently bailed the banks out to the tune of £6,500 for every man woman and child in the country. Apart from paying bonuses to employees they sat on the money.
They took money from the poor to give to the rich.
Imagine if they had given even a third of that amount only to adults. Imagine the jobs that would have created, the boost to the cash strapped economy.
Many who do want to succeed do not either.
Night classes have not been axed in the UK John, I work at a college remember, if anything there has been an increase in the places both at night classes and in normal college education.
Czech Republic (2004)
Have all come to the UK from the EU and found work so why cant the British.
That's not including the people from
Who the government (both this and the last) have tried to convince us have all come here to work
That's about 5 million people in the last 13 years, I think we have done pretty well to have only 1.7 million out of work when you consider what the country has gone through economically over the past 4 years.
Shame the ONS doesn't agree with you - according to them 2.39 million out of work and that's the lowest in four years.
And now there are 30 million in employment as opposed to 24.6 million 10 years ago.
That's why its costing the taxpayer £156 billion a year in benefits then john.
Part time jobs are at there highest figure ever - people in part-time jobs are counted as employed.
Absolutely. And some people only need a part time job. Couples with one income already, disabled people, pensioners, single people who can earn more than they get in benefits.
what's wrong with part time jobs then?
What is wrong with part time jobs! Try living off the income generated by one of them.
My nephew has a part time job, he earns £163 a week which is considerably more than the £55 he would receive on unemployment benefit.
What's wrong with a basic one bed flat for a single unemployed person then John?
You can get a 2 bed accommodation for £360 from housing associations or the council in Birmingham. And there are plenty of vacancies in the midlands at the moment.
Well bully for him. i suppose that makes you believe that all part time jobs are that well paid.
However, a single person living in a two bedroom HA flat would immediately lose 25% of their HB, so how many two bed flats are available for £270 per week?
No John not all part time jobs are well paid but they have to meet the national minimum of £6.31 an hour.
Why would a single person be living in a 2 bed HA flat then?
You already know I am against the so called bedroom tax, its just a way of making room for immigrants with more children to be fast tracked into social housing.
You still didn't answer why you think all these immigrants can come and get a job here whilst the british workers don't seem to be able to find any at all?
It is so much easier for some people to make EXCUSES AD INFINITUM and AD NAUSEUM. Yes, there are THOSE who simply LOVE to make EXCUSES. They believes that the fault lies within the government, the rich, and the capitalist instead of the unemployed and poor people themselves. Oh no, they argue that it is THE MAN'S fault. It is easier to bemoan that many unemployed and the poor are indeed indolent and would rather make excuses than to access their individual lives. That would take DEEP THINKING and DEEP ANALYSIS. It is SO MUCH EASIER to blame, especially when people want the world to GIMME, GIMME, GIMME, instead of WORK, WORK, WORK. This is the ENTITLEMENT ETHOS and MENTALITY we have today.
Silverspeeder, there are those who DO and those who will make EXCUSES AD NAUSEUM. It is analogous to the hard, work and successful A students who is derided by the underachieving C, C- and D student who blames the teacher and the school for their marks instead of placing blame on their poor school work ethic and study habits.
Many unsuccessful people would rather whine, whine, WHINE than to REALLY do something with their lives. There are countless advancement opportunities at work. However, many people DON'T want to make the sacrifices necessary to success. They would rather get off work, socialize, and watch TV rather to return to school, take some afterwork programs,etc.
Some unemploymed would rather give up than to take the job at the moment and work themselves up from there. Silverspeeder, there is ALWAYS a WAY if people WANT it and stop being LAZY. Such are SPOILED children who want a hand to rescue them.
At one point my wife, with 10 years experience building computer chips and a degree in dentistry assistant, was applying as a WalMart greeter.
You do what needs doing. If you're not on welfare, you do - if the cash is flowing in, most sit back and let it come.
Maybe you pay your unemployed more generously than we do, the cash doesn't flow in.
Where I am, maximum unemployment insurance brings $360 per week. A middlin' good job is $600-$800 per week. The state bordering mine pays $600 per week unemployment; more than I took home working as a skilled tradesman after deducting for expenses and taxes.
B***** h*** that's £219 a week and your cost of living is a lot cheaper.
About $122 in the UK!
What's $122? Your idea of our cost of living? A typical, cheap home rents for $1,000 per month; an apartment somewhat less. Groceries for 2 run $350 per month. Utilities $200. No public transportation; car expense, including car payment, around $500.
$360 per week will NOT pay the bills - the unemployed needs more work and in a short time. And of course, we still own income tax out of the $360.
Or do you mean unemployment comes to $122 - 80 pounds in the UK?
And if you do odd jobs to supplement the small amount, I would imagine you are to report it so they can reduce or eliminate the payment, correct?
You are allowed to earn up to 1/2 your weekly amount (it varies based on your income the first four of the last five quarters). Beyond that amount they will deduct, I believe, 50 cents for each dollar earned. Could be dollar for dollar, I'm not positive.
And that often makes it just livable for those that don't have much debt and can find a little part time work. Of course, it is also not unusual for people to work under the table for quite some time, but if they get caught they must repay all unemployment taken. And they often are when the employer decides he wants the tax deduction and reports how much he paid in wages.
Yes and in the UK they will stop your money entirely while they work out their new figures and stop you pound for pound.
That makes it rather impractical to try things like dog walking and lawn mowing. Unless you can instantly find enough work to live off your income falls to zero.
That's rather simplistic john, wouldn't that be for a single person living at home with parents?
Minimum Under 25 £56.25
Minimum over 25 £71.00
Minimum allowance couple over 18 £111.45
This is apart from any other benefits they may be able to claim EG, Housing benefits, attendance allowances, maternity allowances, child allowances etc,.
No, that wouldn't be a single person living at home with parents. That would be a single person living anywhere and your £111 is for two people not one.
Housing benefit rarely pays enough to cover the rent and to claim attendance allowance you need to be attending somebody, maternity, you need to be pregnant and child allowance you need to have children.
So what's your point?
A single person living in rented accommodation will receive the full rent if it is below £500 a month. They will also get the full council tax rebate.
I agree John its not a lot but its something for nothing if you have never had a job.
by arakkathara7 years ago
The islands like japan, philippines, andaman,nikobar,lakhswadeep etc .which are same to the sea level will disappear with in 100 years, because of the damage of osonspheres. make awareness to this issue is the first...
by Will Apse5 years ago
The Koch brothers are climate change skeptics, Their business is chemicals, coal and transportation- three areas likely to be hit hard by any moves to a low carbon economy.They have respect for science, though, and...
by theirishobserver.7 years ago
Many European commentators are laughing at the Global Warming Thesis - is it a myth?
by Sychophantastic3 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not...
by ThunderKeys6 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please...
by Holle Abee11 months ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.