"Mike Marlow" wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2014 15:16:53 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

Maybe we just need to quit compaining so much about everything. It's
been this way since the beginnin of time.

The world population doubles about every 60 years. It has *not* been
that way since "the beginning of time". How long do you think that
can continue? How long before the "too many rats in a cage" syndrome
gets out of hand?

Not that long Larry - at some point the rats will start eating each other.
Problem solved. We are seeing that in segments of our society today.
Darwin and human nature seem to have a way of controlling things despite our
best hopes/fears.


You mean like the earth quakes and wild fires in California? :-)



BTW, the US is right on the average. In 1950 the population was 151
million. Sixty years later, in 2010, the population was 309 million.
Both numbers from the census.

I don't doubt those numbers one bit Larry. Just not sure how meaningful
they are.

I'm not sure either well maybe I am but the data is out of context, much
like the data that was used to back up the global warming theory. Had we
had the same methods of collecting data and same advancements in computers
and programming 25-30 years earlier it would have been determined that we
were in the middle of global cooling.

The big issue with all of this is that the whole picture is not being
looked at, Only the data that happens to be collected at a particular time
is being scrutinized. Living near the coast, hurricanes are a hot spot of
interest with the weather reporters. Because of global bla bla bla/climate
change we saw a ramp up in named storms each year. Are we having more
storms than 60 years ago, probably not. It used to be that we did not have
the ability to track every storm coming off of the west African coast hence
we had fewer storms. Today I think simple cloud cover over the African
coast is targeted. Not to mention that if a known storm was not a threat
to the US it was not even named unless it actually qualified as a
hurricane. And now we are naming winter storm fronts!

Suddenly, relatively speaking, too much data and too little used by those
that are totally overwhelmed is the actual problem.

"woodchucker" wrote in message
...

SNIP


We are in danger, no doubt.
What's worse is the kids today are less capable then we were. There
reading and math scores are very low.
The loss of vocational schooling in the middle and high school (wood
shop, metal shop) leave no where for these less educated kids to go.

Add to that our lack of making hard decisions and you have a firestorm
brewing.. of catastrophic proportions.

In the old days, people were more adept at adapting, today, less so.


--
Jeff

I had 2 wood shop classes in high school. In the 40s. Also aeronautics and
chemistry and electronics. This made my life what it is and took me into
jobs I liked. WW

On Sat, 10 May 2014 08:14:26 -0600, "WW"
wrote:



"woodchucker" wrote in message
...

SNIP


We are in danger, no doubt.
What's worse is the kids today are less capable then we were. There
reading and math scores are very low.
The loss of vocational schooling in the middle and high school (wood
shop, metal shop) leave no where for these less educated kids to go.

One thing the county where I lived in Vermont did really well was
vocational education. They didn't do wood shop or metal shop for the
"college bound" kids, rather had a complete school for vo-ed, complete
with plumbing, electrical, and carpentry. IIRC, they built a house
every year. It was a separate county-wide school, though shared the
high school property and some facilities.

Add to that our lack of making hard decisions and you have a firestorm
brewing.. of catastrophic proportions.

True that. The tipping point can't be far away with 1 worker per
person on the government check. Demographics isn't going the right
way, either.

In the old days, people were more adept at adapting, today, less so.

That's been happening since at least the middle ages.
Industrialization, if not civilization itself, demands specialization.
OTOH, I've think been successful in finding work easily because I
prefer to be a generalist in my profession. I've rarely done exactly
the same thing in any two (consecutive, at least) positions. On the
down side of that, I'm in mid-level rather than management (though
it's the way I like it).

On Sat, 10 May 2014 06:12:04 -0700, jo4hn
wrote:

On 5/9/2014 1:54 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
And then - back in the stone age, our grandfathers will still be
complaining
about the generation we live in. To some extent - this crap just
keeps
going around. Maybe we just need to quit compaining so much about
everything. It's been this way since the beginnin of time.


"Leon" wrote:

Exactly! I shutter to think what life was like during WWII when
there were real problems.
-----------------------------------------
It was pretty straight forward.

There was THE WAR to win.

Whatever was needed got done.

And yes, the Hollywood propaganda machine was in full glory.

Watch some old flicks from the war years.

Lew




Lew


And the top income tax rate in 1945 was 94%. Those guys knew how to
fund a war.

Irrelevant. The fact is that virtually no one paid that rate (so
nothing was collected). People either hide money or earn less when the
tax rate is confiscatory. It really doesn't take much of an increase
in the rate for people to decide that their time is worth more than
what they would earn for themselves. This has been shown *many* times
throughout history.

On 5/10/2014 9:32 AM, Leon wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2014 15:16:53 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

Maybe we just need to quit compaining so much about everything. It's
been this way since the beginnin of time.

The world population doubles about every 60 years. It has *not* been
that way since "the beginning of time". How long do you think that
can continue? How long before the "too many rats in a cage" syndrome
gets out of hand?

Not that long Larry - at some point the rats will start eating each other.
Problem solved. We are seeing that in segments of our society today.
Darwin and human nature seem to have a way of controlling things despite our
best hopes/fears.


You mean like the earth quakes and wild fires in California? :-)



BTW, the US is right on the average. In 1950 the population was 151
million. Sixty years later, in 2010, the population was 309 million.
Both numbers from the census.

I don't doubt those numbers one bit Larry. Just not sure how meaningful
they are.

I'm not sure either well maybe I am but the data is out of context, much
like the data that was used to back up the global warming theory. Had we
had the same methods of collecting data and same advancements in computers
and programming 25-30 years earlier it would have been determined that we
were in the middle of global cooling.

The big issue with all of this is that the whole picture is not being
looked at, Only the data that happens to be collected at a particular time
is being scrutinized. Living near the coast, hurricanes are a hot spot of
interest with the weather reporters. Because of global bla bla bla/climate
change we saw a ramp up in named storms each year. Are we having more
storms than 60 years ago, probably not. It used to be that we did not have
the ability to track every storm coming off of the west African coast hence
we had fewer storms. Today I think simple cloud cover over the African
coast is targeted. Not to mention that if a known storm was not a threat
to the US it was not even named unless it actually qualified as a
hurricane. And now we are naming winter storm fronts!

Suddenly, relatively speaking, too much data and too little used by those
that are totally overwhelmed is the actual problem.


There is to much spin in the climate date. One of the "facts' they use
in promoting their religion is the pH of the oceans are going down
because of the increase in Carbon Dioxide. This "fact" was based on the
observation that there was a decrease in the pH of about 0.06 units, The
standards they used of make the measurements are guaranteed by the
vendor to be =/-0.05. That makes their "fact" bogus.

They talk about the climate change of 0.1 degrees. There is no
statistical method for evaluating date the would call that a change with
on any day of the year, the temperatures taken all over the earth will
vary over 100 degrees. (-40F at the winter pole to 130F in the
equatorial deserts. For a change to be significant by a simple T test
the change has to be greater the about 3 times the standard deviation of
the measurements. If the global warning people presented a data set
like this for drug approval they would be laughed out of the office.

I also like the studies on hurricanes that make the statement that the
number of hurricanes have been increasing since the 1970, The low point
in the Hurricane cycle which is based on the hurricane counts for
several hundred years.

I was really impressed when the global warmer on a ship trapped in the
summer ice in Antarctic told the people suffering in one of the coldest
winters in recent history, that they should still being prepared to face
the global warming.

Finally if you leave the Global warming religion and look at other field
you will find the long term studies do not support the global warming
data. This is one recent study
http://www.planetseed.com/relatedart...change-history

The biggest questionable item in the data of Climate Change is comparing
the data from a point that went from a rural area 50 years ago to an
asphalt parking lot today. It does not take a genius to realize the
Asphalt parking lot will definitely show an increase temperature when
compare to its preparking lot days. Every day we pave more parking
lots, build more houses with asphalt roofs, and other heat capturing
structures, see the temperature change and say the carbon dioxide from a
coal burning power plant is causing it.

On 5/10/2014 10:17 AM, Baxter wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote in
:



Finally if you leave the Global warming religion and look at other
field you will find the long term studies do not support the global
warming data.

And you'd be wrong. I don't think this is the forum for political
discussions - except as they affect the subject of the forum:
-----------
SEATTLE — Global warming is already altering forest landscapes in the
U.S. Northwest, increasing wildfire risks and threatening coastal
communities, according to a new federal scientific report released
Tuesday.

Forrest fires are nothing new and there will always be a first for some
lovations. Follow the money.



The National Climate Assessment provides a detailed look at the regional
and state-level effects of climate change. It lists key concerns for
Washington, Idaho and Oregon:

Follow the money.



Climate change will alter Northwest forests by increasing wildfire risk
and insect and tree disease outbreaks, and by forcing long-term shifts in
forest types and species, the report says.

Maybe it will maybe it will not. Follow the money.


Those impacts are already causing widespread tree die-offs and are
certain to cause more forest die-offs by 2040.

Maybe, the prediction is so far off that those doing the predicting may
not be around to answer. follow the money.





Though wildfires are natural events in the Northwest, warmer and drier
conditions have helped boost the number and extent of wildfires in U.S.
Western forests since 1970s, and that trend is expected to continue.

this trend has happened over and over through out the centuries followed
by global cooling.





Higher temperatures and outbreaks of mountain pine beetles, for example,
area increasing pine tree die-offs in drier forests.

http://tinyurl.com/k9ksgs9

See also:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/imp...n/forests.html

--------
You may deny GW, but people working in the forest are seeing it's
affects. Some species of trees will no longer grow in certain areas.
Replanting after clear-cut fails again and again. Sustainable harvests
are moving north while southern forests don't grow as they have in the
past. Etc.

When you can't determine the reason for a problem you blame either
Global Warming or Bush.


Follow the money. If money were not involved with this hype there would
not be another word said about it. Global warming is extremely
profitable and will continue to be as long as we try to reverse
something that may not in face be a problem or even exist.

On Sat, 10 May 2014 17:51:25 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 5/10/2014 10:17 AM, Baxter wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote in
:



Finally if you leave the Global warming religion and look at other
field you will find the long term studies do not support the global
warming data.

And you'd be wrong. I don't think this is the forum for political
discussions - except as they affect the subject of the forum:
-----------
SEATTLE — Global warming is already altering forest landscapes in the
U.S. Northwest, increasing wildfire risks and threatening coastal
communities, according to a new federal scientific report released
Tuesday.

Forrest fires are nothing new and there will always be a first for some
lovations. Follow the money.



The National Climate Assessment provides a detailed look at the regional
and state-level effects of climate change. It lists key concerns for
Washington, Idaho and Oregon:

Follow the money.



Climate change will alter Northwest forests by increasing wildfire risk
and insect and tree disease outbreaks, and by forcing long-term shifts in
forest types and species, the report says.

Maybe it will maybe it will not. Follow the money.


Those impacts are already causing widespread tree die-offs and are
certain to cause more forest die-offs by 2040.

Maybe, the prediction is so far off that those doing the predicting may
not be around to answer. follow the money.





Though wildfires are natural events in the Northwest, warmer and drier
conditions have helped boost the number and extent of wildfires in U.S.
Western forests since 1970s, and that trend is expected to continue.

this trend has happened over and over through out the centuries followed
by global cooling.





Higher temperatures and outbreaks of mountain pine beetles, for example,
area increasing pine tree die-offs in drier forests.

http://tinyurl.com/k9ksgs9

See also:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/imp...n/forests.html

--------
You may deny GW, but people working in the forest are seeing it's
affects. Some species of trees will no longer grow in certain areas.
Replanting after clear-cut fails again and again. Sustainable harvests
are moving north while southern forests don't grow as they have in the
past. Etc.

When you can't determine the reason for a problem you blame either
Global Warming or Bush.


Follow the money. If money were not involved with this hype there would
not be another word said about it. Global warming is extremely
profitable and will continue to be as long as we try to reverse
something that may not in face be a problem or even exist.

Why is the solution (to everything) higher taxes?

On 5/10/2014 6:06 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2014 17:51:25 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 5/10/2014 10:17 AM, Baxter wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote in
:



Finally if you leave the Global warming religion and look at other
field you will find the long term studies do not support the global
warming data.

And you'd be wrong. I don't think this is the forum for political
discussions - except as they affect the subject of the forum:
-----------
SEATTLE — Global warming is already altering forest landscapes in the
U.S. Northwest, increasing wildfire risks and threatening coastal
communities, according to a new federal scientific report released
Tuesday.

Forrest fires are nothing new and there will always be a first for some
lovations. Follow the money.



The National Climate Assessment provides a detailed look at the regional
and state-level effects of climate change. It lists key concerns for
Washington, Idaho and Oregon:

Follow the money.



Climate change will alter Northwest forests by increasing wildfire risk
and insect and tree disease outbreaks, and by forcing long-term shifts in
forest types and species, the report says.

Maybe it will maybe it will not. Follow the money.


Those impacts are already causing widespread tree die-offs and are
certain to cause more forest die-offs by 2040.

Maybe, the prediction is so far off that those doing the predicting may
not be around to answer. follow the money.





Though wildfires are natural events in the Northwest, warmer and drier
conditions have helped boost the number and extent of wildfires in U.S.
Western forests since 1970s, and that trend is expected to continue.

this trend has happened over and over through out the centuries followed
by global cooling.





Higher temperatures and outbreaks of mountain pine beetles, for example,
area increasing pine tree die-offs in drier forests.

http://tinyurl.com/k9ksgs9

See also:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/imp...n/forests.html

--------
You may deny GW, but people working in the forest are seeing it's
affects. Some species of trees will no longer grow in certain areas.
Replanting after clear-cut fails again and again. Sustainable harvests
are moving north while southern forests don't grow as they have in the
past. Etc.

When you can't determine the reason for a problem you blame either
Global Warming or Bush.


Follow the money. If money were not involved with this hype there would
not be another word said about it. Global warming is extremely
profitable and will continue to be as long as we try to reverse
something that may not in face be a problem or even exist.

Why is the solution (to everything) higher taxes?

To support the ignoramuses that believe that the government makes money
vs. taking it from us.

On Sat, 10 May 2014 18:18:38 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 5/10/2014 6:06 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2014 17:51:25 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 5/10/2014 10:17 AM, Baxter wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote in
:



Finally if you leave the Global warming religion and look at other
field you will find the long term studies do not support the global
warming data.

And you'd be wrong. I don't think this is the forum for political
discussions - except as they affect the subject of the forum:
-----------
SEATTLE — Global warming is already altering forest landscapes in the
U.S. Northwest, increasing wildfire risks and threatening coastal
communities, according to a new federal scientific report released
Tuesday.

Forrest fires are nothing new and there will always be a first for some
lovations. Follow the money.



The National Climate Assessment provides a detailed look at the regional
and state-level effects of climate change. It lists key concerns for
Washington, Idaho and Oregon:

Follow the money.



Climate change will alter Northwest forests by increasing wildfire risk
and insect and tree disease outbreaks, and by forcing long-term shifts in
forest types and species, the report says.

Maybe it will maybe it will not. Follow the money.


Those impacts are already causing widespread tree die-offs and are
certain to cause more forest die-offs by 2040.

Maybe, the prediction is so far off that those doing the predicting may
not be around to answer. follow the money.





Though wildfires are natural events in the Northwest, warmer and drier
conditions have helped boost the number and extent of wildfires in U.S.
Western forests since 1970s, and that trend is expected to continue.

this trend has happened over and over through out the centuries followed
by global cooling.





Higher temperatures and outbreaks of mountain pine beetles, for example,
area increasing pine tree die-offs in drier forests.

http://tinyurl.com/k9ksgs9

See also:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/imp...n/forests.html

--------
You may deny GW, but people working in the forest are seeing it's
affects. Some species of trees will no longer grow in certain areas.
Replanting after clear-cut fails again and again. Sustainable harvests
are moving north while southern forests don't grow as they have in the
past. Etc.

When you can't determine the reason for a problem you blame either
Global Warming or Bush.


Follow the money. If money were not involved with this hype there would
not be another word said about it. Global warming is extremely
profitable and will continue to be as long as we try to reverse
something that may not in face be a problem or even exist.

Why is the solution (to everything) higher taxes?

To support the ignoramuses that believe that the government makes money
vs. taking it from us.

Socialists R us.

Keith Nuttle wrote:

Finally if you leave the Global warming religion and look at other
field you will find the long term studies do not support the
global
warming data.
--------------------------------
Baxter wrote:

And you'd be wrong. I don't think this is the forum for political
discussions - except as they affect the subject of the forum:
-----------
SEATTLE — Global warming is already altering forest landscapes in
the
U.S. Northwest, increasing wildfire risks and threatening coastal
communities, according to a new federal scientific report released
Tuesday.
--------------------------------------

"Leon" wrote:

Forrest fires are nothing new and there will always be a first for
some lovations. Follow the money.
snip
-------------------------------------------
What money should be followed?

Lew

On Sat, 10 May 2014 18:57:08 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:


Keith Nuttle wrote:

Finally if you leave the Global warming religion and look at other
field you will find the long term studies do not support the
global
warming data.
--------------------------------
Baxter wrote:

And you'd be wrong. I don't think this is the forum for political
discussions - except as they affect the subject of the forum:
-----------
SEATTLE — Global warming is already altering forest landscapes in
the
U.S. Northwest, increasing wildfire risks and threatening coastal
communities, according to a new federal scientific report released
Tuesday.
--------------------------------------

"Leon" wrote:

Forrest fires are nothing new and there will always be a first for
some lovations. Follow the money.
snip
-------------------------------------------
What money should be followed?

Global Warming

On 5/10/2014 8:57 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:

Finally if you leave the Global warming religion and look at other
field you will find the long term studies do not support the
global
warming data.
--------------------------------
Baxter wrote:

And you'd be wrong. I don't think this is the forum for political
discussions - except as they affect the subject of the forum:
-----------
SEATTLE — Global warming is already altering forest landscapes in
the
U.S. Northwest, increasing wildfire risks and threatening coastal
communities, according to a new federal scientific report released
Tuesday.
--------------------------------------

"Leon" wrote:

Forrest fires are nothing new and there will always be a first for
some lovations. Follow the money.
snip
-------------------------------------------
What money should be followed?

Lew


Any and all money that funds the studies. IMHO most studies will skew
the results to keep the money coming in.

On Sun, 11 May 2014 01:55:25 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Any and all money that funds the studies. IMHO most studies will skew
the results to keep the money coming in.

Sure, it's possible you're right, but that's still pretty lousy way to
look at it.